Appeal No. 2006-2919 Page 10
Application No. 10/291,955
person, and (2) comparing the collected biometric information to biometric
information stored on a bar code (Gerety, col. 12, lines 42-47) [id.].
Appellants argue the bar code information is not located, since there is no
database to search [id.].
With respect to Roustaei, appellants argue: “as discussed in the
specification of the present invention using a single imager to capture both
biometric and bar code data requires taking into consideration factors such
as the type of light used. (See Specification, p. 6, lines 15-27)” [id.].
Appellants assert that Roustaei’s bar code images and the regular images
are captured in the same manner and there is no indication or suggestion
whatsoever that the captured images, either reformatted or unmodified, are
suitable for use as biometric images [reply brief, page 4, cont’d page 5].
Appellants acknowledge that combining Gerety and Roustaei would
enable Gerety's imager to capture bar code images and “regular images”
[reply brief, page 5]. However, appellants assert that this combination
would still be insufficient to disclose the imager recited in claim 1 [id.].
Appellants assert that even though Gerety teaches capturing biometric
images, Roustaei’s imager is incapable of doing so, and combining these two
references, while enabling the capture of bar code and “regular images”
using a single imager, does not enable the capture of bar code and biometric
images by the single imager [id.].
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007