Appeal No. 2003-0306 Page 3
Application No. 08/967,043
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 23 and 27) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections and to the brief (Paper No. 26) 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 references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, for the reasons which follow, we cannot sustain any of the examiner’s
rejections.
Claim 23, the sole independent claim before us in this appeal, reads as follows:
An improved vegetation element having an upper
surface and a lower surface for use when providing uniform
sodding on a surface that is to receive plant growth, said
vegetation element comprising a vegetation carrier layer (a)
of flexible hygroscopic rock wool, and attached thereto a
seed mat (b) of flexible biodegradable material which
contains seeds therein that are secured and held in place at
uniformly spaced locations within said seed mat, wherein
said vegetation carrier layer (a) is positioned below said
seed mat (b).
Each of the examiner’s rejections relies, at least in part, on the basic
determination that it would have been obvious, in view of the teachings of Muldner, to
move the cover layer 9 of Allen’s seed planting mat from above the seed layer (layer 6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007