Appeal 2007-0820
Application 09/734,808
1 implied finding that claim 5 requires the memory to be stored in a local
2 storage device, as discussed supra. Accordingly, we disagree with
3 Appellant’s argument that the claimed device distinguishes over Nakano
4 because Nakano determines whether a sub-credit limit is exceeded at a
5 remote server rather than “locally.” Thus, the sole difference between
6 Nakano and the subject matter of claim 5 is that Nakano does not disclose
7 the authentication information being provided by a bioauthentication device
8 (FF 8).
9 The Examiner found that Harada discloses “bio-authentication
10 information as the identification information where [the] bio-authentication
11 device provides the bio-authentication information that is a fingerprint
12 (col 7, lines 19-23) further where the sensor is on the remote control (col 7,
13 lines 14-18)” (Answer 6). Appellant did not traverse these findings by the
14 Examiner as to the scope and content of Harada (Appeal Br. 10-11 and
15 17-18). Thus, Harada shows that the use of a bioauthentication device
16 (fingerprint sensor) on a consumer electronics device (remote control) to
17 provide bioauthentication information (fingerprint) was known in the prior
18 art at the time of the invention (FF 9).
19 Because Nakano teaches every element of the device of claim 5 but
20 for the bioauthentication device element, the sole difference between
21 Appellant’s claim 5 and the teachings of Nakano is the use of
22 bioauthentication in place of Nakano’s password authentication (FF 8). In
23 that regard, Harada shows that it was known in the art at the time of the
24 invention to use a bioauthentication device on a remote control to provide
25 the bioauthentication information (FF 9).
26 With regard to Dethloff, the Examiner found:
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013