Appeal 2007-1736
Application 10/979,129
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention to incorporate such facial recognition features in Calvesio to
authenticate an individual (Answer 4-5).
Appellants argue that the prior art does not teach comparing the data
from the first checkpoint with the data read at the second checkpoint (Br. 5-
6). The Examiner responds that Calvesio’s monitoring of a person’s egress
within a secured facility involves verifying a person’s identity at the
entrance and exit (i.e., verifying that the same person entered and left the
security zone). According to the Examiner, such a verification would
inherently include comparing the individual’s identity at the entrance and
exit (Answer 16-17).
Appellants argue that it is not inherent that Calvesio checks data read
at one checkpoint when reading data at another checkpoint, particularly in
view of the reference’s emphasis on tracking people with a central database.
Appellants add that there is no need to check previously read data in
Calvesio since, among other things, Calvesio assumes anyone at an exit is
properly in the secured area they are leaving (Reply Br. 2-3).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1.
Calvesio discloses a high security identification system that controls access
to various zones within a secured facility. As shown in Figure 5, the facility
(FAC1) is divided into five zones. After the individual enters the facility by
passing through Gate G1 and the guard desk, entry to each respective zone is
controlled by restricting passage through doors G2-G7 via corresponding
card readers R2-R7 that are also associated with a biometric measuring
facility (Calvesio, col. 7, l. 40 – col. 8, l. 3; Fig. 5).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013