Appeal No. 2001-0040
Application No. 09/037,105
we find the presence of a pulse to be the “sensing at least one other hand biometric
characteristic” as recited in the language of the claim when interpreted in view of its
ordinary definition. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Similarly, dependent claim 10 falls with independent claim 1
since no separate argument for patentability has been set forth.
With respect to dependent claim 12, appellant argues that the examiner is in
error in his interpretation of Ruell in his interpretation of other or different portions of the
hand than the finger tip. (See brief at page 6.) We disagree with appellant and find
that the presence of a pulse frequency would be a characteristic other than the finger
tip. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of
dependent claim 12.
With respect to dependent claim 11, the examiner maintains that Ruell teaches
the difference in density of the sensors. (See answer at page 6.) Appellant argues that
the spacing is the same between adjacent elements in the different portions, but does
not identify any support for this position. (See brief at pages 6-7.) The examiner
maintains that the spacing is different in the argument section at pages 14-15 of the
answer (but the examiner addresses it with respect to claim 13). We agree with the
examiner’s support in the answer for why the spacing would be different, and appellant
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007