Appeal No. 2006-1428 Παγε 5
Application No. 10/669,157
1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner's position (final rejection, page 2) is that
Khoury is silent on a first flange disposed
on the first side wall configured for
permitting attachment of a second bottom, a
second front wall, and a second back wall
thereto, and a second flanqe disposed on said
second side wall configured for permitting
attachment of a third bottom, a third front
wall, and a third back wall thereto.
To overcome this deficiency of Khoury, the examiner turns
to Rolfe for a teaching of a flange on a side wall for attaching
additional receptacles. The examiner adds that it would have
been obvious to add an additional receptacle as a mere
duplication of a known element for a multiple effect performing
the same intended function.
Appellants' position (brief, page 13) is that Khoury is not
directed to a planter, but rather is directed to a crate. It is
argued (brief, page 14) that Rolfe fails to teach or suggest
securing or locking together a third container to the two other
containers. Appellants further assert (brief, page 15) that
Rolfe is non-analogous art because Rolfe is directed to shipping
freight, whereas appellants are growing plants in containers.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007