Appeal No. 2006-2919 Page 26
Application No. 10/291,955
note that we have found supra that Roustaei explicitly discloses an imager
61 that can capture both a bar code and a photograph image [col. 4, §§
0041, 0044, see also fig. 8, step 83: “BAR CODE OR PHOTOGRAPH”]. We
further note that the examiner’s rejection is based upon the combination of
the references. We note that Roustaei discloses an image processor 64
[¶ 0040]. We further find that the use of a processor is inherent in
Houvener’s biometric identification system. Therefore, we find that the
weight of the evidence supports the examiner’s position that the
combination of Houvener and Roustaei teaches or suggests all that is
claimed. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 1 as being unpatentable over Houvener in view of
Roustaei for the same reasons set forth in the rejection and in the discussion
above.
Because independent claims 11 and 17 recite similar limitations to
claim 1, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims as being
unpatentable over the Houvener in view of Roustaei for the same reasons
discussed supra with respect to claim 1. We note that appellants have not
presented any substantive arguments directed separately to the patentability
of dependent claims 4, 13 and 19. 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). Therefore,
we will also sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims as being
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007