Appeal No. 2006-2919 Page 20
Application No. 10/291,955
Zagami’s digital imager neither captures biometric data nor bar code data,
but instead produces an image for an access pass [id.]. Appellants point out
that Zagami’s access pass image (fig. 1) is a composite of an image of the
person and an image of the person's identification document [id.].
Appellants assert that with the exception of the bar code, the images on the
access card are not machine-readable [id.]. Appellants conclude that
Zagami is insufficient to cure the deficiencies of Gerety or Roustaei [id.].
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 Zagami [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. 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 note that claim 7 recites the limitation of: “wherein the imager is a
dual focus imager.” In the rejection the examiner acknowledges that
Gerety and Roustaei do not teach a dual focus imager [answer, page 8].
However, the examiner points to Zagami (col. 7, lines 22-40) for the
teaching of an access pass that works in association with a dual focus
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007