Appeal No. 2006-1272
Application No. 10/104,615
susceptible to human error.
VII. Appellants argue that the examiner has applied improper hindsight analysis, as
neither Echerer, Liff, nor any of the other cited art discloses or suggests that it is even
possible to have a pharmacist verify prescription information while using the combination of
elements as recited [supplemental brief, page 8, 1st paragraph].
We disagree. The examiner relies upon Liff as teaching a pharmacist at a central
location who verifies prescription information for a technician at a remote location [answer,
pages 4, 9]. We note that Liff explicitly teaches: “The remote pharmacist concept is an
extension of the remote control dispensing capabilities of the present invention” [col. 11,
lines 35-37]. Liff explicitly teaches: “At the RPH workstation, the pharmacist verifies the
prescription 281 and performs a drug utilization review 282” [col. 13, lines 17-19].
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 and 3-11.
GROUP II, claims 12-24
We now consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 12-24 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 12 as the
representative claim for this rejection.
With respect to verification, we note that claim 12 recites providing a verification
-14-
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007