Appeal No. 2006-1272
Application No. 10/104,615
a pharmacist within the central site.
The examiner relies upon Echerer as teaching the use of a plurality of video-
conferencing stations for real-time visual and audio communication between a central site
and a remote site [answer, pages 3 and 11; see also Echerer col. 1, lines 51-59, col. 2, lines
35-40]. As discussed supra with respect to Appellants’ argument IX, we find that the
combination of Echerer, as modified by Liff, does teach 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 each of the plurality of pharmacies and a pharmacist
within the central site, as claimed [See Liff, figures 11A and 11B that show a plurality of
remote RCD stations operatively coupled to the RPH workstation where the pharmacist is
located; see also Liff, col. 12, lines 24-57].
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 25-30.
GROUP IV, claims 31-42
We now consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 31-42 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 31 as the
representative claim for this rejection.
With respect to verification, we note that claim 31 recites the step of providing a
-18-
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007