Appeal No. 2007-0800
Application No. 10/066,267
device has a power source that is electrically connected to the light source
and switch.
Claim 8 is similar but additionally requires the device to have a power
source detachably mounted to the base assembly of an ice fishing tip-up, the
power source having a detachable connection to the light source.
Claim 8 further requires the electrical connection between the light
source, tiltable switch, and power source to have removable fasteners along
the length of the flag arm of an ice-fishing tip-up.
Claims 8 and 9 both require the enclosure containing the light source
and switch to be a “reflective enclosure.” Appellant argues that the
Examiner has incorrectly interpreted the term “reflective.” (Br. 11; Reply
Br. 1, 2, 4.)
It is well settled that “claims in an application are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and that
claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,
1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citation omitted).
The Specification does not provide a definition for the term
“reflective.” However, the paragraph spanning pages 7 and 8 of the
Specification describes the reflective enclosure as being visible when a
flashlight is shined on it. This is consistent with the requirement in both
claims 8 and 9 that the reflective enclosure “can be seen by others when
shined upon with lights to verify position of said flag arm.”
The Specification also states that when a vehicle’s lights shine on the
enclosure, it “will illuminate.” (Specification 7.) However, in our view,
interpreting “reflective” to mean that an object must emit light, rather than
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013