Appeal No. 1998-3023
Application No. 08/339,731
According to the examiner (answer, page 6), “Sparrow
shows image input means for inputting, on a card-by-card
basis, image data provided on a tenprint card containing
fingerprints of ten fingers (note Sparrow col. 2, lines
1-5 and col. 3, line 56 to col. 4, line 15).” The
examiner readily admits that Sparrow does not disclose
the use of cutout information input means for accepting
input cutout information. The examiner attempts to
address Sparrow’s shortcomings by incorporating the
video-editing technology of Tanaka (answer, page 6). The
examiner contends that “Tanaka would have provided a
reliable method for selecting and cutting out each of the
fingerprint images by allowing the human operator to
select and cut out the images” (answer, page 7). The
appellant argues that neither Tanaka nor Sparrow provides
motivation to combine the two references and that the
examiner has employed impermissible hindsight (brief,
page 8). With respect to appellant’s hindsight argument,
“[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily
a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so
long as it takes into account only knowledge which was
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007