Appeal No. 2003-0429
Application 09/282,862
With respect to independent claim 6, appellants argue
that the examiner has not provided any objective evidence to
support the proposed modification [brief, page 13].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 6.
Claim 6 is similar to claim 1 except that it recites that the
biometric sensor is provided within a housing of a personal
computer. The biometric sensor disclosed by Bolle has to be
placed somewhere. The artisan would have expected that the
sensor could be placed at any accessible location with respect to
the processing device including within the housing. Therefore,
we find that it would have been obvious to the artisan to broadly
locate the sensor within the housing of a personal computer.
With respect to independent claim 8, appellants dispute
the examiner’s position that movable covers were well known in
the art and that the applied prior art teaches providing an
electrostatic discharge path when the cover is opened [brief,
pages 14-16].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 8. As
noted above, we have found that the applied prior art and the
skill of the artisan teaches a cover for a sensor and Rambaldi
teaches protecting the sensor against electrostatic discharge.
We are not persuaded by appellants’ argument that movable covers
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007