Ex Parte HARKIN - Page 2




             Appeal No. 2001-0040                                                                                  
             Application No. 09/037,105                                                                            


                                                 BACKGROUND                                                        
                    Appellant's invention relates to a hand biometrics sensing device.  An                         
             understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1,                    
             which is reproduced below.                                                                            
                    1.     A sensing device for sensing a biometric characteristic of a                            
                    person's hand and comprising a matrix array of sensing elements defining                       
                    a sensing area, characterised [sic] in that in a first portion of the array the                
                    sensing elements have a resolution capable of sensing the fingerprint                          
                    pattern of a person's finger when placed over that portion of the sensing                      
                    area and in a second portion of the array the sensing elements have a                          
                    lower resolution for sensing at least one other hand biometric                                 
                    characteristic.                                                                                
                    The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                
             appealed claims are:                                                                                  

             Ruell                             4,394,773                         Jul. 19, 1983                     
             Knapp                             5,325,442                         Jun. 28, 1994                     
                    Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being                      
             indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which        
             applicant regards as the invention.  Claims 1 and 10-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                
             § 102 as being anticipated by Ruell.  Claims 1-4, 6-8, 13 and 14 stand rejected under                 
             35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Knapp in view of Ruell.                                    





                                                        2                                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007