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 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007