Ex Parte Ramsey Catan - Page 17

                Appeal 2007-0820                                                                               
                Application 09/734,808                                                                         
           1          Based on an analysis of the scope and content of Nakano and Harada,                      
           2    the facts support the conclusion that, but for the bioauthentication means,                    
           3    Nakano discloses all the elements of the claimed device and their functions                    
           4    and that the bioauthentication means was disclosed in Harada. Since each                       
           5    individual element and its function, as described in claim 5, are shown in the                 
           6    prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the                     
           7    claimed subject matter and that of the prior art rests not on any individual                   
           8    element or function but in the very combination itself; that is, in the                        
           9    substitution of Harada’s bioauthentication device for Nakano’s manual                          
          10    authentication means.  Where, as here “[an application] claims a structure                     
          11    already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one                 
          12    element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than                      
          13    yield a predictable result,” KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1395                         
          14    (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 50-51, 148 USPQ 479, 483 (1966)).                     
          15    In that regard, Appellant has provided no evidence that replacing Nakano’s                     
          16    manual authentication means with Harada’s known bioauthentication means                        
          17    yields an unexpected result or was beyond the skill of one having ordinary                     
          18    skill in the art.                                                                              
          19          The Appellant’s own Specification only generally describes the idea                      
          20    of incorporating a bioauthentication device, such as a fingerprint sensor, into                
          21    a consumer electronics device and the matching function needed to compare                      
          22    the scanned bioauthentication information with the stored bioauthentication                    
          23    information (e.g., Specification 6:6-7 and 6:17-7:2).  The Specification does                  
          24    not provide a detailed description of the implementation in hardware or                        
          25    software of the bioauthentication device.  Furthermore, Appellant’s                            
          26    Specification as well as Appellant’s arguments do not present any evidence                     

                                                      17                                                       

Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013