Appeal No. 2006-2919 Page 15
Application No. 10/291,955
one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where
the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case,
the examiner’s rejection is based upon the combination of Gerety and
Roustaei. We further note appellants have acknowledged that combining
Gerety and Roustaei would enable Gerety's imager to capture bar code
images and “regular images” [reply brief, page 5]. We find that a “regular
image” broadly encompasses facial images as well as other images.
Appellants argue that Roustaei does not teach or suggest: “the image
processing unit extracting a portion of a second image from the image to
generate extracted portion data, wherein the extracted portion of the second
image corresponds to a portion of a person whose identity is to be
authenticated,” as recited in claim 1 [reply brief, page 5]. We note that the
examiner relies upon Gerety for this teaching [see answer, page 4]. Gerety
discloses a fingerprint image scanner (col. 13, line 20) and also iris scanning
and facial recognition [col. 13, lines 39 and 40]. We agree with the
examiner that Gerety teaches a processor (col. 12, line 42) that compares
(col. 12, line 43) the extracted data of a second image (such as a captured
fingerprint image, col. 12, line 42) 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) [see answer, page 4]. We further agree
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007