Appeal No. 1998-3332 Page 5
Application No. 08/643,961
531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
With these principles in mind, we consider the examiner's
rejection and the appellants' arguments.
The examiner alleges, "[c]ol. 7 of Nathans describes the
embodiment where the PIN is stored as a control code which is
combined with the scrambled code to for a data sequence."
(Examiner's Answer at 7.) He further alleges, “it would have
been obvious ... to have utilized the well known
private/public encryption technique in the above system in
order to improve security of the data stored.” (Id.) The
appellants argue, "none of th[e] teaching of Nathans is the
equivalent of ‘acquiring a first digital representation of at
least one of a picture and signature of said legitimate
holder, and extracting first feature data from said digital
representation, combining the feature data with personal data
into a single data sequence, and then encrypting the combined
single data sequence’. The combination of the admitted prior
art and either Lee or Silverman does not overcome the
deficiencies of Nathans." (Reply Br. at 5.) They also argue,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007