Appeal 2006-3331
Application 10/829,797
Abecassis teaches that it was known in the art at the time the invention was
made to use a personal identification number (PIN) as a means to control access to
a system. In particular, Abecassis describes that in one embodiment, the user
making a payment by check enters a check number (at step 2206), the check
information is then transmitted (at step 2209) to the deposit center 40 and the
Finding of Fact 16). Abecassis teaches that the approval transaction entails first
checking whether or not the user has a valid identification password (Finding of
Fact 17). Abecassis further discloses in another embodiment a method for a buyer
to place a payment of a deposit on hold by means of an interactive touch tone
phone 103 (Finding of Fact 18). To access the system, the user is asked via the
touch tone phone system to punch in the user’s key number and access code
(Finding of Fact 19).
The issue before us is whether the mere substitution of a known PIN in place
of McNeal’s fingerprint data would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art. We find that it would have been obvious because the substitution of a
PIN for a fingerprint as a means of identifying an authorized user would have been
within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded a
predictable result. See United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 42, 50-51 (1966) (when a
patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere
substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must
do more than yield a predictable result.)
Further, even though Abecassis teaches using the access code (or PIN) for
accessing the deposit center 40, rather than accessing a checking account, it would
21
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013