Appeal No. 2004-0960
Application No. 09/750,394
system claimed in the appellants’ claim 1 or claim 13.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 1 and its
dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10 and 11, and claim 13 and its
dependent claims 14 and 15. As for claims 6, 9 and 12 which
depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, and claim 16 that
depends indirectly from claim 13, and are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103, the examiner does not explain why the direct
tentative identifier device and the biometric reader required by
claim 1, or the door control computer required by claim 13, would
have been fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art by
the applied prior art. Hence, we reverse the rejection of
claims 6, 9, 12 and 16.
Claim 17
Claim 17 requires producing, by use of a tentative
identifier device, a present ID code signal that tentatively
identifies an individual, and comparing the individual’s live
biometric data to archived biometric data related to an archived
ID code signal that matches the present ID code signal.
The examiner has not provided an explanation as to how the
applied prior art would have fairly suggested that claim
requirement to one of ordinary skill in the art. The examiner,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007