Recommendation 59
Fingerprint Inquiry · The Fingerprint Inquiry Report · Issued 14 December 2011
Government responseNo response yet
DeliveryNo statement from the addressee found
Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation, Chapter 43; Para 37.123
Each examiner’s separate opinion should cover: (i) the images of the mark and also the specific print used in the comparison; (ii) the examiner’s opinion about the quality of the mark; (iii) if the examiner considers the mark to be complex; (iv) whether third level detail is relied upon and the fact that such detail still requires to be supported by further research that has been validated; (v) identifying any differences between mark and print; (vi) a summary of the reasons why any differences between mark and print have been discounted and whether the examiner relies on objective studies and evidence to account for such differences or on common sense and experience; (vii) the characteristics relied on in making the identification, the number of such characteristics, and the classification of such characteristics, (e.g. ridge ending, bifurcation); (viii) a marked up image of the mark and print with a legend specifying the type of the ridge detail (including any third level detail) relied upon and the associated ridge counts; (ix) the opinion of the examiner; (x) any consultation with another examiner during the ACE-V process, including any facilitated discussion or panel review; and (xi) the fact that any novel method such as probabilistic analysis has been used or relied on.
Fingerprint Inquiry, The Fingerprint Inquiry Report · 14 Dec 2011 Source PDF, page 748 →
Report-level response context
Government response
●No formal government response recorded
The Index has not yet recorded a verbatim government response to this recommendation.
Delivery
No statement on delivery from the addressee has been found in the sources searched. This is separate from the response above.
How this page is built
The recommendation and the government responses are verbatim from primary documents. Delivery statements and other bodies' findings are shown in their own words, each with its source. The summary is written by this site and labelled as such. The Index does not paraphrase sources or characterise intent; it records what has been published.