Appeal No. 2002-0015 Page 4
Application No. 09/164,098
(“Faulkner”). Claims 9 and 18 stand rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Tracy in
view of Driscoll further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,761,329 (“Chen”).
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or appellants in toto, we
address the main point of contention therebetween. Admitting that Tracy “fails
disclose [sic] ‘determining a user reported identity code associated with a user of said
checkout terminal and retrieving a user biometrics profile which corresponds to said
user reported identity code in response thereto; detecting a biometrics characteristic of
said user in response to generation of said restricted-item control signal; and comparing
said user biometrics profile with said biometrics characteristic and generating an
identity-verified control signal if said user biometrics profile matches said biometrics
characteristic,’” (Examiner’s Answer at 5), the examiner asserts, "using the biometrics
recognition of Driscoll to replace the attendant (who is responding to generated signal)
allows for a more secure system without the human element of Tracy. This
combination will provide a method that will give an extra edge of projection to the
service and/or retail industry by automating the apparatus and resisting any misuse
because of the biometrics." (Id.) The appellants argue, "[w]hile the Examiner has
provided a reason for the combination (see above), the Examiner has used hindsight. . .
.” (Reply Br. at 3.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007