Appeal No. 2005-1009
Application No. 10/193,027
similarities, Yohe’s false bottom member 57 and Waterer’s flower
pot stand 20 serve markedly different purposes. The only
suggestion for selectively piecing together the features of these
disparate elements in the manner proposed by the examiner stems
from hindsight knowledge impermissibly derived from the
appellant’s disclosure. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 10
and 14, and dependent claims 2, 4 through 9, 15, 16 and 18
through 20, as being unpatentable over Yohe in view of Waterer.
As none of the Springer, Lizzola and Haglund references
cures the above noted shortcomings of Yohe and Waterer, we also
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 21, and dependent claims 3, 12, 17 and 22
through 24, as being unpatentable over Yohe in view of Waterer
and Springer, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claim 11 as being unpatentable over Yohe in view of
Waterer and Lizzola, or the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of dependent claims 12 and 13 as being unpatentable over Yohe in
view of Waterer and Haglund.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007