Appeal No. 95-4662
Application 08/048,101
In the present case, Claim 10 recites processing means “for comparing differences in
analyses of the transmitted signals.” Appellant’s argument proceeds as if the recited function
were comparing differences in only the water-transmitted signals. Request at 2. However, Claim
10 is not limited to using only the water-transmitted signals. Claim 10 broadly refers to
differences in “analyses” of the water-transmitted signals. The “analyses” are not necessarily
informed only by the water-transmitted signals.
Kirkland discloses the same means as Appellants for performing the recited function of
“comparing differences in analyses of the transmitted signals.” Kirkland’s processing means
compares differences in analyses of signals transmitted from transmitter T through water W to
receiver R at different times. Column 4, lines 29-40. Kirkland’s analyses of the water-transmitted
signals involve the phase relationship between the water-transmitted signals and the air-
transmitted signals, but such analysis is not precluded by the claims on appeal.
CONCLUSION
We have thoroughly reconsidered the appeal in light of the entire record including the
present Request. The modification sought by Appellants is denied.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007