Appeal No. 1999-1847
Application No. 08/810,581
195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664, 169 USPQ 563,
566-67 (CCPA 1971).
In the rejection, the examiner merely bodily incorporates quotations from Wuhrl (answer
at pages 14-20) and then states that appellant’s remarks “have been answered by the
application of the reference as noted above.” (See answer at page 20.) We disagree
with the examiner. The examiner acknowledges appellant’s argument that Wuhrl
compares a single image and not plural images and that Wuhrl does not teach the use of
an image comparator for comparing the signature image to a plurality of sample images,
but the examiner does not provide a response to this argument or identify a teaching in
Wuhrl. (See answer at page 21.) Furthermore, the examiner’s prior discussion of Wuhrl
with respect to the comparing step (answer at page 19) does not address this aspect of
the claimed invention. The examiner maintains that the control information for control
measurement points are plural samples. (See answer at page 22.) We disagree with the
examiner’s creative interpretation of Wuhrl. We agree with appellant that Wuhrl is not
directed to plural images as recited in claim 7.
Appellant argues that Wuhrl does not teach outputting the identification of the digitized
sample image upon a match with the digitized signature image. (See brief at page 9.)
We agree with appellant. The examiner maintains that Wuhrl outputs correlation
information to the operator. (See answer at page 22; Wuhrl at col. 8.) We disagree with
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007