Appeal No. 1998-0631
Application 07/957,990
We agree with the Examiner. Claim 1 recites an "alarm
means . . . for generating an alarm signal" and claim 24
recites "message means audiovisually perceptible to a user
. . . [and] means . . . for generating a message at the
message means." Neither of these limitations require sound
or light. The term "audiovisually perceptible" in claim 24
is broad enough to read on a message displayed on a screen,
such as provided in the "Human Factor" publication, that is
visually perceptible. Since dependent claim 12 further
recites "sound generation means . . . for generating sound
audible to a user," such sound limitation is not part of
claim 1. We agree with the Examiner that the "prompting"
and "questioning" disclosed by the "Human Factor" document
are forms of an "alarm signal," as broadly claimed, and are
"a message at the message means," as broadly recited in
claim 24. Thus, we sustain the anticipation rejection of
claims 1 and 24.
Not argued - claims 26, 97, 117, 119
We do not find any separate arguments regarding claims
26, 97, 117, and 119. Thus, claims 26, 97, 117, and 119
fall together with claims 1 and 24, with which they are
- 23 -
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007