Appeal No. 2003-0429
Application 09/282,862
limitations of claim 1. Appellants also dispute that Rambaldi
teaches a protective cover for a biometric sensor as claimed
[brief, pages 5-10].
The examiner responds that appellants have failed to
argue what the references would have suggested to one having
ordinary skill in the art. The examiner repeats his position
that the motivation to combine the references is found in common
knowledge and common sense. With respect to the location of the
two sensors of claim 1, the examiner observes that they are
adjacent or closely positioned since they are part of the same
system [answer, pages 9-14].
Appellants respond that the examiner is not entitled to
rely on common knowledge and common sense of the artisan to
support the combination of references. Appellants argue that the
examiner must submit objective evidence in support of modifying
or combining Bolle and Rambaldi [reply brief, pages 2-5].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1. At
the outset, we agree with the examiner that Bolle teaches the
invention of claim 1 except for the claimed cover. Appellants
appear to argue that Bolle does not teach the first biometric
sensor and the one additional sensor of claim 1 simply because
the examiner clearly reversed the reading of the claimed sensors
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007