Appeal No. 1998-3413
Application No. 08/512,782
in appellant’s claim 37. Thus, the examiner’s rejection of
claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) will not be sustained.
As for the examiner’s rejection of independent claim 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Coleman, we will sustain
that rejection. As we indicated above in our treatment of
claim 3, we agree with the examiner that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have readily discerned that at least the
finish or texture of the side wall of the ceramic flower pot
(18) would be distinctly different from the finish or texture
of the molded plastic collar (10), thus providing response for
the distinctly different first and second decorative
characteristics set forth in appellant’s claim 7. While it is
true that Coleman does not expressly discuss the distinctive
first and second decorative characteristics (e.g., finish or
texture) of the ceramic pot and the molded plastic collar
therein, it is our opinion that a difference in texture or
finish between these two distinctly different types of
components would have been an inherent characteristic
recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. We again also
note that Coleman specifically indicates (col. 2, lines 37-38)
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007