Ex Parte Linares

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 8, 2012

10190739 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 8, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/190,739 07/09/2002 Miguel Linares LMAI-10902/15 6950
25006 7590 06/11/2012
GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C
PO BOX 7021
TROY, MI 48007-7021
EXAMINER
DULANEY, KATHLEEN YUAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2624
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/11/2012 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MIGUEL LINARES
____________________

Appeal 2010-002882
Application 10/190,739
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
JENNIFER S. BISK, Administrative Patent Judges.

BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-002882
Application 10/190,739

2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 16, 19-22, and 25-28. Claims 1-15, 17, 18, 23, and 24
have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to a three-dimensional fingerprint based
personal identification system. Claim 16, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
16. A three-dimensional fingerprint identification
system comprising:
a fingerprint acquisition unit for capturing a stereoscopic
fingerprint image, said fingerprint image acquisition unit
comprises a transparent plate and at least one laser scanner for
obtaining a fingerprint image by optically scanning a finger
placed in contact with said plate;
said laser scanner further comprising at least two laser
sources positioned such that each scans sections of the finger
placed in contact with said transparent plate in a sweeping
manner producing sections with overlapping scan lines, said
overlapping sections providing stereoscopic images to
determine at least one of a depth as well as distance between
furrows associated with a selected print;
a fingerprint processing unit, operatively connected to
said fingerprint acquisition unit, for processing said captured
fingerprint image as digital data, said fingerprint processing
unit further comprising an image processor and a fingerprint
processing software configured to interface with said image
processor to analyze, classify and index said captured
fingerprint image;
Appeal 2010-002882
Application 10/190,739

3
said transparent plate and said laser scanner are in optical
communication such that said digital data is directly relayed,
via said laser scanner, to said fingerprint processing unit; and
a database management subsystem for storage and
retrieval of said digital data, a client-server configuration with
said fingerprint processing software defining a front-end
application and said database management sub-system defining
a back-end application.

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 16, 22, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Taylor (US 4,896,363; Jan. 23, 1990), Migdal
(US 6,205,243 B1; Mar. 20, 2001), and Ort (US 5,926,555; July 20, 1999).
Ans. 4-7.
2. The Examiner rejected claim 19, 20, and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Taylor, Migdal, Ort, and Bley (US 6,038,012;
Mar. 14, 2000). Ans. 7-9.
3. The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Taylor, Migdal, Ort, Bley, and Gromov (US 4,076,984;
Feb. 28, 1978). Ans. 9-10.
4. The Examiner rejected claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Taylor, Migdal, Ort, and Takhar (US 6,002,787; Dec. 14,
1999). Ans. 10-11.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER
TAYLOR, MIGDAL, AND ORT
The Examiner finds that Taylor teaches all the limitations of claim 16
except: (1) that the acquisition unit comprises at least one laser scanner, the
laser scanner further comprising at least two laser sources positioned such
Appeal 2010-002882
Application 10/190,739

4
that each scans sections of the object in a sweeping manner producing
sections with overlapping scan lines, said overlapping scan lines providing
stereoscopic images provided; and (2) that the image processor analyzes as
well as classifies and indexes the fingerprint. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner
concludes that the claim would have been obvious, citing Migdal as teaching
feature (1) and Ort as teaching feature (2). Ans. 5-6.
Appellant argues that Ort does not teach the arrangement of a
database management subsystem, and that Taylor does not teach “the
provision of individual laser sources for creating a stereoscopic image on a
microscopic level, this again achieving individual furrow depth and
separation parameters.” Br. 5-6. Appellant also argues that Migdal is not
properly combined with Taylor. Br. 6.

Issues
1. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 16 by
finding that Taylor, Migdal, and Ort collectively would have taught or
suggested the arrangement of a database management subsystem and the
provision of individual laser sources for creating a stereoscopic image on a
microscopic level as claimed?
2. Has the Examiner erred in relying on Migdal as analogous art
properly combinable with Taylor and Ort in this obviousness rejection?

Analysis
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 16. Appellant’s argument that
Ort “does not teach or suggest the arrangement of database management
Appeal 2010-002882
Application 10/190,739

5
sub-system” as recited in claim 16 does not address the Examiner’s
rejection. Br. 5-6. In the rejection of claim 16, the Examiner relies on Taylor,
specifically Figure 2 of Taylor, to teach this limitation. Ans. 5, 11-12.
Appellant does not address this finding. See Br. 5-8. Because the Examiner
does not rely on Ort to teach this limitation, Appellant’s argument does not
persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding that a person of skill in the art
would find this limitation obvious over the combination of Taylor, Migdal,
and Ort.
Nor are we persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Taylor does not
teach “the provision of individual laser sources for creating a stereoscopic
image on a microscopic level, this again achieving individual furrow depth
and separation parameters.” Br. 6. In rejecting claim 16, the Examiner
depends on Figure 1 of Migdal, not Taylor, to show the individual laser
sources. Ans. 5-6, 14-15. Further, the term “microscopic level” does not
appear in claim 16. And claim 16 does not require “furrow depth and
separation,” but requires only “at least one of a depth as well as distance
between furrows.” The Examiner points to the following language in Taylor
as teaching the distance between furrows: “a distance spectrum is calculated
for each of the minutiae points found in the live fingerprint pattern.” Ans. 5,
15 (citing Taylor col. 3, ll. 59-60). Appellant does not dispute this finding,
which satisfies the claimed requirement of “at least one of a depth . . . .” See
Br. 5-8.
Finally, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that
Migdal qualifies as analogous art that may be combined with Taylor. The
Examiner reasoned that Taylor and Migdal “are combinable because they
are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. obtaining 3d images.” Ans. 6 (citing
Appeal 2010-002882
Application 10/190,739

