Appeal No. 98-3291
Application 08/534,705
render obvious the Christmas tree watering device that is set
forth in appellant’s claim 5 on appeal. Thus, the examiner’s
rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and of claims 6
and 7 which depend therefrom, based on Copenhaver in view of
Spinosa will not be sustained.
The next rejection for our review is that of claims 8
through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Copenhaver in view of Lorenzana. In this instance, the only
distinction between appellant’s claimed subject matter and
that seen in Copenhaver (Figure 1) resides in the particular
form of tree stand required in appellant’s claim 8. However,
Lorenzana (Figure 1) clearly shows the exact same type of tree
stand (at 17) that is defined in appellant’s claim 8 on appeal
and describes such stand as being “of a type that is widely
available
for supporting Christmas trees during the Holiday Season”
(col. 2, lines 37-38). Based on the collective teachings of
Copenhaver and Lorenzana, we must agree with the examiner that
it would have
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007