Appeal No. 96-2278
Application 08/175,001
inserted in a card holder because no one is expected to be
looking at the card. Piosenka is also intended to primarily
operate to automatically compare an actual image with a coded
image on a card by computer. Once again, since the comparison
is made by computer, there is no incentive to have the data on
the card be visible when it is received in a card holder.
Piosenka does describe a situation, however, where the
comparison is made by a human operator [column 9, lines 5-21].
In this situation, however, two images on a card are not
compared, but rather, a decoded displayed image is compared to
the actual facial feature biometric of the person seeking
validation. There is again no reason for the information on
the card to be visible to the human operator when it is
received in a card holding mechanism.
Thus, the examiner has failed to explain why it would
have been obvious to the artisan to have a card holding
station for receiving an identification card so that an image
on the card is visible to an operator as recited in each of
the independent claims. This recited limitation is clearly
not suggested by either Senanayake or Piosenka. Therefore,
the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case for
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007