Appeal No. 2007-0151
Application No. 10/081,132
performed by the authenticated user. However, we find that similarly to
claim 2, claim 9 does not require that users on both sides of a voice
communication must be authenticated and instead, recites that voice
communication be enabled for any terminal for which a sensed finger-image
is authenticated. Therefore, based on the teachings of Olshansky, Trandal,
and Patel outlined supra, and to the extent claimed, we find ourselves
persuaded by the Examiner’s position that the voice communication is
available for each computer terminal for which a finger-image war
authenticated. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim
9, as well as dependent claims 10-12, which are argued (Br. 11) to fall with
their base claim.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013