Ex parte DONALD E. WEDER - Page 5

          Appeal No. 96-1997                                                          
          Application No. 08/176,614                                                  

               With this as background, we have carefully analyzed appealed           
          claim 8, comparing it with the receptacle and method disclosed in           
          the patent to Clement and taking into account the positions                 
          advanced by both the examiner and the appellant.  It is apparent            
          that the method of assembly of the receptacle of Clement, using             
          the collar or ring member 20 and blank 10 depicted in Figures 1             
          through 3, and their use with a flower pot as disclosed in column           
          2, lines 67 through 69, is quite similar to the method recited in           
          appealed claim 8.                                                           
               However, we agree with the appellant's position expressed in           
          the paragraph spanning pages 2 and 3 of the reply brief that                
          appealed claim 8 requires                                                   
                    that the collar and pot are first provided,                       
                    then the collar is secured to the pot, and                        
                    finally the sheet is shaped about both the                        
                    pot and collar,                                                   

          and we so interpret appealed claim to require the above sequence            
          of steps.  Consequently, even assuming arguendo that the step of            
          "securing said collar on the outer peripheral surface of said               
          flower pot" reads on the use of the assembled receptacle with a             
          flower pot to retain it securely against shifting as asserted by            
          the examiner, we must further agree with the appellant's position           


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007