Appeal 2007-1736
Application 10/979,129
known elements in the fashion claimed.” Id., 127 S. Ct. at 1740-41,
82 USPQ2d at 1396. Such a showing requires “some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id., 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d
at 1396 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336
(Fed. Cir. 2006)).
If the Examiner’s burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
Appellants to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence.
Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and
the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Regarding representative claim 1,3 the Examiner's rejection essentially
finds that Calvesio teaches a security system with every claimed feature
including a general teaching of verifying an individual’s facial
characteristics for security purposes. The Examiner, however, notes that
Calvesio does not disclose the specific method used for such facial
recognition, namely (1) retrieving facial images from a facial recognition
reader, (2) retrieving stored facial templates from a database, and (3)
comparing the processed facial images with the stored facial template as
claimed. The Examiner cites Ritter as teaching these features and concludes
3 Appellants argue claims 1-3 and 6-8 together as a group. See Br. 5-6.
Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013