Appeal No. 96-1997
Application No. 08/176,614
that the method of Clement fails to disclose appellant's claimed
step of
shaping the sheet of material generally about
at least a portion of the outer peripheral
surface of the flower pot and generally about
the collar.
Therefore, the receptacle and method of Clement fail to include
every element of the invention recited in appealed claim 8.
Thus, claim 8 is not anticipated thereby, and we cannot sustain
the examiner's rejection thereof.
However, we make the following new rejection pursuant to the
provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Claim 8 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claim 1 of appellant's prior U. S. Patent No. 5,274,900. The
method of claim 1 of the patent is virtually the same as that
recited in appealed claim 8 except that claim 1 additionally
requires the collar to be positioned and secured "between the
upper and lower ends of the flower pot" and "placing the bottom
of the flower pot on the sheet of material." Nevertheless, it is
our opinion that one having ordinary skill in the art would have
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007