Appeal No. 2006-1272
Application No. 10/104,615
• GROUP IV, claims 31-42.
GROUP I, claims 1 and 3-11
We now consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3-11 that stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Echerer in view of Liff.
Since Appellants’ arguments with respect to this rejection have treated these claims as a
single group which stand or fall together, we will consider independent claim 1 as the
representative claim for this rejection.
The examiner relies upon Echerer as teaching all the elements of the claimed
invention except “a verification video-conferencing station for the pharmacist and the
technician (central site and remote site) to verify prescription information for a technician at
one of the plurality of remote sites” [answer, page 3]. The examiner relies upon Liff as
teaching the verification video-conferencing station and the verification of prescription
information, as claimed [answer, page 4].
The examiner asserts the following motivation for modifying Echerer with the
teachings of Liff: [answer, pages 4-5]
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to modify Echerer to comprise a verification video-
conferencing station (at the central site and remote site) for the pharmacist to
verify prescription information for a remote technician at one of the plurality
of remote sites in addition to a video-conferencing station for communicating
with a patient when Echerer's system is to be implemented in states that
require the pharmacist to perform services such as verifying the prescription,
drug utilization overview, verify correct labeling, provide counseling to the
patient by law. Furthermore, this would provide a direct communication
between the pharmacist and the technician without being interrupted by
patients and the patients would use a separate patient consultation video-
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007