Appeal No. 1999-0880
Application No. 08/700,610
receiver “is adapted to” receive an RF transmission from that
second transmitter, as well as from the first transmitter.
The “can be” language of claims 33 and 35 also is not
found to be indefinite in any way. It merely indicates,
consistent with the specification, that while a code stored in
memory does not need to be changed, it “can be” changed by
switching to program mode and energizing a transmitter with a
code different from that previously stored in the memory.
Similarly, in claim 35, while a code in a transmitter may
never be derived if such transmitter is not activated in a
program mode, the claim merely states that an RF signal
carries a code from which the transmitter code “can be”
derived if it is desired to do so.
We turn now to the rejections of claims 20 through 45
based on prior art. We will not sustain any of the rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because we find no prima facie case of
obviousness based on the evidence provided by the applied
references.
While there are many distinctions between the instant
claimed invention and the primary references to Tsubaki and
Pinnow, we find it unnecessary to discuss these distinctions
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007