Appeal No. 2006-2919 Page 19
Application No. 10/291,955
view of Roustaei and Oda for the same reasons set forth in the examiner’s
rejection and in the discussion above.
We note that appellants have not presented any substantive
arguments directed separately to the patentability of dependent claims 10,
16, 18 and 22. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d at 1572, 2 USPQ2d at 1528. See
also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). Because these claims recite similar
limitations to claim 8, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of these
claims as being unpatentable over Gerety in view of Roustaei and further in
view of Oda for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 8.
GROUP III
III. We consider next the examiner’s rejection of claim 7 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Gerety in view of Roustaei, and further in
view of Zagami.
Appellants assert that the cited combination of Gerety and Roustaei
and Zagami does not teach nor suggest the limitation of locating stored
biometric data based on data read from the first image [brief, page 14; see
underlined portion under the “B” heading]. Appellants assert that Zagami
does not disclose a system to authenticate visitors, but merely produces
access passes for those visitors who have been authenticated manually or by
another device (col. 6, lines 17-26) [id.]. Appellants further assert that
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007