Appeal 2007-1736
Application 10/979,129
indicated as containing allowable subject matter (Answer 15-16). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants invented a dynamic security verification system that
verifies data read from a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag at two
different checkpoints. At a first checkpoint, data from an RFID tag is read
and used to retrieve a face print corresponding to information associated
with the RFID tag from a database. A facial image is then obtained and
compared with the retrieved face print.
At a second checkpoint, the RFID tag is re-read and this information
is compared with the information obtained at the first checkpoint. This
comparison provides a post-verification check to ensure the RFID data
matches. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for providing dynamic security verification, comprising:
storing data regarding information and a face print of a person in a
database, wherein the face print is represented by numerical codes of a face
image of the person;
at a first checkpoint, reading an RFID device and relating a read RFID
number to the information stored in the database, retrieving a face print
corresponding to the RFID device from the database;
2 Although Appellants indicate that the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims
1-27 is under appeal, the Examiner had indicated that claims 4 and 16
contain allowable subject matter. See Final Rejection, at 6; see also Answer,
at 15-16. In any event, the grounds of the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
in the Final Rejection were changed in the Answer to withdraw the Mays
reference in connection with the rejection of claims 1, 3, (not 1-3 as the
Examiner indicates on Page 3 of the Answer) 5-8, 17-21, 25, and 26
(Answer 3).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013