Appeal No. 97-1476 Page 7
Application No. 08/458,689
to the subcombination of the apparatus as shown in Figure 1
for use with an unclaimed plant receptacle. The mere fact
that claims 11-13 recite further details of the unclaimed
plant receptacle with which the claimed apparatus is intended
to be used does not render the claims indefinite. Thus, it is
our determination that claims 1 through 13 do define the metes
and bounds of the claimed invention with a reasonable degree
of precision and particularity. Accordingly, the decision of
the examiner to reject claims 1 through 13 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph, is reversed.
The obviousness issue
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner determined (answer, pp. 4-5 and 7) that
Hawkins failed to teach the drawstring means as recited in
independent claims 1 and 14 and the drawing means as recited
in independent claim 8. The examiner then concluded that it
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art to modify Hawkins to have a drawstring based upon
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007