Appeal No. 2006-2919 Page 7
Application No. 10/291,955
Gerety in view of Roustaei. Since appellants’ arguments with respect to this
rejection have treated these claims as a single group which stand or fall
together, we will consider independent claim 1 as the representative claim
for this rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellants argue that the cited combination of Gerety and Roustaei
does not teach nor suggest the limitation of locating stored biometric data
based on data read from the first image [brief, page 7; see underlined
portion under the “B” heading]. Appellants argue that Gerety teaches that
biometric information is immediately accessed rather than located based on
the data read from the bar code [brief, page 7]. Appellants point out that
the biometric information of the instant invention is not stored in the bar
code, but is stored at some location and is located based on the data read
from the bar code [brief, page 8, emphasis added].
Appellants further argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have been motivated to combine Gerety and Roustaei in the manner
suggested by the examiner because Gerety is directed to the field of
biometric authentication devices and Roustaei is directed to the field of
telecommunications devices (e.g., camera phones) [brief, page 9].
Appellants further argue that neither Gerety nor Roustaei teaches or
suggests an imager capable of capturing both biometric and bar code data
[id.]. Appellants argue that the rejections for independent claims 11 and 17
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007