Appeal 2007-0820
Application 09/734,808
1 problem at the time of the invention to create a remote control that would
2 reliably ensure that the appropriate person was given access to the system.
3 The use of a fingerprint scanner, such as disclosed in Harada, was an
4 obvious solution to provide a more reliable means of identification than the
5 PIN code of Nakano. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 (“[o]ne
6 of the ways in which a patent's subject matter can be proved obvious is by
7 noting that there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which
8 there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent's claims.”) As
9 such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5-11 and 13-16 as
10 unpatentable over Nakano, Harada, and Dethloff.
11
12 CONCLUSION OF LAW
13 On the record before us, Appellant has failed to show that the
14 Examiner erred in rejecting the claims over the prior art.
15
16 DECISION
17 The decision of the Examiner to reject of claims 5-11 and 13-16 under
18 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Nakano, Harada, and Dethloff is
19 affirmed.
20
21 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
22 this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
23 AFFIRMED
24
25
26
21
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013