Appeal No. 1998-3413
Application No. 08/512,782
member (32) that is "dimensioned to fit in overlapping
relationship with the radius of the rim and across an outside
surface of the downwardly extending portion of the rim."
Again, we direct attention to Figure 2 of appellant’s
application for an understanding of this claimed subject
matter. Like appellant, we find nothing in Coleman that is in
any way responsive to the formation of the particular rim
structure required in claim 18 on appeal or to the particular
ring member molded and dimensioned to correspond thereto.
Thus, even if we can agree with the examiner (answer, page 6)
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to provide the flower pot of Coleman with a well known
water tray dimensioned to receive the bottom of the flower
pot, the resulting combination would not result in the
particular method set forth in independent claim 18 on appeal.
Nothing in Coleman teaches or suggests the formation of a rim
that has both a continuous radius at the upper extremity of
the side wall of a flower pot and a portion extending
downwardly along the outside of the side wall of the flower
pot as seen in appellant’s Figure 2, or the formation of a
ring member that corresponds to the shape of the rim in the
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007