Appeal No. 1997-2708
Application No. 08/337,204
minutiae, or not based on minutiae. Therefore, any prior art
fingerprint identifier that is at least partially based on
minutiae fails to meet the claimed invention. Turning to
Sparrow, we find that every aspect of Sparrow's invention
revolves around irregularities or minutiae. Even the ridge
count referred to by the examiner is based on minutiae as it
is "the number of ridges intersecting the scanning line, at
that position, between the irregularity and a prescribed point
on, or origin for, the scanning line." Therefore, Sparrow
clearly cannot anticipate the claimed invention.
Consequently, we must reverse the rejection of claims 28
through 30, 33 through 36, 70, 72 through 74, 78 through 80,
83, 84, 88 through 90, 92, 117, 141 through 146, 148 through
150, and 157 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
As to the obviousness rejection of claims 75, 91, 118,
and 147 over Sparrow, the examiner has failed to suggest any
line of reasoning for eliminating the reliance on minutiae in
forming a numerical identifier for a fingerprint. Therefore,
the examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness. Further, we find no motivation in the art of
record for modifying Sparrow as indicated. Consequently, we
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007