Appeal No. 96-2597
Application No. 08/187,529
such modifications and equivalents. The entire
disclosures of all references, patents, and
publications cited above, are hereby
incorporated by reference.
He then argues (answer, page 7) that this disclosure:
is an express teaching of very broad
"equivalents" which has the effect of
expanding the range of "means" which
satisfy the claim language.
Secondly, and most importantly, appellant
incorporates the "entire disclosure" of the
patents cited on pp. 1 and 2 by reference (pg.
12, lines 5-7). This has the effect of
introducing literally hundreds of variations of
structure into the instant disclosure and
claims. Not only do the four patents cited each
teach a different "means for removably mounting"
a fishing rod to another structure, each teaches
a different "stabilizing" structure.
Following the instructions as per Donaldson
and looking back to the specification for
definition, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the "means for removably
mounting" would seem to include just about any
structure capable of holding a fishing rod.
Since member (16) of Albert is thus capable for
the reasons stated in the rejection, the claim
limitation is satisfied.
With regard to the examiner’s first point, we do not
consider that an applicant’s statement that the claims are
intended to cover obvious variations and modifications of the
invention opens up the recited means to cover all apparatus
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007