Appeal No. 2006-2919 Page 18
Application No. 10/291,955
The examiner disagrees [answer, page 22]. The examiner asserts
there are no deficiencies of the proffered combination of Gerety in view of
Roustaei, and further in view of Oda [id.].
We note that we have fully addressed appellants’ argument alleging
that the cited combination of Gerety and Roustaei does not teach nor
suggest the limitation of locating stored biometric data based on data read
from the first image, as recited in claim 1. We agree with the examiner that
this limitation is taught by the cited combination of Gerety and Roustaei, as
discussed supra with respect to representative claim 1. We do not agree
with appellants’ argument that there is no motivation to combine the
teachings of Roustaei and Oda because Roustaei does not disclose a
biometric imager. We have fully addressed Roustaei’s imager in the
discussion of claim 1 supra. We note that the examiner has relied upon Oda
for its teaching of using light from the non-visible spectrum, as claimed in
representative claim 8. We find that Oda explicitly teaches the use of near
infrared light (col. 2, lines 44-46) and also visible light (col. 2, line 56) in
association with an iris code generating device. Therefore, we find the
examiner’s proffered combination of Gerety, Roustaei and Oda teaches or
suggests all that is claimed. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of representative claim 8 as being unpatentable over Gerety in
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007