Appeal 2007-1736
Application 10/979,129
In our view, Calvesio strongly suggests comparing data obtained from
one checkpoint with another. As the Examiner indicates, monitoring the
egress of a particular individual throughout a secured facility (Calvesio, col.
8, ll. 4-44) would, at a minimum, involve identifying that individual at each
entrance and exit. To track a particular individual’s whereabouts, the system
must first obtain the identity of a particular individual, and then verify the
identity of that individual every time a card is swiped (i.e., when entering a
zone).
Such tracking, in our view, strongly suggests comparing the identity
of the individual for every card swipe at least with respect to the identity
data obtained at the initial checkpoint. That is, data obtained at the initial
checkpoint (i.e., the guard desk) would inform the system that a particular
individual has entered the secured facility. Following this initial data input,
any subsequent egress monitoring would, at least implicitly, involve
comparing the identity of the individual who initially entered the facility
with the identity information subsequently obtained at each respective zone.
Calvesio provides further evidence of comparing data from different
checkpoints. Specifically, Calvesio notes that an access violation can occur
if an individual somehow exits a zone without swiping a card or otherwise
providing an event that records leaving the zone in the system. As an
example, Calvesio notes that if the system indicates that the individual is in
Zone 2, but seeks passage into Zone 5, both the local guard and the
enrollment facility should receive automated notification from the computer
equipment at the door to Zone 5 (Calvesio, col. 10, ll. 42-65).
As shown in Figure 5, an individual in Zone 2 cannot enter Zone 5
without first passing through Zones 3 and 4. To enter Zone 5, the individual
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013