Appeal No. 97-3003
Application 08/390,403
elongated engagement element is adapted to engage fixedly the
putter club head by insertion into the socket-type putter head
or slidably accepting the over-hosel type putter head.” The
appellant’s disclosure, however, indicates that the socket-
type and over-hosel type engagements are distinct and mutually
exclusive expedients for connecting a putter head and shaft
(see, for example, page 4 in the specification). Claim 11 is
unclear as to which of these two engagements the putter club
head which is set forth as part of the claimed combination is
adapted for. Thus, the scope of claim 11, and of claims 2,3
4, 10 and 12 which depend therefrom, is indefinite. The scope
of dependent claims 2, 4, 10 and 12 is further indefinite in
that their preambles (“A golfing aid . . .") are inconsistent
with the preamble of parent claim 11 ("In combination . .
.").
In the event of further prosecution of this application,
the examiner would be well advised to evaluate the
3Contrary to arguments presented throughout the
appellant’s briefs, the appealed claims do not require the
distal end of the second elongated engagement element to be
engagable with both a socket-type putter head and a over-hosel
type putter head.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007