Appeal No. 1997-4243
Application 08/275,607
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal
in light of the arguments of the appellant and the examiner.
As a result of this review, we have determined that the
applied prior art does not establish the lack of novelty or
the prima facie obviousness of the claims on appeal.
Therefore, the rejections of all claims on appeal are
reversed.
Turning to a consideration of claims 21 and 10, and
the claims dependent therefrom, we are in agreement with the
appellant that George does not have structure which
corresponds to appellant's claimed tray means for supporting
the weight of the plant/pot combination substantially through
the bottom portion of
the plant/pot combination. George clearly states in lines 89-
94 of page 1 that the pot rests on the flower pot holder 11 to
take the weight of the flower pot off of the sand or dirt 16.
It is clear that the pot of George is suspended via its rim or
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007