Appeal No. 98-3404
Application 08/600,813
Before addressing an examiner's rejection based on prior art, it is an essential prerequisite that
the claimed subject matter be fully understood. Accordingly, we initially direct our attention to
appellants' independent claims 1, 11, 12 and 13 in an attempt to derive an understanding of the scope
and content thereof.
Each of the claims on appeal is directed to a handle attachment per se, wherein the handle
attachment is intended to be used with a reel-type fishing rod. Each of the independent claims defines
the handle attachment as comprising “a handle,” with the handle being “comprised of an elongated
member with two ends.” The elongated member (7 in Fig. 1 and 43 in Fig. 2) is said to be arranged
“transverse to the fishing rod, horizontally oriented, and positioned directly above the fishing rod when
the fishing rod is being used for fishing.” Each of the claims goes on to set forth “a handle extension”
(11 in Fig. 1 and 47 in Fig. 2) which has first and second ends, with the first end thereof being “rigidly
attached to the handle.” In addition, each of the claims also sets forth “an attaching device for rigidly
attaching the handle attachment to the fishing rod,” and requires that the attaching device be rigidly
attached to the second end of the handle extension.
In reviewing the claims on appeal, we note that the claims as drafted are ambiguous and
indefinite in that it is unclear whether the “attaching device” which is set forth in each of the independent
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007