Ex parte Treganza

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 27, 2001

08275607 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 27, 2001)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of
the Board.
Paper No. 26
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte SACHIKO M. TREGANZA
_____________
Appeal No. 1997-4243
Application 08/275,607
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before ABRAMS, PATE and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PATE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
4 through 10, 12 through 16, and 21 through 39. These are the
only claims remaining in the application.
Appeal No. 1997-4243
Application 08/275,607
2
The claimed invention is directed to a large size
plant stand which has a drainage control means hidden in the
base thereof.
The claimed invention may be further understood with
reference to the appealed claims appended to appellant's
brief.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner
as evidence of anticipation and obviousness are:
Myers 540,681 June 11, 1895
Gloede 1,190,147 July 4, 1916
Niemczewski 1,451,515 Apr. 10, 1923
George 1,487,231 Mar. 18, 1924
Helton 5,062,239 Nov. 5, 1991
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 8, 9, 10, 21, 22, 30, and 13 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by George. According to
the examiner, George teaches a flowerpot holder having a tray
means 4, a drainage removal means and middle portion 5, a
storage means 3, and a decoration means 1 with access means
door at 2. It is the examiner's finding that George clearly
anticipates these claims.
Appeal No. 1997-4243
Application 08/275,607
3
Claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 28, 29, 31 and 14 through 16
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
George.
According to the examiner, the specific weight of the plant
and soil and the size and capacity of the drainage storage
means and the particular design of the decoration means would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the plant
husbandry art.
Claims 12, 23, 24, 26, 27, 33 through 35, and 37
through 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over George in view of Myers or Gloede.
According to the examiner, both Myers and Gloede teach a flow
shut-off valve along a drainage transport path between the
plant/pot combination and the drainage storage means.
Therefore, the examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to provide a valve along the drainage transport path
as taught by Gloede and Myers with respect to the plant/pot
combination described and disclosed in George.
Appeal No. 1997-4243
Application 08/275,607
4
Claims 25 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over George in view of Myers and Gloede,
and further in view of Niemczewski. Niemczewski discloses a
plant stand having a rotation means for moving the plant with
respect to the light or a window. According to the examiner,
it would have been obvious to provide the rotation means and
base means as taught by Niemczewski in the apparatus of
George to allow the potted plant to be moved to receive
varying amounts of light.
Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over George in view of Niemczewski for the
reasons given above with respect to the rejection of claims 25
and 36.
For the full details of the examiner's rejections,
reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 14) and
the Supplemental Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 25). For
appellant's response to these rejections, reference is made to
the Appeal Brief (Paper No. 13) and the Second Reply Brief
(Paper No. 18).
Appeal No. 1997-4243
Application 08/275,607
5
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal
in light of the arguments of the appellant and the examiner.
As a result of this review, we have determined that the
applied prior art does not establish the lack of novelty or
the prima facie obviousness of the claims on appeal.
Therefore, the rejections of all claims on appeal are
reversed.
Turning to a consideration of claims 21 and 10, and
the claims dependent therefrom, we are in agreement with the
appellant that George does not have structure which
corresponds to appellant's claimed tray means for supporting
the weight of the plant/pot combination substantially through
the bottom portion of
the plant/pot combination. George clearly states in lines 89-
94 of page 1 that the pot rests on the flower pot holder 11 to
take the weight of the flower pot off of the sand or dirt 16.
It is clear that the pot of George is suspended via its rim or
Appeal No. 1997-4243
Application 08/275,607
6
flange 18. We acknowledge the examiner's argument found on
the first page of the Supplemental Examiner's Answer
concerning a direct and indirect relationship between the pot
and the tray. This argument is not credited based on the
conflicting evidence we have quoted, above, from the
specification of George. Accordingly, the rejection of claims
21 and 10, and the rejections of the claims dependent
therefrom, are reversed.
Turning to independent claim 33, we are in agreement
with the appellant that there is no motivation or suggestion
for combining the teachings of Myers or Gloede with the flower
pot holder of George. Both Myers and Gloede show flower pots
that do not have a drainage storage means placed thereunder
during use. Therefore, they provide flow shut-off means to
prevent a mess in the environs of the flower pot. On the
other hand, George is designed with a drainage storage means
placed under the pot substantially continuously while the pot
is in use. In our view, it would not have been obvious to
place the flow shut-off means inside the cabinet of George,
inasmuch as George designs his
Appeal No. 1997-4243
Application 08/275,607
7
device to have a drainage storage means at all times.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 33 and the
rejections of the claims dependent therefrom.
With respect to claim 13, we are of the view that
George does not anticipate this claimed subject matter.
George fails to disclose any room furnishings. We are in
agreement with appellant that claim 13 is directed to the
combination of such furnishings and a flowerpot. While George
does have the structure of the flowerpot in the claim, to
anticipate claim 13, a showing of room furnishings must be
included. The rejections of claim 13 and the claims dependent
therefrom are reversed.
REVERSED
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF
PATENT
WILLIAM F. PATE, III ) APPEALS
AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
INTERFERENCES
Appeal No. 1997-4243
Application 08/275,607
8
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
WFP:psb
Appeal No. 1997-4243
Application 08/275,607
9
Fliesler, Dubb, Meyer & Lovejoy
Four Embarcadero Center
Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94111-4156