Appeal No. 97-0048
Application No. 08/292,186
The language “indicates which medication” might, at first glance,
indicate that Schollmeyer is suggesting the identification of the
medication in the container. However, it is our view that upon a
closer reading of this passage, taken together with the total
disclosure of Schollmeyer, it is clear that Schollmeyer is
concerned here with multiple medications and that, by the proper
prompting signal, the user is prompted as to which medication to
take and which medication not to take. Clearly, Schollmeyer is
concerned not with identifying the medication within a container,
by speech or otherwise, but, rather, is concerned only with
prompting a user to take the proper medication at the proper time
which time is programmed at a pharmacist-programmable medication
prompting station which inputs the information to the prompting
device which, in turn, stores the information in an internal
memory.
Thus, Schollmeyer fails to suggest the identification, by
speech sounds, of the contents of a medication container, as
required, in one form or another, by independent claims 1, 2 and
7.
The examiner recognizes that Schollmeyer at least fails to
teach a separate sound playback unit as is also required by the
independent claims. The examiner’s response is to rely on Hafner
for the suggestion of separate reading devices 14, 52 and 72 “for
the purpose of reading coded information stored on a medicine
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007