Appeal No. 1998-3023
Application No. 08/339,731
we find that the tenprint card teachings of Pieper are
merely cumulative to those already found in Sparrow.
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 to
4, 9 to 11, 14 to 17 and 22 to 24 is reversed because the
examiner has failed to present a prima facie case of
obviousness via a convincing line of reasoning for
combining the applied references or by pointing to
something in the references that would have suggested the
proposed
combination. The obviousness rejection of claims 5 to 8,
12, 13, 18 to 21, 25 and 26 is reversed because the
fingerprint alignment teachings of Brooks do not cure the
noted shortcoming in the proposed combination of
references.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007