Appeal 2007-0757
Application 09/952,249
Bolle ‘895 states that the predetermined values are of the same magnitude as
the average inter-ridge line distance. (Column 12, lines 34-35.)
Since Appellants have not shown a deficiency in the Examiner’s
initial showing, we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and
independent claims 8 and 14 which have not been separately argued.
With respect to dependent claim 2, Appellant argues that the generic
description at column 2 of Bolle ’895, relied upon by the Examiner, fails to
teach all of the claimed limitations (Reply Br. 3 and Br. 8). We agree that
the cited text is not as specific as desirable, but we find that column 1
discloses fingerprint analysis and bifurcation minutiae of a bifurcated ridge.
We find that addressing and using bifurcation minutiae in the analysis of
fingerprint images would have taught or fairly suggested rectifying at least
some of the bifurcation minutiae. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not
persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of dependent claim 2 and
dependent claims 9 and 15 grouped therewith by Appellants.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Bolle ‘895 teaches the use of
pixels in the analysis as discussed above with respect to independent claim
1. Therefore, we find that the rectifying would be on a pixel-by-pixel basis.
While Appellants identify that the processing is not described. Appellants
have not identified how the use of pixels in the processing as discussed by
Bolle ‘895 would not have been pixel-by-pixel basis nor have Appellants
identified any specific definition in the art or in the instant Specification.
Finding only unsupported allegation, we cannot agree with Appellants that it
would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the
invention that Bolle ‘895 does not teach or fairly suggest pixel-by-pixel
analysis. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive, and we will
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013