Appeal No. 2006-2919 Page 22
Application No. 10/291,955
teach or suggest using a single imager to capture both biometric and bar
code data [brief, page 16]. Appellants assert that after Houvener’s images
are captured, they are transmitted for processing at a remote site rather
than processed at the device itself [id.]. Appellants further argue that the
rejections for independent claims 11 and 17 should be reversed for
essentially the same reasons previously argued with respect to claim 1,
noting that these claims recite limitations similar to claim 1 [brief, page 17].
The examiner disagrees [answer, page 23]. The examiner notes that
the combination of Houvener and Roustaei is relied on to teach a single
imager to capture both biometric and bar code data [id.]. The examiner
further notes that Houvener teaches a portable device for authenticating
identity of a person as shown in figs. 1 and 2, and col. 6, lines 13-29 [id.].
The examiner notes that Houvener’s device comprises an image processing
unit reading encoded data in a first image from the system (col. 5, lines 32-
37; i.e., the code read by the bar code reader) [id.]. The examiner notes
that the image processing unit extracts a second image from the system to
generate extracted data, wherein the extracted image of the second image
corresponds to a portion of a person whose identity is to be authenticated,
as discussed in col. 5, line 59 to col. 6, line 2 [answer, page 23, cont’d page
24]. The examiner further notes that the extracted image can be the
fingerprint image or other biometric access authority information [answer,
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007