Appeal No. 2006-2919 Page 25
Application No. 10/291,955
Therefore, we agree with the examiner that Houvener discloses (in at
least one embodiment) locating stored biometric data based on data read
from the first (i.e., credit card bar code) image.
In response to appellants’ argument that biometric data is retrieved
from a remote database, we note that appellants have previously argued
that the biometric information of the instant invention “is not stored in the
bar code, but is stored at some location …” [brief, page 8, emphasis added].
We find that a remote database, as disclosed by Houvener (col. 6, line 53),
is “some location” [id.] We find that Houvener discloses a portable device
in fig. 2 and Roustaei discloses a portable device in fig. 4. We find that
Houvener discloses an image processing unit (i.e., a bar code reader)
reading encoded data (i.e., a bar code) in a first image [col. 5, lines 35-38].
We further find that Houvener obtains a “second image” from a fingerprint
scanner (col. 5, line 62) where a “derivative” (i.e., extracted portion) of the
fingerprint image is obtained (in one embodiment) for transmission to the
database for comparison with a stored biometric unit [col. 5, lines 67, col. 6,
lines 1 and 2, lines 52-59].
We agree with appellants that Houvener uses separate imaging
devices (i.e., a fingerprint scanner, and a bar code reader) to capture both
biometric and bar code data. However, we note that the examiner relies
upon Roustaei for its teaching of a single imager [answer, page 17]. We
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007