Appeal No. 2006-2919 Page 21
Application No. 10/291,955
imager that can sense the image of an individual (i.e., far focus) and the
image of a bar code (i.e., near focus) [id.]. In particular, we note that
Zagami discloses an adjustable focus camera at col. 5, lines 35-38:
The camera utilizes focusing methods well known in
the art to adjust the focal length of lens 38, such as
using an infrared signal to measure the distance.
Therefore, we find that Zagami teaches a dual focus imager (i.e., an
adjustable focus camera), as claimed. Accordingly, we will sustain 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.
GROUP IV
IV. Lastly, we consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 11, 13, 17
and 19 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Houvener in view of
Roustaei. Since appellants’ arguments with respect to this rejection have
treated these claims as a single group which stand or fall together, we will
select independent claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection
because it is the broadest independent claim in this group. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellants assert that the cited combination of Houvener and Roustaei
does not teach nor suggest the limitation of locating stored biometric data
based on data read from the first image [brief, page 16; see underlined
portion under the “B” heading]. Appellants argue that Houvener fails to
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007