Appeal No. 96-1323
Application 08/295,118
Looking first at the examiner's rejection of claims
1 through 5 under § 102(b), we are in agreement with the
examiner that the molded, expanded polystyrene plant tray of
Hinds is fully responsive to that set forth in the claims on
appeal, and that the plant tray of Hinds is fully capable of
being used with some form of drive member which would engage
in the generally U-shaped grooves in the bottom wall of the
tray therein, notwithstanding that the plant tray of Hinds is
not specifically disclosed for such use. In this regard, we
note that the molded plant tray of Hinds described at page 2,
lines 40-45, as having square openings or plant cells therein,
instead of the round openings or cells seen in Figure 1 of
this reference, would appear to be identical to that seen in
appellant's Figures 1 through 4 of the present application,
with the sole possible exception being that the generally U-
shaped grooves in the tray
of Hinds would be more squared in cross-section than are those
seen in appellant's drawing figures.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007