Appeal No. 2001-0040
Application No. 09/037,105
merely find that the specification sets forth examples of the other hand characteristics
which require a coarser resolution. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellant argues that all of the characteristics listed fall within the category of geometric
measurements of portions of the hand. We disagree with appellant whereas the palm
print would appear to be a measurement of the lines/grooves on the hand/palm.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. If the claim language were so limited, we
would agree with appellant, but we do not find the argument commensurate in scope
with the claim language. Appellant argues that the claimed invention has a functional
advantage over Ruell by eliminating the need for additional circuitry. (See reply brief at
page 2.) We do not find the argument commensurate in scope with the claim language
and find no limitation which supports this argument. Therefore, this argument is not
persuasive.
Appellant argues that the term “biometric” requires measurement as implied by
the root term “metric.” (See reply brief at page 2.) While we agree with appellant that a
biometric involves a measure of a characteristic, the language of independent claim 1
does not require a numeric value. Therefore, we disagree with appellant’s
interpretation of the language of claim 1. Measuring the presence of a characteristic
meets the limitation of “sensing at least one other hand biometric characteristic.” Here,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007