Appeal No. 2001-2019
Application No. 08/996,567 Page 6
alarms could have been minimized, thus providing more uniform,
less confusing alerts." The examiner adds (answer, pages 4 and
5) that:
Since Berry teaches desirability of having audible
and visual alerts activated simultaneously in an
emergency condition warning system, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have found it obvious to use
a synchronous alarm activation technique as taught
by Markl to activate both audible and visual alarms,
in order that more precise activation of both types
of alerts could have been effected, so that a user
would have been less likely to be confused by out
of sync alerts.
Appellants assert (brief, page 6) that there is no indication in
Berry, III of details regarding the flash lamp 310, and that at
best, the flash lamp 310 would be a typical strobe that would
fire when the required firing voltage is reached across a
charging capacitor, and would thus be free running. Appellants
argue that "[t]hus, Berry, III does not teach or suggest
synchronization of audible alarms and visual strobes."
Turning to Markl, appellants assert (brief, page 6) that
Markl discloses a signal light system for use along a highway,
and fails to teach or suggest any type of audible alarm or any
synchronization of the same. It is further argued (brief, page
6) that the combination of Berry, III and Markl fail to teach or
suggest an alarm system in which an audible alarm and a visual
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007