Appeal No. 96-2597
Application No. 08/187,529
recited in claim 1, as construed in accordance with § 112,
sixth paragraph, the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 6 and
12 dependent thereon, will not be sustained.
Rejection (2): Method Claim
Barringer discloses a fishing rod holder in which rod 74
is removably and rotatably mounted on frame 22. The frame is
supported on the user by shoulder strap 44, and there is a
keeper strap 60 across the open side of the frame (col. 2,
lines 15 to 28). The examiner takes the position that
Barringer anticipates claim 24 because strap 44 is an "upper
stabilizer," strap 60 is a "lower stabilizer," and both straps
are "removably attach[ed]
. . . to a person’s body."
Considering first appellant’s argument that, under In re
Donaldson Co., Inc., supra, the examiner has not shown that
Barringer’s straps are the equivalent to appellant’s disclosed
stabilizers, we do not consider § 112, sixth paragraph, to be
applicable here. Claim 24 is a method claim, and none of its
steps are in a step-plus-function form. Cf. O.I. Corp. v.
Tekmar Co., 115 F.3d 1576, 1583, 42 USPQ2d 1777, 1782 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). Also, insofar as applicable, "stabilizer" is not
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007