Appeal No. 2001-0040
Application No. 09/037,105
With respect to dependent claim 4, appellant argues that the examiner’s
combination of teachings is based upon impermissible hindsight. (See brief at page 8.)
We disagree with appellant as discussed above. Appellant argues that appellant is only
able to have different spacing of address conductors since the second portion is
different from the finger tip. (See brief at page 8.) We disagree with appellant. The
language of dependent claim 4 and intermediate claims 1 and 2 do not require a
different physical portion of the hand to be sensed. The “at least one other hand
biometric characteristic” is not necessarily a different physical portion of the hand.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
With respect to claim 8, appellant argues that claim 8 recites storage of hand
biometric characteristics. (See brief at page 8.) We disagree with appellant. We find
that the claim recites a processing means connected to the sensing devices for
comparing such with stored biometric characteristics. We find that Ruell teaches
comparison of the fingerprint data to stored fingerprint data only when the pulse
frequency of the individual touching the sensor is determined and when a filter
determines that the pulse frequency is in the frequency range of the human, then the
identification process is started. (Ruell at column 9, lines 33-44.) Therefore, the pulse
frequency is compared to a human range by way of a filter and the fingerprint is
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007