Ex Parte Waters et al - Page 8



                   Appeal No. 2006-2241                                                                                           
                   Application No. 09/827,291                                                                                     

                   and 7 is improper for the same reasons as discussed with respect to claim 1. Accordingly                       
                   we also sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 6 through 11 and 13 through 15.                          
                          Rejection of claims 3 and 4                                                                             
                          On pages 22 through 24 of the brief, appellants argue that the examiner                                 
                   misconstrued the limitations of claim 3.  Appellants assert, on page 24 of the brief, that                     
                   the scope of claim 3 is such that “the identifier for the financial account includes nothing                   
                   more than the obtained biometric data.”  Appellants argue that Pare does not teach direct                      
                   retrieval of the financial information from the biometric data.                                                
                          We are not persuaded by appellants’ argument.  Claim 3 recites “ a system for                           
                   supporting consumer access to a financial account by means of biometric data solely”                           
                   including a “payment device for sending said captured biometric data to a merchant                             
                   payment host as the identifier of the consumer’s financial data.”  As discussed supra Pare                     
                   teaches that a party can be identified in several manners including biometric data alone,                      
                   and that when the party has registered only one account, the one account is automatically                      
                   selected (as opposed to more then one account which requires additional user input to                          
                   select the appropriate account).  Thus, we find that Pare does teach accessing account                         
                   information solely using biometric data.                                                                       
                          On page 25 of the brief, appellants group claim 4 with claim 3.  Accordingly, we                        
                   also sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 4.                                                              

                          Rejection of claims 16 and 17.                                                                          

                          Appellants argue, on page 27 of the brief:                                                              
                          [C]laim 16 recites that the data storage key is further based upon the name of the                      
                          customer.  The examiner alleges that this additional limitation is disclosed in                         
                          Pare. (Office Action at page 6).  The examiner has failed, however, to identify                         
                          any portion of Pare which discusses the use of a consumer’s name to generate a                          
                          data storage key.  Additionally, the Appellants have searched Pare and found no                         
                          such teaching, disclosure or suggestion.                                                                




                                                                8                                                                 



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007