Appeal No. 2003-0429
Application 09/282,862
simply be ignored. The artisan would have found it obvious to
broadly protect a sensor by providing a cover when the sensor is
not in use. Rambaldi teaches a coating or cover for protecting
the sensors from abrasion, contamination and electrostatic
discharge. The artisan would have appreciated that the sensors
of Bolle should be covered when not in use so the fingerprint
sensor does not become dirty. Such contamination would severely
hamper the accuracy of a fingerprint detector.
With respect to dependent claim 2, appellants argue that
Rambaldi does not inherently teach a cover that includes a
discharge path as claimed [brief, pages 10-11]. The examiner
responds that Rambaldi teaches a cover for protecting a sensor
against electrostatic discharge.
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 2. The
collective teachings of the applied prior art and the knowledge
of the skilled artisan would have suggested the cover as
discussed above with respect to claim 1. Since Rambaldi teaches
that an electrostatic discharge path is desirable, we find that
the discharge path recitation of claim 2 would have been obvious
to the artisan.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007