Appeal No. 1998-3413
Application No. 08/512,782
In reaching our decision in this appeal, this panel of
the Board has given careful consideration to appellant’s
specification and claims, to the applied prior art references,
to the evidence of secondary considerations filed by appellant
and to the respective positions articulated by appellant and
the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have reached
the determinations which follow.
Looking first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 3
through 7 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Coleman, we
are in agreement with the examiner that the plastic flower pot
collar and plant protector (10) in Coleman provides a
decorative feature to the ceramic flower pot (18) and that
Coleman therefore broadly discloses or teaches a method of
making a decorative container. Moreover, we also agree with
the examiner that the side wall of the ceramic flower pot (18)
of Coleman has imparted thereto in the manufacturing process
thereof a first decorative characteristic (e.g., a finish,
texture or color) and that the plastic collar or ring member
(10) likewise has imparted thereto during manufacture a
decorative characteristic (e.g., a finish, texture or color),
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007