Appeal No. 2004-1293
Application No. 09/989,330
positioned at least partially within the interior volume of the
transparent container in a manner so that at least a portion of
the receptacle is below a surface of the liquid occupying the
container when the container is at least partially occupied by
the liquid, the receptacle having an outer surface with at least
once recess, the recess being at least partially occupied by a
substrate medium”). When Gillinder’s plant holder is provided
with a sufficiently tall plant, which is not specifically
required as a component of the plant display in appealed claim
17, the majority of the plant would necessarily be located under
water, as required by appealed claim 17. Accordingly, Gillinder
describes, either expressly or inherently, each and every
limitation of appealed claim 17. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Although the examiner’s rejection of appealed claim 17 has
been made under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), a prior art disclosure that
anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim
obvious, for anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. In re
Baxter Travenol Laboratories, 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281,
1284-85 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794,
215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982); In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1089,
197 USPQ 601, 607 (CCPA 1978).
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007