Appeal No. 2001-1517
Application No. 09/132,285
From our review of the limited discussion in Kavanagh regarding the use of
rewards to improve patient appointment compliance, we find no teaching, suggestion or
convincing line of reasoning why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to look to the teachings of Bank Ad for a suggestion to use life insurance as a
reward for patients to improve medical appointment attendance.
Additionally, from our review of the teachings of Bank Ad, we find that Bank Ad
merely teaches the use of a free year of homeowner’s insurance for a one time
refinancing of a home loan. While the examiner maintains that Bank Ad teaches the
use of free insurance as an incentive to induce customers to use a bank’s services at
the time of the invention, we find that Bank Ad generally teaches the use of free
mortgage insurance and mentions one use of free life insurance from credit unions for
its members. We are unsure whether if the examiner references the free mortgage
insurance from Zions Bancorp, which we find is not insurance on an individual’s life, but
on the home to protect the bank’s interest in the home, or the life insurance from the
credit union and mistakenly refers to the credit union as a bank. (See final rejection at
pages 4-5.) Either way, we do not find that the examiner has provided a convincing line
of reasoning for providing an extended payment for life insurance as an inducement for
patients to attend their scheduled appointments for chiropractic care. Appellant argues
that the teaching of payment of a first year of mortgage insurance as taught by Bank Ad
is not a motivation or suggestion to provide life insurance as an inducement to attend
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007