Appeal No. 2006-1272
Application No. 10/104,615
would not have looked to add the expensive, bulky, and complex Remote Control Dispenser
cabinet 20 of Liff at each of the remote sites in order to provide verification for the
prescriptions [supplemental brief, pages 7, 3rd and 4th paragraphs, cont’d page 8, 1st
paragraph]. Appellants further argue that combining the communication system of Echerer
with the Remote Control Dispenser (RCD) taught by Liff would not have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill because it would have been a “costly and redundant use of human and
machine resources” [supplemental brief, page 8, 3rd paragraph].
The examiner responds that Liff explicitly discloses a system where “the expertise of
a registered pharmacist operating at an RPH can be shared among a large number of
pharmacy technicians, increasing the level of medical care provided in a cost-effective
manner” [answer, pages 11-12, see also Liff, col. 12, lines 20-23].
There must be a teaching or suggestion within the prior art, within the nature of the
problem to be solved, or within the general knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the field of
the invention, to look to particular sources, to select particular elements, and to combine them as
combined by the inventor. Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234 F.3d 654, 665, 57 USPQ2d 1161, 1167
(Fed. Cir. 2000). We agree with the examiner that Liff teaches a cost-effective system, and also
note that one of ordinary skill in the art would find it necessary to protect expensive controlled
pharmaceutical drugs in either an expensive limited-access facility or room, or alternately, in a
less expensive secure dispenser, such as the Remote Controlled Dispenser (RCD) taught by Liff
that provides extra layers of verification for safety [see RCD shown in fig. 1, see also bar code
verification, col. 6, lines 45-54].
-11-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007