Appeal No. 2002-0l08
Application No.09/200,981
successfully being verified by both the terminal and the server
(col. 13, lines 20-29)” [answer-page 7].
While providing an additional level of security may be a
valid goal of an artisan, the examiner’s rationale, in our view,
is unconvincing as to what would have led the artisan to take an
authentication at the client terminal (Lane) and an
authentication at a server (Maes) and combine them in order to
first authenticate at the client terminal, by comparing a sensed
fingerprint with fingerprint information contained on an IC card,
and send information, including an authentication signal, to a
server only upon a match of fingerprint information whereby, upon
receipt of such information, the server then compares the
fingerprint information sensed at the client terminal with
fingerprint information stored in a database at the server so as
to determine if the fingerprint sensed at the client terminal
belongs to the owner of the IC card. The desire, per se, to
provide an additional level of security would not have led to the
specific combination of elements and interrelationships set forth
by the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 5.
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007