Appeal No. 2004-0915 Page 3
Application No. 09/919,469
support of the rejections and to the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 12 and 14) 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,1 to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection
Spencer discloses a container for growing seedlings comprising two half sections
connected together along their bottom margins by a hinge. Spencer discloses that, in
use, the containers are “filled” with a growing medium, watered, allowed to settle and
seeded. A mulch of sand or limestone grit is sprinkled to cover the seed and the
containers are kept in a greenhouse for at least 8 weeks to allow the seeds to
germinate. At any time during the seedling’s growth, its root development may be
inspected. This is done by opening the container like a book, removing the root plug
from the container if desired for holding in the hand, inspecting the seedling and placing
the root plug comprising the seedling root system within the compacted growing
medium back into the container and closing the container like a book. When the
seedling has developed to the point where it is large enough to transplant, the seedling
1 The term “said” before “sidewall” in line 5 of claim 1 (Paper No. 4) should be deleted, as the first
recitation of sidewall portions lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Likewise, “said” before “stems” in the
penultimate line of claim 1 (Paper No. 4) should also be deleted.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007