Appeal No. 96-2278
Application 08/175,001
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The examiner cites Senanayake as teaching everything
recited in the claims except for the public key encryption
techniques. The examiner cites Piosenka as teaching an
identification card having encrypted versions of physical
identification information stored on the card. The examiner
asserts that it would have been obvious to the artisan to
substitute Piosenka’s encrypted facial information for
Senanayake’s fingerprint image [final rejection, pages 2-3].
Appellants argue that with respect to the teachings of
Senanayake and Piosenka, “provision of a holding station where
the card remains visible after insertion, and positioning of a
display adjacent to such a holding station would be
meaningless in the context of these references, and their
combination cannot be considered to make the claimed
invention, which includes these limitations, obvious” [brief,
page 5]. We agree with appellants.
Senanayake is designed to compare an actual image on a
card with a coded image on the card automatically by computer.
Since the comparison is made by computer, there is no
motivation to make the card in Senanayake visible when it is
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007