Appeal No. 97-1974
Application 08/286,696
flowerpot 2 is supported by the drainage tray 7 and
held in place by the rim hook 26, as shown in FIG.
6.
We therefore conclude that the method recited in claim 9 would
not have been suggested by Shepherd, and will not sustain the
rejection of claim 9.
Conclusion
The examiner's decision to reject claims 5 to 8 under 35
USC § 112, second paragraph, is affirmed; to reject claims 1
to 5 under 35 USC § 102(e) is affirmed as to claim 1 and
reversed as to claims 2 to 5; to reject claim 4 under 35 USC §
102(b) is affirmed; and to reject claims 6 to 9 under 35 USC §
103 is reversed. Claim 3 is rejected pursuant to 37 CFR §
1.196(b).
In addition to affirming the examiner’s rejection of one
or more claims, this decision contains a new ground of
rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec.
1, 1997, by final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197
(Oct. 10, 1997), 1203 Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63,
122 (Oct. 21, 1997)). 37 CFR § 1.196(b) provides, “A new
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007