Appeal No. 2005-0167 Page 4
Application No. 10/272,722
uses a tracking card but argues that nowhere does it state that the tracking card stores
an image of the player for comparison to the captured image.
The specification states at lines 13 to 16:
The images captured on the electronic sensor board may be selectively
used for a variety of purposes, including verification of the identity of a
player with a player tracking card used by the player of the machine 10
and including security purposes.
We will not sustain this rejection. In our view, the specification discloses that a
player tracking card could be used to verify the identity of the player from the captured
electronic image. The specification does not explicitly disclose that a photo image is
contained on the tracking card. However, in our view, a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have known that tracking cards include photo images. We note that
Takemoto is evidence that it was known to include photo images on tracking cards (see
e.g. Takemoto, col. 17, lines 26 to 29). Therefore, the specification conveys to an
artisan in the field that the appellants had possession of a method that utilizes the
captured image and an image on the tracking card to identify a player. We agree with
the appellants that it is only logical that the identity of the player can be verified by
comparing the image captured and the image on the tracking card. As we explained
above, there is no requirement for the specification to literally support the language of
the claims.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 41 to 60 under 35 U.S.C.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007