Appeal No. 2006-2919 Page 16
Application No. 10/291,955
with the examiner that the broad language of representative claim 1 reads
on locating biometric information stored on a bar code, as disclosed by
Gerety at col. 12, lines 42-47.
Therefore, we find the examiner’s proffered combination of Gerety and
Roustaei teaches or suggests all that is claimed. Accordingly, we will sustain
the examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 as being unpatentable
over Gerety in view of Roustaei for essentially the same reasons argued by
the examiner in the answer. Because independent claims 11 and 17 recite
similar limitations to claim 1, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of
these claims as being unpatentable over Gerety in view of Roustaei for the
same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1. We note that
appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 14, 15,
20 and 21. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528
(Fed. Cir. 1987). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). Therefore,
we will also sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims as being
unpatentable over Gerety in view of Roustaei for the same reasons set forth
in the rejection.
GROUP II
II. We consider next the examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 10, 16, 18 and
22 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Gerety in view of Roustaei,
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007