Appeal No. 95-4662
Application 08/048,101
Examiner’s Answer at 4, lines 2-12. We are in harmony with the examiner’s position that
although Kirkland shows some transmission through air and some through water, the present
claim language does not preclude obviousness since Kirkland shows transmission via sea water as
claimed.
Relying on Kirkland alone does not constitute a new ground of rejection. In affirming a
multiple reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Board may rely on one of the one
references alone in an obviousness rationale without designating it as a new ground of rejection.
In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 266-67 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d
455, 458 n.2, 150 USPQ 441, 444 n.2 (CCPA 1966). Thus, our decision did not include a new
ground of rejection.
(2) Scope of Claim 10
Appellants argue in their Request that claim 10 requires that transmitted signals be limited
to radiation emitted within and propagated through the water. We disagree.
Claims undergoing examination are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d ll89, 1194, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850
(Fed. Cir. 1994) (in banc).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007