Appeal No. 1995-3030 Page 15
Application No. 08/073,091
from decryption function 42 which was read from the
credentials card 3 with the information obtained from one or
more of the physical trait input devices 31 through 34." Col.
8, ll. 50-55. "The result of this comparison is the decision
whether the user 2 is physically the same
individual as that described on the media card 3." Id. at
ll. 58-61.
The examiner fails to allege, let alone show, that
Everett, Petajan, Maeda, Bokser, or Clark cures the deficiency
of Piosenka. Because Piosenka performs personal
identification rather than message recognition, we are not
persuaded that teachings from the prior art anticipate or
would have suggested the aforementioned limitations.
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 44, 55, 56, 62,
63, 74, 84, 85, 87, and 89 as anticipated by Piosenka; the
rejection of claims 45, 64, and 75 as obvious over Piosenka
in view of Everett; the rejection of claims 46, 65, and 76 as
obvious over Piosenka in view of Petajan; the rejection of
claims 47, 48, 51, 52, 57, 58, 66, 67, 70, 77-79, 86, and 88
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007