Appeal No. 2003-0429
Application 09/282,862
on the sensors of Bolle. In other words, it is apparent to us
that equipment 660 in Bolle captures images of fingerprints and
is, therefore, a biometric sensor. It is also clear to us that
force sensor 665 in Bolle is used to detect force variations
[column 8] and is, therefore, a sensor for determining if the
personal input is from a living person. The fact that the
examiner reversed the reading of the Bolle sensors does not
negate what the reference actually teaches to the skilled
artisan. The two sensors are clearly adjacent to each other
because the additional sensor of Bolle measures temporal changes
of the fingertip at the fingerprint sensor.
Claim 1 simply recites that the computer has a cover for
protecting the sensors from environmental forces when the sensors
are not in use. Although Rambaldi may not be the best reference
for teaching a cover as recited in claim 1, Rambaldi does teach
providing a protective coating or cover for sensors. As noted by
appellants, the examiner cannot simply rely on common sense and
common knowledge as a substitute for evidence lacking in the
record. This particular record, however, does support the
rejection as formulated by the examiner. Although there must be
prior art which teaches or suggests the broad concept of a cover
for a biometric sensor, the knowledge of the artisan cannot
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007