Appeal No. 1998-2864
Application No. 08/338,235
The examiner admits that Kobayashi does not disclose means
other than the display device for providing an alarm but contends
that the artisan would have “recognized using another alarm
device to provide an alarm to the operator, for instance, a
buzzer to indicate the alarm, because it is easier to recognize
an alarm situation when it is audibly notified. It is noted that
the system of Kobayashi includes alarm indicators 23a on the
control system 2 and LEDs 30 on the remote unit 25, although no
function is described” [principal answer-page 5].
It is appellant’s position that because Kobayashi displays
an alarm value only when the user selects for display a
particular diagnosis mode in which the alarm value is displayed
in response to such selection, Kobayashi does not suggest the use
of another alarm device whereby a user becomes aware of an alarm
condition transmitted from a control console without having to
either constantly monitor the display or request measurement data
for a given parameter in which an alarm condition might exist.
The examiner’s response is that the use of means other than
the display device for providing an alarm is “old in the art.”
We agree with the examiner that the use of means other than
the display device for generating an alarm is “old in the art.”
We recognize that where the examiner relies on what is asserted
-9–
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007