Appeal No. 1999-1767
Application No. 08/706,910
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 claim 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Apple, we are in agreement
with appellant that Apple fails to teach or suggest a tree
stand that has a planar platform having an opening therein
that is “adapted to accommodate the trunk of the tree,” with
tree securing means in connection with the opening for
securing the trunk therein. During use of the Christmas tree
stand of Apple, the opening in the plate (12), pointed to by
the examiner, is clearly not “adapted to accommodate the trunk
of the tree” as required in appellant’s claim 4 on appeal. As
is clearly set forth in appellant’s specification (pages 3-4),
the opening (4) in the planar platform (2) of appellant’s tree
stand is about 5 inches in diameter so as to permit secure
placement of the trunk of a tree therein, with the trunk
extending into the extension (10) where securing means (12)
are used to secure the trunk of the tree within the extension
portion. The structure of the tree stand in Apple is not
capable of any such use with a tree trunk and the opening in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007