Appeal No. 96-2597
Application No. 08/187,529
if the rod were laid across them, or somehow wedged between
them.
Even assuming arguendo that rods 16 of Albert would
perform the function of "removably mounting" a fishing rod,
appellant, citing In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1189,
1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994), argues that the
rods 16 of Albert do not anticipate because, when the claimed
"means for removably mounting" is construed in the manner
required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, rods 16 are not
the equivalent of the structure described in appellant’s
specification which corresponds to that means. In considering
this argument, we do not find in the specification any
terminology, e.g., "mounting" or "removably mounting" the
fishing rod, which specifically corresponds to the claimed
function, nor does appellant identify in his brief what parts
of his disclosed structure correspond to the "means for
removably mounting the fishing rod upon said frame."
Nevertheless, we consider that the structure described in the
specification which corresponds to this means would be the
tubular rod receiver 5, together with thumb screw 9, friction
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007