Appeal 2007-0757
Application 09/952,249
Additionally, we find that Bolle ‘895 teaches the use of well-known
Euclidean geometry to determine distances between minutiae and that Bolle
‘895 teaches that this is done using numbers of pixels. (Bolle ‘895 col. 6, ll.
64-67).
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s assertion of “implication or
inherency” is incorrect (Br. 5-6). We disagree with Appellants’ arguments
that the Examiner is relying upon implication and inherency. We find that
the Examiner is merely relying upon the premise that for a value to be used
in a computation or determination, the value must be determined for it to be
used. The value may not necessarily be calculated dynamically, as discussed
above. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that the portions of Bolle ‘895 cited by the Examiner
with respect to manual pruning are based upon visual inspection and not
based upon the average inter-ridge distance. We disagree with Appellants
and find that Bolle ‘895 does use the average inter-ridge distance. We
further find that the average would have been used by the operator or
dynamically/adaptively as discussed in column 14 of Bolle ‘895. We find
that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the
invention to have used the estimate of the average inter-ridge distance in
pruning the spurs.
Appellants argue that the automatic pruning feature of Bolle ‘895 is
based upon pre-determined distances and none of these distances correspond
to the average inter-ridge distance. As discussed above, we do find that
there is a determination in a pre-determined value, as discussed above in the
claim interpretation. Here, we find that pre-determined values would meet
the step of “determining” as recited in independent claim 1. Additionally,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013