Appeal 2007-1736
Application 10/979,129
previous checkpoint (i.e., at the entrance to that zone), while the “Exiting
Zone” and “Entering Zone” data would have been obtained from a
subsequent checkpoint.
Therefore, not only does this functionality strongly suggest the
comparison recited in claim 1, but also the mismatch alarm signal recited in
claim 5.5
In addition, Calvesio notes that if an individual is approved to pass
through more than one security door at a given time and is approved for
travel through a particular portal, the system may also check to determine
whether this individual is recorded as present in another location at the
same time (Calvesio, col. 5, ll. 59-63) (emphasis added). In our view, such a
check for simultaneous presence in different locations would reasonably
involve comparing the location and identity information at the current
checkpoint (i.e., at the approved portal) with such information obtained from
other checkpoints.
For at least these reasons, we find Calvesio amply suggests comparing
data read at one checkpoint with data read at another checkpoint as recited in
claim 1 and the alarm signal indication of claim 5. Moreover, Appellants
have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s reliance on the secondary
reference to Ritter and its combination with Calvesio – a position that we
find reasonable.
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim
1 and claim 5. Likewise, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3
and 6-8 which fall with claim 1.
5 See id.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013