Appeal No. 2006-2919 Page 8
Application No. 10/291,955
should be reversed for essentially the same reasons previously argued with
respect to claim 1, noting that these claims recite limitations similar to
claim 1 [brief, pages 9 and 10].
The examiner disagrees [answer, page 19]. The examiner points out
that claim 1 is silent with respect to whether the biometric data is stored
locally or remotely [id.]. The examiner notes that claim 1 merely recites:
“wherein the stored biometric data is located based on the data read from
the first image” [answer, p. 19, emphasis added]. The examiner asserts
that the combination of Gerety and Roustaei teaches a portable device for
authenticating the identity of a person, as claimed [id.]. The examiner notes
that Gerety teaches a processor that compares the extracted data of a
second image (such as a captured fingerprint image) to a person’s stored
biometric data wherein the stored biometric data is located based on the
data read from the first image (col. 12, lines 37-49) [id.]. The examiner
notes that Gerety uses address patterns 130 and 190 and patterns 140 and
160 to determine the orientation of data portion 200 and to track data
portion 200 (col. 8, lines 25-48; see figs. 2a and 2b) [id.]. The examiner
notes that data portion 200 is the area in the 2D printed code that stores the
stored biometric data [id.]. The examiner asserts that a tracking process is a
locating process [id.]. The examiner corresponds the whole image
represented by fig. 2b to the claimed first image [id.]. The examiner notes
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007