6
Migdal col. 1, ll. 10-11). We agree. One object of the claimed invention is
“obtaining three-dimensional data of a fingerprint” (Spec. 4:4-6), and
Migdal deals with the problem of obtaining a 3D image of “an object.”
Migdal Abstract. Regardless of whether the image to be obtained is a
fingerprint or some other object, Migdal’s disclosed “rapid system and
method for measuring and reproducing objects” (Migdal col. 1, ll. 10-14)
“logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in
considering [this] problem.” Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc.,
637 F.3d 1314, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations omitted) (brackets in
original).
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16, and claims
22, 26, and 27 not separately argued with particularity.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER
TAYLOR, MIGDAL, ORT, AND BLEY
The Examiner finds that Taylor, Migdal, and Ort collectively do not
teach the configuration of the image process to map the data for bitmap
formatting, the compression of the image data, and the storage of this data as
required by dependent claims 19, 20, and 28. Ans. 8. The Examiner cites
Bley as teaching this feature. Id. Appellant argues that because Bley has
general application to a photo ID system, but does not teach or suggest any
application to a fingerprint system, it is not properly combined with Taylor,
Migdal, and Ort. Br. 8.

Appeal 2010-002882
Application 10/190,739

7
Issue
Has the Examiner erred in relying on Bley for the obviousness
rejection of claims 19, 20, and 28?

Analysis
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent
claims 19, 20, and 28. Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, Bley specifically
discusses application to fingerprint recordal, storage, and retrieval
technology. Ans. 16 (citing Bley col. 3, ll. 11-16). Moreover, both claim 19
and Bley relate to the recording, storing, and retrieving images related to
personal identification. See Br. 8; Bley Abstract. Thus, the Examiner
properly relied on Bley for the obviousness rejection of claims 19, 20, and
28. We sustain this rejection.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER
TAYLOR, MIGDAL, ORT, BLEY, AND GROMOV
The Examiner finds that Taylor, Migdal, Ort, and Bley collectively do
not discuss using a visual output group consisting of a monitor, a television
screen, and a closed circuit TV as required by claim 21 and cites Gromov as
teaching this feature. Ans. 9. Appellant argues that Gromov, which discloses
an “introscope,” is directed to a non-analogous art and therefore not properly
combined with Taylor, Migdal, Ort, and Bley. Br. 8-9.

Appeal 2010-002882
Application 10/190,739

8
Issue
Has the Examiner erred in finding that Gromov is analogous art
properly combined with Taylor, Migdal, Ort, and Bley in rejecting claim 21
for obviousness?

Analysis
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of dependent claim 21. A reference is properly
analogous art if it is from the same field of endeavor or if it is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re
Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The Examiner reasons that
Gromov is analogous art because it teaches “displaying results.” Ans. 17.
We agree that the problem being solved by claim 21 is “visual output
display” of the fingerprint images obtained by the 3D fingerprint
identification system. Thus, even though Gromov may be from a different
field of endeavor than the claimed invention, since it is reasonably pertinent
to the particular problem at issue, displaying an image of an object, the
Examiner did not err in relying on Gromov in the obviousness rejections.
Thus, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER
TAYLOR, MIGDAL, ORT, AND TAKHAR
The Examiner finds that Taylor, Migdal, and Ort collectively do not
teach expressly having an image processor with an analog-to-digital
converter as required by claim 25, but cites Takhar as teaching this feature in
concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 10-11. Appellant
Appeal 2010-002882
Application 10/190,739

9
argues Takhar teaches away from the claimed invention because it teaches
using different analog-to-digital conversion techniques, specifically
“multiple scan/pass in sequential fashion.” Br. 9.

Issue
Has the Examiner erred in relying on Takhar for this obviousness
rejection because, as asserted by Appellant, Takhar teaches away from the
claimed invention?

Analysis
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of dependent claim 25. We are not persuaded that
Takhar teaches away from the claimed invention. In its entirety, claim 25
recites: “The three-dimensional fingerprint identification system as
described in claim 16, said fingerprint processing unit further comprising an
image processor having analog-to-digital converter.” This language does not
require that any specific technique be used for the analog-to-digital
conversion. Moreover, while Takhar may disclose one particular technique
of conversion, Appellant does not assert that Takhar criticizes or discredits
any other technique. See Syntex LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (“What a reference teaches a person of ordinary skill is not .
. . limited to what a reference specifically ‘talks about’ . . . . [A] reference
will teach away when it suggests that the developments flowing from its
disclosures are unlikely to produce the objective of the applicant’s
invention.”). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25.

Appeal 2010-002882
Application 10/190,739

10
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejection claims 16, 19-22, and 25-28 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

babc