Appeal No. 98-3291
Application 08/534,705
stand (18)” (answer, page 4). Having made this determination
with regard to Spinosa, the examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
“substitute the tree stand with separate receptacle for
retaining water as taught by Spinosa for the tree stand with
integral receptacle of the apparatus of Copenhaver.”
Appellant (brief, page 7) argues that the examiner’s
findings with regard to Spinosa are in error and that the
receptacle or container (30) of Spinosa is mounted to the
stand (18) and therefore a part thereof. We agree. The tree
stand as seen in Spinosa is clearly like that shown in
appellant’s Figures 1 and 2, and in Lorenzana (Fig. 1),
wherein the receptacle for
retaining water is part of the tree stand itself. Thus, like
appellant, we fail to find in either Copenhaver or Spinosa any
teaching or suggestion regarding a water retaining receptacle
adapted to be positioned beneath the butt end of a tree and
which is “separate and apart from said tree stand,” as
required in claim 5 on appeal. For that reason, it is clear
that any combination of Copenhaver and Spinosa would not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007