Appeal No. 2000-0608 Page 2
Application No. 08/799,499
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a cover for protecting outdoor plants from the
elements. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
claim 10, which appears in the appendix to the appellant's Brief.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims is:
Ball 2,009,867 Jul. 30, 1935
Claims 10-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Ball.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 16) and the final rejection (Paper No. 11) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to the Brief (Paper No.15) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007