Interference No. 104,649
Page No. 26
Concepts in Mountain View, California in late December 1993 or early January 1994. (KX
1007, 16 and KX 1008, 14). This removable platen prototype was then shown to Mr. Pieper and
successfully tested for him before the end of January 1994. (KX 1008, T 4 and KX 1006, 17).
All three declarations state that the prototype device successfully tested in December 1993 or
January 1994 is described by Keagy claim 1, whose language is identical to Count 1. (KX 1006,
9, KX 1007,$ 9, and KX 1008,18).
The three declarations submitted by Keagy describe the testing of a microprism platen for
an electronic fingerprint system. The description of the device that is mentioned in the three
declarations is consistent with the description contained as an attachment to a letter from Mr.
Keagy to Harold Jackson, Esq. that bears a date of January 31, 1994. (KX 1005). Specifically,
the letter indicates that an updated disclosure of the fingerprint platen and fingerprint card reader
was being provided to Mr. Jackson. The disclosure describes a platen that employs an optical
surface to separate beams used in imaging the fingerprint. Suitable optical surfaces are said to
include "small prisms in parallel rows." (KX 1005, Exhibit B, p. 3 of 6).
Keagy has filed sufficient and convincing evidence that a reduction to practice occurred
in this country for Keagy's claimed invention. This reduction to practice was prior to the
effective date of the Chen reference. Accordingly, Chen is not available as a prior art reference
to Keagy's claims.
Additionally we note that Chen teaches that its microprisms are "elastic" as compared to
the "rigid" prismlets recited in Keagy claim 1, Zhou claim I and Caunt 1, _Indeed, Chelm.,
specifically states that the microprisms become deformed when impressed by a finger. (ZX
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007