Appeal No. 2003-0021
Application No. 08/983,383
element in Fig. 1, and two such elements in Fig. 14.
Appropriately, the examiner recognizes that Bruyere lacks the now
claimed features of spreader elements which divide each film
panel into a top portion and a bottom portion and at least one
top portion being perforated with orifices for ventilation (Paper
No. 17, page 3).
To overcome these shortcomings of the primary reference, the
examiner relies upon spreader elements (horizontal carriers 7)
used in the plant protection arrangement of the Bollinger
reference (Figs. 2 and 3), and protective plastic sheet/film with
perforations/microperforations for plants as taught by
Morssinkhof (Figs. 7 through 9).
We certainly appreciate the claim relevant features focused
upon by the examiner in each of the applied references, i.e.,
spreader elements and plastic film (with and without orifices).
However, the difficulty that we have with the rejection of the
independent claims on appeal is that, like appellant (reply
brief, page 2), it readily appears to us that it is premised upon
an improper hindsight reconstruction. More specifically, when we
set aside in our minds that which appellant taught us in the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007