Appeal No. 95-4662
Application 08/048,101
a new ground of rejection; and (2) claim 10 requires that transmitted signals be limited
to radiation emitted within and propagated through the water.
(1) Consistency with the examiner’s reasoning
Our decision began by saying “[w]e affirm for the reasons given by the examiner,
amplified as follows.” Decision at 2. By the phrase “[w]e affirm for the reasons given
by the examiner” we meant that we agree with the examiner’s rationale as stated in
the examiner’s Answer. We adhere to that view. That is, we still agree that the
combination of teachings from multiple references as explained by the examiner would
have rendered the claimed subject matter obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
By the phrase “amplified as follows” we meant that affirmance of the examiner’s
rejection was further supported as set forth in the Decision. In particular, we found that
“the subject matter of claim 10 would have been obvious from Kirkland, with or without
the additional references cited.” Decision at 4. This is consistent with the examiner’s
rationale which states:
Appellants argue that the prior art differs from the present invention in that the
prior art transmits electromagnetic energy through air as well as through a body of
electrically conductive liquid, e.g. sea water. Namely it is argued that the primary
references to Kirkland (‘822) and to Shostak (‘520) show transmission of
electromagnetic energy through air and sea water. Examiner is in agreement with
this point but fails to see how the present claim language precludes the prior art
rendering it obvious. The references do show transmission of electromagnetic
energy into sea water for the purpose of detecting a submerged object. This is the
teaching relied upon.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007