Appeal 2006-3331
Application 10/829,797
that the check is good (Findings of Fact 8 & 10). In particular, McNeal’s main
system 12 compares the transmitted information with stored checking account
information (from the check information database) and stored personal
identification access information (from the biometric database) at the main system
12 for verification (Findings of Fact 10 & 11). McNeal’s main system then
transmits the verification signal (decision on approval) to the first location (point
of sale) (Finding of Fact 10).
The Appellant argues that McNeal’s biometric information is “tied to the
identity of the person and not access information tied to the check” (Appeal Br. 7).
We disagree. The Appellant is suggesting that biometric data can be used only to
identify an individual. This is not true. Biometric inputs can both identify, to the
extent they are unique, and authenticate. As we found supra, McNeal discloses
that its main system 12 checks to see that the fingerprint data is that of an account
owner authorized to use that account (Finding of Fact 11). As such, McNeal
specifically authenticates the user by correlating the scanned fingerprint with the
checking account information to determine if the person associated with the
fingerprint is allowed access to the account. Accordingly, McNeal’s access
information (i.e., the fingerprint) is tied to, or associated with, the check (i.e., the
checking account information).
We admit that McNeal does not provide much explanation of the main
system 12, such as whether the main system 12 is independent of the retailer at the
point of sale. As such, we turn to Abecassis to show that it was well known in the
art at the time the invention was made to use independent third party service
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013