Appeal No. 2006-1272
Application No. 10/104,615
specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26
USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993). We note that the instant claims are silent regarding
any limitation that requires visual verification of prescription information by a pharmacist at
a central location, as argued by Appellants. We find that Appellants are impermissibly
reading limitations from the specification into the claims to avoid the prior art.
III. Appellants argue that Liff does not teach nor suggest using a remote pharmacist
concept that utilizes a central video-conferencing station to allow a pharmacist to verify
prescription information for a technician at a remote site [supplemental brief, page 6, 1st
paragraph]. Likewise, Appellants contend there is no disclosure anywhere of a verification
video-conferencing station [supplemental brief, page 7, 2nd paragraph].
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We note that Liff teaches a system where a
pharmacist at a central location (i.e., at the RPH workstation shown in figures 11A and 11B)
verifies prescription information for a technician at a remote site [see Liff, Remote Control
Dispensers RCD1-4, figures 11A, 11B; see also col. 11, lines 35-37, col. 13, lines 17-19;
figures 11A and 11B]. Liff also teaches two-way video conferencing between a first station
where the pharmacist is located and at least one second (remote) station where the technician
is located: See Liff, col. 19, line 28, and col. 19, lines 34-49; see also figures 11A, 11B:
When a patient approaches a technician at an RCD unit 556, the technician
initiates the dispensing process by entering relevant patent data into the RCT
host computer 564. If the dispensing process requires the expertise of a
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007