Appeal No. 1998-1259
Application No. 08/264,817
has been argued by appellants. Accordingly, the remaining
claims will stand or fall with claim 1. Appellants assert
that the prior art references to MacDonald and Connary, alone
or in combination, do not teach or suggest that "'different
particular tactile alert patterns are generated when different
corresponding particular desired communication signals are
received'" (brief, page 4). MacDonald discloses a selective
call receiver having a variable frequency vibrator including a
tactile alert generator 116, an audio alert 114 and a display
110 (figure 2). MacDonald recognizes the need for a tactile
alert generator to have variable frequencies of vibration,
disclosing that "in conventional selective call receivers, the
frequency of the vibrator device is usually fixed at some
predetermined frequency . . . . This causes some users,
however, to consider the vibratory mode to be either too high
or too low . . . . Accordingly, a need exists for a tactile
alert having a variable frequency of vibration" (col. 1, lines
20-35). In addition to a tactile alert, the frequency of the
tactile alert is modified by the frequency selector 120.
However, once modified, the "preset frequency is held constant
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007