Appeal 2007-0820
Application 09/734,808
1 11 and 17-18). Thus, Harada shows that the use of a
2 bioauthentication device (fingerprint sensor) on a consumer
3 electronics device (remote control) to provide bioauthentication
4 information (fingerprint) was known in the prior art at the time
5 of the invention.
6 10. Harada teaches to use bioauthentication information, such as a
7 voice print or fingerprint, “to prevent unauthorized tampering
8 with [certain terminal setting] data by persons who may have
9 access to the remote control apparatus” (Harada, col. 4, ll. 32-
10 34), “to ensure that the type of service which is provided by a
11 terminal apparatus to the users of its remote control apparatuses
12 is selectively controlled in accordance with various different
13 categories of uses, e.g.[,] adults and children” (Harada, col. 4,
14 ll. 56-60), and “to reliably ensure that certain services which
15 should be available only to a specific individual user … and
16 which can be requested by operation of a remote control
17 apparatus, will in fact be made available only to the appropriate
18 individual, when a number of different individuals can use
19 remote control apparatus to communicate with that same
20 terminal apparatus” (Harada, col. 4, l. 61 – col. 5, l. 3).
21 11. What is clear from Harada is that the use of a PIN code is not as
22 reliable an identifier as bioauthentication information because
23 the PIN can be stolen and used without the authorized user’s
24 knowledge by anyone who may have access to the remote
25 control apparatus.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013