Appeal No. 1997-4243
Application 08/275,607
flange 18. We acknowledge the examiner's argument found on
the first page of the Supplemental Examiner's Answer
concerning a direct and indirect relationship between the pot
and the tray. This argument is not credited based on the
conflicting evidence we have quoted, above, from the
specification of George. Accordingly, the rejection of claims
21 and 10, and the rejections of the claims dependent
therefrom, are reversed.
Turning to independent claim 33, we are in agreement
with the appellant that there is no motivation or suggestion
for combining the teachings of Myers or Gloede with the flower
pot holder of George. Both Myers and Gloede show flower pots
that do not have a drainage storage means placed thereunder
during use. Therefore, they provide flow shut-off means to
prevent a mess in the environs of the flower pot. On the
other hand, George is designed with a drainage storage means
placed under the pot substantially continuously while the pot
is in use. In our view, it would not have been obvious to
place the flow shut-off means inside the cabinet of George,
inasmuch as George designs his
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007