Appeal No. 2006-1272
Application No. 10/104,615
• a plurality of remote sites remotely located from the central site, each of the plurality
of remote sites includes a remote video-conferencing station operable to provide real-
time communication between one of a technician and a customer at the each of the
plurality of remote sites and the pharmacist within the central site,
• wherein the central video-conferencing station within the central site is selectively
coupled to the remote video-conferencing station within one of the plurality of remote
sites, and
• wherein the central video-conferencing station comprises a video-conferencing
station operable for the pharmacist to verify prescription information for a technician
at one of the plurality of remote sites from within the central site.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Echerer 5,801,755 Sept. 1, 1998
Liff et al. (Liff) 5,797,515 Aug. 25, 1998
The following rejections are on appeal before us:
1. Claims 1 and 3-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the teachings of Echerer in view of Liff.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the examiner, we make reference
to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced by
the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, the Appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s rationale
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007