Appeal No. 2006-1272
Application No. 10/104,615
central video-conferencing station within the central site, the central video-conferencing
station being operable for a pharmacist to perform pharmaceutical services from within the
central site, wherein the pharmaceutical services include verification of prescription
information.
We note that the examiner relies upon Liff as teaching a pharmacist at a central
location (i.e., at the RPH workstation shown in fig. 11A and fig. 11B, see Liff col. 12, line
43) who verifies prescription information for a technician at a remote location [answer, pages
4, 9; see also Liff, col. 13, lines 17-19, and Fig. 12]. With respect to independent claim 31,
Appellants essentially restate arguments IV, VI, and IX. In response, we note that these
arguments have been fully addressed supra. For at least the aforementioned reasons, we will
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 31-42.
In summary, we find that the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3-42 is fully
supported by Echerer, as modified by Liff. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting
clams 1 and 3-42 is affirmed.
-19-
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007