Appeal No. 2006-1272
Application No. 10/104,615
verification of prescription information, as performed by both a pharmacist at a central
location and a technician at Remote Control Dispenser (RCD) location, is not limited to a
single RCD location, as shown in Fig. 2. We therefore find that the combination of Echerer
and Liff, as set forth by the examiner, does teach a verification video-conferencing station
within each of a plurality of remote sites, as claimed.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 12-24.
GROUP III, claims 25-30:
We now consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 25-30 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 25 as the
representative claim for this rejection.
Appellants argue that independent claim 25 recites an element with a verification
video-conferencing station substantially similar to the element recited in independent claim
12 which is not disclosed nor suggested by either Echerer or Liff [supplemental brief, page
10].
With respect to verification, we note that claim 25 recites providing a verification
video-conferencing station operatively coupled to the central video-conferencing station
within the central site, the verification video-conferencing station being operable to provide
real-time communication between a technician at the each of the plurality of pharmacies and
-17-
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007