Appeal No. 2005-2220
Application No. 09/335,189
data.1 We concur with the examiner that Halverson teaches the correlation of
drug data to drug codes, see, for example, the database tables depicted in
figures 8 and 16, which correlate drug information to various codes associated
with the drugs. Further, we find that Halverson teaches storing printer codes for
the printer associated with each station; see figure 7 which depicts a database
table for drug dispensing station settings. However, we find no disclosure in
Halverson that correlates drug codes to printer codes as claimed. Additionally,
we do not find that Halverson teaches a means to alter either of the correlations.
Kraslavsky teaches a method of connecting a printer to a network and does not
address a system for distributing drug information. We find no disclosure or
suggestion in Kraslavsky that suggests that printer codes should be correlated to
drug codes in a system such as Halverson. Accordingly, we do not find that the
examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness.
1 We note that claim 26 also includes the limitation of “altering means for altering
said correlation.” It is unclear which of the two correlations are being altered by
the altering means. Appellants and the examiner should insure that appropriate
amendments are made to clarify the claim.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007