Appeal No. 97-1974
Application 08/286,696
Turning to method claim 9, appellants argue that this2
claim is patentable over Shepherd because in Shepherd the
flowerpot and saucer are both supported by foot 32 and
therefore the saucer would not be mounted underneath (i.e.,
after) the flowerpot and positioned with respect to the
flowerpot (brief, pages 22 to 23). Although the examiner
asserts that the claimed method would have been obvious and
that Shepherd's flowerpot and saucer are not both supported by
foot 32 (answer, page 10), this is not borne out by Shepherd's
disclosure at col. 3, lines 5 to 31, which states that tray
(saucer) 7 is mounted first (Fig. 4), and then the flowerpot 6
is "seated in the drainage tray 7, as shown in FIG. 5" (col.
3, lines 21 and 22). As for the question of support, Shepherd
indicates that foot 32 supports both the tray (saucer) and the
flowerpot, as follows (col. 3, lines 25 to 28):
The drainage tray 7 is thus supported on the foot 32
and held in place by the rim hook 38, while the
In reviewing the disclosure of the application, we note that since2
screws 104A and 104B are only accessible from the rear of the base 30, the
steps described on page 17, line 16, to page 18, line 2, would have to be
performed before the base is mounted on the support 14. The base would then
have to be mounted on the support before the flowerpot is inserted (Fig. 12)
so that the flowerpot would not block access to the mounting apertures 72, 74,
76. It is suggested that the application be clarified by amending the
specification to point out these requirements.
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007