Appeal No. 2001-0040
Application No. 09/037,105
compared against other fingerprint data. Therefore, a processing means is set forth as
broadly recited in the language of dependent claim 8. Appellant argues that pulse data
is not stored for comparison with a proffered finger’s pulse. (See reply brief at page 4.)
We do not find appellant’s argument persuasive since the argument is not
commensurate with the language of dependent claim 8. Therefore, we will sustain the
rejection of claim 8.
With respect to claim 14, appellant argues that at least one of the row and/or
column detectors is coupled with both a first sensing element in a first portion and a
second sensing element in a second portion. (See brief at page 9.) Appellant argues
that the reference (we assume Knapp) teaches row and column conductors used only
for connection to sensors sensing a single type of data and that there is no teaching or
suggestion in the references that a single row or column conductor could be carrying
different types of data. (See brief at page 9.) It appears that appellant is attacking the
lack of a teaching in the individual references whereas, the examiner has made it
abundantly clear that the teaching would have come from the combination of Knapp
and Ruell together. We agree with the examiner’s analysis and do not find that
appellant has shown error in the examiner’s reasoning or identified why two different
types of data could not be carried by the same conductor(s). From our review of the
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007