Appeal No. 2004-0960
Application No. 09/750,394
the communications medium fails (col. 2, lines 28-33). Piosenka
avoids those disadvantages by storing a person’s biometric data
on a portable memory device such as an ID card rather than
storing it in a central repository (col. 2, lines 63-66; col. 6,
lines 40-48; col. 10, lines 12-27). Thus, unlike the system in
the appellants’ claims 1 and 13 which compares live biometric
data to biometric data maintained on a computer system,
Piosenka’s system compares live biometric data to biometric data
stored on the person’s portable memory device such as an ID card.
The examiner argues that each of Piosenka’s remote access
points “includes a biometric reader which reads biometric
information and compares it with the biometric data files
maintained on the secure computer, see col. 6, lines 49+”
(answer, page 4). The relied-upon portion of Piosenka discloses
that a person’s biometric and other information can be sent from
a trusted computer to a remote site where the information is set
on a hard memory medium which serves as the person’s
identification credential. That portion does not disclose that
biometric data from the biometric data reader is compared to
biometric data maintained on a computer system.
We therefore find that the examiner has not carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007