Appeal No. 2004-1293
Application No. 09/989,330
I. Claims 1-11, 14-16, 18-27, & 30-32: Gillinder
The examiner’s rejection relies on Gillinder as the
principal prior art reference. According to the examiner
(answer, page 3), “Gillinder discloses the claimed invention, as
cited in claims 1 and 30, except the plant receptacle does not
sit on a bottom portion of the transparent container.”
Nevertheless, it is the examiner’s position that “[i]t would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to place the receptacle C on a
bottom portion of the transparent container A, since it has been
held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only
routine skill in the art.” (Id.)
We cannot agree with the examiner’s analysis and
conclusion. As pointed out by the appellant (appeal brief filed
May 14, 2003, paper 12, pages 13-14), Gillinder describes an
aquarium plant-holder that does not interfere “with the freedom
of the fish from the top to the bottom of the water, and vice
versa...” (Lines 8-15.) Specifically, Gillinder teaches that
the plant-holder includes radiating arms E which, in concert
with the neck portion of the aquarium, support the plant-holder
in suspension in the container. (Figures 1 and 2; lines 28-40.)
Gillinder further teaches that the configuration of the plant-
holder permits it to be “readily removed and reapplied” and that
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007