Appeal No. 96-1323
Application 08/295,118
appeal, but as noted above, it is clear to us that the
flanges discussed in the paragraph bridging pages 1 and 2 of
Hinds would result in the bottom surface of the tray therein
having essentially the same groove arrangement as seen in
appellants' Figures 1 through 4, except with slightly more
squared U-shaped grooves.
The examiner's alternative rejection of claims 1
through 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Todd in view of Hinds
is also sustained. Like the examiner, we are of the view that
the collective teachings of Todd and Hinds would have made it
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellant's invention to provide the molded tray of Todd with
the flanged portions discussed in Hinds so as to gain the
advantages expressly noted in Hinds regarding such flanged
portions being positioned about the drain holes of the plant
cells of the tray. See Hinds page 1, line 84, through page 2,
line 8. Again, it is our opinion that the resulting molded
plant tray structure of the combination of Todd and Hinds
would be identical to that set forth in appellant's claims on
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007