Appeal No. 1999-0880
Application No. 08/700,610
The Chamberlain Group, Inc., No. 98-1428 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13,
1999) in reaching the following findings.
We turn first to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. The examiner contends that it is unclear
whether claim 20 is limited to a second transmitter because
line 3 only requires “at least one” transmitter and the
receiver “being adapted to” receive a transmission from a
second transmitter does not positively require a second
transmitter. The examiner also questions the “can be”
language of claims 33 and 35 as being indefinite because it is
not clear to the examiner if the functions following this
language are positively required by the claims.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 20, 21, 33,
35 through 39, 41 and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. Claim 20 recites “at least one” transmitter, which
means there may be one or more transmitters but there must be
at least one transmitter. This is not inconsistent with the
receiver “being adapted to” receive first and second RF
transmissions from respective first and second transmitters.
The language merely indicates that there need not be a second
transmitter, but if there is a second transmitter, the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007