Appeal No. 2006-2919 Page 17
Application No. 10/291,955
and further in view of Oda. Since appellants’ arguments with respect to this
rejection have treated these claims as a single group which stand or fall
together, we will consider dependent claim 8 as the representative claim for
this rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellants assert that the cited combination of Gerety and Roustaei
and Oda does not teach nor suggest the limitation of locating stored
biometric data based on data read from the first image [brief, page 12; see
underlined portion under the “B” heading]. Appellants argue that the iris
code generating device described by Oda is used solely for authentication
based on iris images and that Oda fails to show or suggest using the iris
code generation device for other types of biometric authentication and to
image bar codes [id.]. Appellants argue that because Roustaei does not
disclose a biometric imager, there is no motivation to combine the teachings
of Roustaei and Oda [id.]. Appellants assert that Oda teaches taking iris
images, generating iris codes from the images, and comparing the iris codes
to stored iris codes [id.]. Appellants argue that no images are captured for
the purposes of indexing the stored iris codes [id.]. Instead, appellants
conclude the generated iris codes must be compared directly against the
stored iris codes [id.].
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007