Appeal No. 97-0048
Application No. 08/292,186
and 7 through 10, adding Sibalis to this combination with regard
to claims 4 and 6.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
The instant claimed invention requires identification of a
medication within a container with audible speech or speech
sounds.
In applying Schollmeyer to the instant claims, the examiner
notes that Schollmeyer teaches the use of “an audible prompting
sound to notify a user of the medication in the container”
[answer-page 4]. It is true that Schollmeyer teaches a prompting
system, wherein a user is prompted by a signal, audible or
visual, as to the time for taking medication. However,
Schollmeyer nowhere suggests that the medication in the container
is identified or that the signal identifying the medication is
one of speech.
It is true that, at column 5, lines 15-19, Schollmeyer
describes a “different arrangement” whereby an LCD display
indicates not only that a medication should not be
administered, but also indicates which medication, making
possible the prompting of the patient to take several
different medications at different times.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007