Appeal No. 2003-0429
Application 09/282,862
With respect to dependent claim 3, appellants simply
broadly contest the examiner’s finding that Rambaldi teaches the
additional limitation of claim 3, but appellants offer no
substantive analysis to support this position [brief,
pages 11-12].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 3. The
artisan would have found it obvious to effect the electrostatic
discharge taught by Rambaldi by providing a conductive path
between the cover and ground. Providing a grounding path to
prevent electrostatic discharge is a conventional procedure well
known to artisans in this area.
With respect to dependent claim 4, appellants argue that
the examiner has improperly relied on inherency in making the
rejection of claim 4 [brief, pages 12-13].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
Bolle teaches the additional limitations of claim 4 because the
additional sensor of Bolle measures temporal variations of the
fingerprint signals. Therefore, the additional sensor of Bolle
must be located at the point where the fingerprint signals are
detected, that is, at the same location.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007