Appeal No. 2004-0960
Application No. 09/750,394
e. a scheduler for maintaining a schedule for
each individual allowed access to any of said
high-security zones within said high security
facility system having a secure line for
communication to said local decision-making
computer, said scheduler providing an indication
of whether said presenting individual that is
presenting for a live biometric reading is
permitted access to a door associated with a
high-security zone associated with said door.
THE REFERENCES
Silverman et al. (Silverman) 4,213,038 Jul. 15, 1980
Verslycken 4,652,862 Mar. 24, 1987
Mauch 4,760,393 Jul. 26, 1988
Piosenka et al. (Piosenka) 4,993,068 Feb. 12, 1991
Wiik et al. (Wiik) 5,260,551 Nov. 9, 1993
Bergholz et al. (Bergholz) 5,812,067 Sep. 22, 1998
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10,
11 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Piosenka;
claims 6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Piosenka in
view of Mauch; claims 12 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Piosenka in view of Bergholz or Silverman; claim 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Piosenka in view of Wiik;
and claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Piosenka in
view of Bergholz, Silverman, and Verslycken.
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejections. We need to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007