Appeal No. 96-2597
Application No. 08/187,529
capable of performing the claimed function. Such means must
still be construed in accordance with the sixth paragraph of
§ 112, i.e., in relation to the corresponding structure
described by appellant.
As for the four patents cited by appellant on pages 1 and
2 of the specification as exemplary of fishing rod holders in
the prior art, it is not clear that appellant’s incorporation4
of their "entire disclosures" by reference into his
specification was intended as a disclosure that parts of the
apparatus disclosed by these patents could be substituted for
elements of appellant’s described structure. Nevertheless, we
have considered the rod-mounting means disclosed in each of
these patents, and do not consider that the rods 16 of Albert
would be the equivalent (§ 112, sixth paragraph) of the socket
40 with jaws 34, 36 of Pothetes, of the tubular supports 23 of
Anderson or 1 of King, or of the holster 10 of Morse.
Accordingly, since Albert does not disclose the "means
for removably mounting the fishing rod upon said frame"
4Patent No. 4,739,914 (Pothetes); 4,802,612 (Anderson);
5,014,891 (King); and 5,123,573 (Morse). Copies of these
patents were filed with an Information Disclosure Statement on
January 27, 1994 (Paper No. 2).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007