Appeal No. 2006-2241
Application No. 09/827,291
The examiner, on page 3 of the answer, equates each of the limitations of claim 1
with Pare with the exception of stating:
What is not clear and explicit from the teachings of Pare [is] exactly how a digital
signature (certificate) is generated from the biometric information (See Pare
column 12, lines 5-23). However, Musgrave is specific and clear on application
and use of specific biometric information and creating a hash value of the
information and signing the biometric certificate and forwarding the data to the
authenticating authority (See Musgrave column 6, line 15-column 6, line 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to … apply the Musgrave method and
system with the system of Pare for the motivation of further enhancement of both
security as well as reduction of computational resources (See Musgrave column 3,
lines 8-22).
Initially, we note that independent claim 1 does not include a limitation directed
to a “generating a digital signature from the biometric data,” however; claim 9 does
contain such a limitation. Thus, it appears that Pare alone is relied upon to provide the
disclosure that describes the limitations of claim 1, and as such it is immaterial to the
rejection of claim 1 whether there is proper motivation to modify Pare to include
generating a digital signature from the biometric data. Nonetheless, we are not persuaded
by appellants’ argument. Pare teaches that communication between the PIA and the DPC
can occur by many different communications methods and that the methods should be
secure and that public/ private keys may be used (See Pare ‘348 Column 8, lines 29
through 39 or Pare ‘166, column 8, lines 23 through 33). Thus, Pare directly provides
suggestion to use public or private keys to encrypt information. Musgrave teaches a
system for increased security, by generating a digital certificate from biometric data and a
public key. (See Column 3, lines 25 through 27 and lines 40 through 48). Thus, we find
ample evidence of record to support the examiner’s finding of motivation to combine
Pare and Musgrave.
For the forgoing reasons we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1. On
pages 21 and 22 of the brief, appellants argue that the rejection of claims 2, 8 through 11,
and 13 through 15 is improper for the same reasons as discussed with respect to claim 1.
Similarly, on pages 25 and 26 of the brief, appellants argue that the rejection of claims 6
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007