Appeal No. 2006-1272
Application No. 10/104,615
video-conferencing station within each of the plurality of remote sites, the verification video-
conferencing station being operable to provide real-time communication between a
technician at the each of the plurality of remote sites and the pharmacist within the central
site.
Appellants restate the argument that Liff discloses a costly Remote Control Dispenser
that does not make efficient use of the technician [supplemental brief, pages 9, 10]. We have
fully addressed this issue with respect to arguments IV and VI, as discussed supra.
VIII. Appellants further argue that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention to modify Echerer to include the remote pharmacist of
Liff because “Echerer is already a remote pharmacist system” [supplemental brief, pages 9,
cont’d page 10, 1st paragraph]. In the reply brief, Appellants assert that there is no
motivation to combine Echerer with Liff because: “The facts are thus evident that both
Echerer and Liff disclose a remote pharmacist concept, albeit, using different devices” [reply
brief, page 2].
We note that the only type of verification taught by Echerer is verifying the identity
of the patient requesting medical attention [Echerer, col. 2, line 8]. The examiner relies upon
Liff as teaching a pharmacist at a central location who verifies prescription information for a
technician at a remote location (i.e., at a verification video-conferencing station), as
discussed supra [answer, pages 4, 9; See also Liff, col. 13, lines 17-19, Figures 11A, 11B,
12].
The motivation the examiner relies upon is found directly in the Liff reference (i.e.,
-15-
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007