Appeal No. 2001-0040
Application No. 09/037,105
examiner has provided a line of reasoning as to it being within the level of ordinary skill
in the art to combine the teachings. (See answer at page 8.) We agree with the
examiner that the addressing would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the
art. Appellant argues that there is no indication in Ruell that Ruell saw any advantage
to incorporate the detection of pulse into the matrix to detect fingerprints. (See reply
brief at page 3.) Appellant argues that the sensors in the second portion are only of a
lower resolution and not of a fundamentally different type. (See reply brief at page 3.)
We disagree with appellant’s argument since the claim does not expressly limit the
sensors to be the same type or limit what the other biometric characteristic is sensed.
We do not find that appellant has adequately rebutted the prima facie case of
obviousness set forth by the examiner, and we will sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 along with dependent claims 2, 3, 6 and 7 which
appellant has grouped with independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 3, appellant separately argues in the reply brief the aspect
of pitch and that the sensors 31/32 are irregular and without pitch. (See reply brief at
page 3.) We disagree with appellant and find that there appears to be a regular
spacing and organization to those sensors. Additionally, appellant elected to group
claim 3 with independent claim 1. (See brief at page 3.) Therefore, we will sustain the
rejection of dependent claim 3.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007