The "Event Based, Implicit Invocation" (EBII) Pattern is one that is so incredibly common, it's almost redundant to document it as a pattern, but nonetheless, for completeness, it can prove useful to understand the differences and constraints in implementing it.
The key difference between this pattern and the Observer pattern is the cardinality and loose coupling between the sender and receiver. Whereas in the Observer pattern the "publisher" knows its "subscribers" and issues notifications, in the EBII pattern, the publisher knows nothing about its "subscribers", but rather just knows its own notification mechanisms. These mechanisms interface directly only with a manager component, which is responsible for distributing these notifications. Additionally, whereas the Observer pattern states a "one-to-many" cardinality, the EBII pattern says that any object can publish events and any object can subscribe to events.
When it comes to dispatch methods, implicit invocation provides greater decoupling than explicit invocation. By using explicit invocation, the pattern is considerably closer to the Observer pattern. An additional dimension of decoupling comes from using nonblocking calls. If blocking calls were to be used, the notifying object's timing would be affected by the receiving object's handler execution to a considerably greater degree than in the nonblocking case. Obviously, the event handler will still utilize system resources, but this won't as fundamentally affect the timing semantics inherent in the program.
Applications of this pattern are so prolific (as previously mentioned), that the author named wide classes of programs using this pattern (such as all clients registering over a network to receive some sort of notification), that it's hard to think of an example that doesn't fit under the umbrella provided. RSS feeds would fall under this categorization as a utilization of this pattern.
As is explained in this pattern, the manager component has everything to do with how the event notification system scales. As such, it would be inappropriate to implement a notification broker for all types of events. Imagine the same system being responsible for handling IO Interrupts as RSS notifications--the requirements of performance and complexity are so divergent that one system could not be expected to span this expanse.
Error handling in an event based system is the responsibility of the event receiver. If an event sender *really* needs to know about a failure in another component, it should register a listener for the receiver's error event. This introduces a bit of a bidirectional constraint, but still maintains a great deal of decoupling.