Appeal No. 1997-4243
Application 08/275,607
Claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 28, 29, 31 and 14 through 16
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
George.
According to the examiner, the specific weight of the plant
and soil and the size and capacity of the drainage storage
means and the particular design of the decoration means would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the plant
husbandry art.
Claims 12, 23, 24, 26, 27, 33 through 35, and 37
through 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over George in view of Myers or Gloede.
According to the examiner, both Myers and Gloede teach a flow
shut-off valve along a drainage transport path between the
plant/pot combination and the drainage storage means.
Therefore, the examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to provide a valve along the drainage transport path
as taught by Gloede and Myers with respect to the plant/pot
combination described and disclosed in George.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007