Ex Parte Lo et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 14, 2008

11031223 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 14, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte PETER Z. LO and BEHNAM BAVARIAN
_____________

Appeal 2008-1088
Application 11/031,223
Technology Center 2600
______________

Decided: July 14, 2008
_______________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and JOHN A.
JEFFERY Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) of the final
rejection of claims 1 through 11, 13, 14, 15, 19, and 20.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to an automatic finger print identification
system. See page 1 of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is representative
of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method for fingerprint record identification comprising the
steps of:
Appeal 2008-1088
Application 11/031,223

assigning a first number of fingers for a first minutiae matching
stage and a second number of fingers for a second minutiae matching
stage;
performing the first minutiae matching stage comprising
comparing, based on the assigned first number of fingers, a search
record having a plurality of search fingerprints to at least a portion of
a plurality of file records each having a plurality of file fingerprints in
a database and generating first matching results comprising a first set
of candidate records that includes a subset of the at least a portion of
the plurality of file records; and
performing the second minutiae matching stage comprising
comparing, based on the assigned second number of fingers, the
search record to at least a portion of the first set of candidate records
and generating second matching results comprising one of: a strong
hit; a weak hit; no hit; and a second set of candidate records that
includes an ordered portion of the first set of candidate records.

REFERENCE

Ort US 5,926,555 Jul. 20, 1999

REJECTION AT ISSUE

Claims 1 through 11, 13, 14, 15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ort. The Examiner’s rejection is on
pages 4 through 14 of the Answer.
Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Brief (received
January 31, 2007), Reply Brief (received July 16, 2007) and the Answer
(mailed July 26, 2007) for the respective details thereof.

2

Appeal 2008-1088
Application 11/031,223

ISSUE
Appellants argue on pages 6 and 7 of the Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 11, 13, 14, 15, 19, and 20 is in error.
Appellants state on page 7:

What is missing from Ort, et al. that is recited in independent
Claims 1 and 19 is "assigning a first number of fingers for a first
minutiae matching stage and a second number of fingers for a second
minutiae matching stage . . . [and] performing the first minutiae
matching stage . . . based on the assigned first number of fingers . . .
[and] performing the second minutiae matching stage . . . based on the
assigned second number of fingers". Ort, et al. instead assigns only
one number ('n') of fingers that is used in both the coarse matcher (81)
and fine matcher (82) of the matcher process (80).

Brief 7.
Thus, Appellants’ contentions with respect to the rejection of claims 1
through 11, 13, 14, 15, 19 and 20, present us with the issue of whether the
Examiner erred in finding that Ort teaches assigning a first number of
fingers for a first minutiae matching and assigning a second number of
fingers for a second minutiae matching.
We note that Appellants do not separately argue any of the claims,
thus, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii), claims 1 through 11,
13, 14, 15, 19 and 20 are grouped together. We select claim 1 as
representative of the group of claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In analyzing the scope of the claim, Office personnel must rely on
Appellant’s disclosure to properly determine the meaning of the terms used
in the claims. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980
3

Appeal 2008-1088
Application 11/031,223

(Fed. Cir. 1995). “[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim ‘is not to
be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the
specification, which is improper.’” (Emphasis original) In re Cruciferous
Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Intervet Am.
Inc. v. Kee-Vet Labs. Inc., 887 F.2d 1050, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii) states:
For each ground of rejection applying to two or more claims,
the claims may be argued separately or as a group. When multiple
claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group
by appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group of
claims that are argued together to decide the appeal with respect to the
group of claims as to the ground of rejection on the basis of the
selected claim alone. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
paragraph, the failure of appellant to separately argue claims which
appellant has grouped together shall constitute a waiver of any
argument that the Board must consider the patentability of any
grouped claim separately…. A statement which merely points out
what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate
patentability of the claim.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Ort teaches a finger print matching system which first searches for
candidate fingerprints and then searches through the candidate
fingerprints to determine a matching set of fingerprints. The
candidate fingerprints are determined based upon a description of the
person from whom they came and other classifications. Matching is
based upon a comparison of the minutiae in the prints. Col. 3, ll. 3-
44.
2. Minutiae is defined as features defined by bifurcations or endings of
ridge flows in an image of the fingerprint. Ort, col. 1, ll. 34-38.
4

Appeal 2008-1088
Application 11/031,223

3. Ort teaches that one of the criteria for the search of candidate prints is
the dominate mode ridge frequency. Col. 32, l. 10.
4. Appellants admit on page 7 of the Brief that Ort teaches that the
matcher (which determines the matching set of fingerprints)
comprises a coarse and a fine matcher. See also Ort, Fig. 42, and col.
33, ll. 14-26.
5. Appellants also admit that with Ort’s system, the user selects a
number “n” of fingers to be used during the minutiae matching stage.
Ort’s system then chooses the exact finger number to be used in both
stages, based upon the available data. Br. 7, see also Ort, col. 32, ll.
31-54.

ANALYSIS
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 11, 13, 14, 15, 19, and 20. On
pages 15 through 20 of the Answer, the Examiner makes findings that
provide several different rationales as to how Ort teaches the assigning a
first number of fingers for a first minutiae matching and assigning a second
number of fingers for a second minutiae matching. In several of these
findings, the Examiner equates the operation of Ort’s search filter, item 70,
to the claimed “first minutiae matching stage.” We disagree with this
assertion by the Examiner. As argued by Appellants on pages 5 and 6 of the
Reply Brief, we find that the search filter, item 70, does not perform
minutiae matching. While Ort teaches that the search filter may select
candidate fingerprints using dominate ridge mode frequency, we do not find
that this is the same as minutia matching. Facts 2 and 3.
5

Appeal 2008-1088
Application 11/031,223

However, on page 20 of the Answer, the Examiner identifies that
claim 1 “does not distinguish the number of fingers for the first and second
minutiae matching stages is different.” Appellants did not dispute this claim
interpretation in the Briefs. We concur with the Examiner’s claim
interpretation. Claim 1 recites “assigning a first number of fingers for a first
minutiae matching stage and a second number of fingers for a second
minutiae matching stage” however, there is no limitation identifying that the
first and second number are different. Appellants’ Specification does not
provide a definition of the term “assign,” but on page 13 of the
Specification, the term is used in the context of setting a value for a stage
(program routine). Appellants have admitted that Ort teaches performing
coarse minutiae matching and fine minutiae matching and that these
matching steps are performed using the same number of fingers. Facts 4 and
5. Thus, there is a value that is set to identify the number of fingers to be
considered with the coarse matching (i.e., a value is set, a number is
assigned to the coarse matching routine). Similarly, the fine minutiae
matching routine has a number assigned to it. That Ort teaches that the
number for each routine is the same, and as such only one number is entered,
is of no consequence. Appellants have not identified, nor do we find, any
limitation in representative claim 1 which recites such features and which
differentiates the claimed invention from Ort. As Appellants have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that Ort teaches assigning a
first number of fingers for a first minutiae matching and assigning a second
number of fingers for a second minutiae matching, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1. As claims 2 through 11, 13,
6

Appeal 2008-1088
Application 11/031,223

14, 15, 19, and 20 are grouped with claim 1, we similarly sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 through 11, 13, 14, 15, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner 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).

7

Appeal 2008-1088
Application 11/031,223

AFFIRMED

eld

MOTOROLA, INC.
1303 EAST ALGONQUIN ROAD
IL01/3RD
SCHAUMBURG IL 60196
8