Appeal No. 97-0048
Application No. 08/292,186
package for presentation to a user with a display” [answer-page
5]. The examiner states that Hafner’s advantage is in “being
usable with more than one container of drugs” [answer-page 5] and
then contends that “[h]aving a separate sound playback unit from
a sound storage device is well-known in the art of audio
electronics” [answer-page 5], citing Damark for this proposition
in response to a challenge from appellant.
First, we do not find Hafner to provide for the deficiencies
noted supra, i.e., Hafner does not disclose an identification, by
speech sound, of the contents of a medicine container. Second,
Hafner does not teach or suggest a separate sound playback unit,
as required by the claims. The examiner’s reliance on Damark for
such a teaching is, in our view, misplaced. Merely because
separate playback units, such as CD players, stereo systems,
boomboxes, etc. were, per se, known, does not, in any way,
suggest the use of a separate playback unit in combination with
other elements interconnected, in a system for identifying
medication with audible speech, as required by the instant
claims.
Based on the teachings of Schollmeyer, Hafner and Damark, we
find no cogent rationale for combining these references in any
meaningful manner to arrive at a system for identifying
medication within a container with audible speech wherein a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007