Appeal No. 1997-2708 Application No. 08/337,204 minutiae, or not based on minutiae. Therefore, any prior art fingerprint identifier that is at least partially based on minutiae fails to meet the claimed invention. Turning to Sparrow, we find that every aspect of Sparrow's invention revolves around irregularities or minutiae. Even the ridge count referred to by the examiner is based on minutiae as it is "the number of ridges intersecting the scanning line, at that position, between the irregularity and a prescribed point on, or origin for, the scanning line." Therefore, Sparrow clearly cannot anticipate the claimed invention. Consequently, we must reverse the rejection of claims 28 through 30, 33 through 36, 70, 72 through 74, 78 through 80, 83, 84, 88 through 90, 92, 117, 141 through 146, 148 through 150, and 157 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. As to the obviousness rejection of claims 75, 91, 118, and 147 over Sparrow, the examiner has failed to suggest any line of reasoning for eliminating the reliance on minutiae in forming a numerical identifier for a fingerprint. Therefore, the examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness. Further, we find no motivation in the art of record for modifying Sparrow as indicated. Consequently, we 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007