Appeal 2007-0757
Application 09/952,249
sustain the rejection of dependent claim 3 and dependent claims 5, 6, 10, 12,
13, 16, 18, and 19 grouped therewith by Appellants.
With respect to dependent claim 4, Appellants argue that the
Examiner has not addressed all of the limitations with respect to independent
claim 1 (Br. 9). Since we found that the Examiner had made a sufficient
showing with respect to independent claim 1, we do not find this argument
persuasive with respect to claim 4. Appellants argue that a “bridge as
recited in claim 4 may be different from an isolated spur and a ridge
connected spur as recited in claim 1” (Br. 10). [Emphasis added.] Here, we
note that Appellants argue that the bridge “may” be different and not that it
is different. Impliedly, it may be the same which does not show error in the
Examiner’s showing. Therefore, we find no harm in the fact that Bolle ‘895
does not mention the word bridge as Appellants argue. Therefore,
Appellants' argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of
dependent claim 4 and claims 11 and 17 grouped therewith by Appellants
(and claim 5 which depends therefrom).
With respect to dependent claim 7, Appellants argue that the
Examiner has not addressed all of the limitations with respect to independent
claim 1 (Br. 10). Since we found that the Examiner had made a sufficient
showing with respect to independent claim 1, we do not find this argument
persuasive with respect to claim 7. Appellants argue that the cited portion of
Bolle ‘895 does not describe converting the fingerprint image into a binary
image or that the binary image was obtained before any processing of the
image, as advanced by the Examiner (Br. 11-12). We find that Bolle ‘895
discloses processing the pixels at columns 5-6. We find that it would have
been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013