Appeal No. 98-3404
Application 08/600,813
claims is part of the claimed “handle attachment” or not. We reach this conclusion because the claims
all recite an attaching device “for rigidly attaching the handle attachment to the fishing rod” (emphasis
added), thereby providing the clear implication that the attaching device set forth in the claims is not part
of the “handle attachment.” We also find the recitation that the handle extension is rigidly attached to
“the handle” to be somewhat confusing, since the handle was earlier defined as being “comprised of an
elongated member with two ends,” and we have no idea from the claim recitations as to how the handle
extension is to be associated with the recited elongated member.
In addition to the foregoing, we also note the open-ended and somewhat ambiguous recitation
in claim 1 on appeal regarding
“any attachments to the central region of the elongated member being limited to a single
member transverse to the elongated member in order to avoid any unnecessary
obstructions to the user’s hand when gripping the elongated member.”
What exactly is meant by “any attachments” and “any unnecessary obstructions to the user’s hand”
(emphasis added) is not clear. Moreover, the association between the “any attachments to the
elongated member” in the above recitation in claim 1 and the attachment of the handle extension to “the
handle” is not clear. Are these the same or different attachments?
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007