Appeal No. 2007-0151
Application No. 10/081,132
claims over Trandal and Patel in combination with Olshansky, as discussed
above, we find the Examiner’s reasoning for the combination to be
convincing. We therefore sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1
and 3, as well as claims 4-8, argued (Br. 11) as falling with their base claims.
Regarding claim 2, Appellants assert that the combination of the
references fails to teach or suggest the enabling voice communication to and
from each terminal for which a sensed finger-image was authenticated (Br.
11). We agree with the Examiner (Answer 13-14) that the claim does not
require that the users at both sides of a voice communication must be
authenticated and instead, recites that voice communication be enabled for
any terminal for which a sensed finger-image is authenticated (Answer 14).
In that regard, the combination of Olshansky, Trandal, and Patel does
suggest the recited enabling means since the voice communication and the
network-related function may be performed even if only one terminal is
authenticated. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, Appellants assert that adding Chang to the
combination does not provide for the features related to enabling one
authenticated terminal to participate in voice communication over the
network with another terminal that also has been authenticated (Br. 10). In
response, the Examiner points out that the arguments made above with
respect to claims 1 and 3 are not quite relevant to claim 9 since claim 9 does
not require both voice communication and network-related function to be
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013