TOYOTA EXHIBIT 2011
`
`Reactive Surfaces Ltd. LLP v.
`Toyota Motor Corporation
`IPR2016-01914
`
`

`

`individuals as follows. The subjects were directed to thoroughly wash and dry
`their hands, then, using five prenumbered slides, leave latent fingerprints of the
`corresponding fingers on each hand on the five slides. Following this first
`collection, the subjects went about their normal activities for two and a half
`to three hours then were asked to repeat the procedure of leaving latent finger-
`prints, using a second group of slides and without washing their hands. Latent
`prints for a third set of slides were collected immediately following those of the
`second after having directed the participants to rub their fingertips across their
`foreheads or through their hair in order to increase the amount of oil and
`perspiration on the fingertips.
`After obtaining prints from all of the subjects, a few prints from each subject
`were taken and immediately developed by dusting. The rest of the latent
`prints were placed in a series of 5 closed containers to be kept at various
`conditions of temperature and humidity. The conditions of storage which were
`used are shown in Table 1.
`
`For two months following the collection of the prints, slides were periodically
`dusted and lifts made according to a predetermined schedule. This schedule
`called for processing at times of 24 hours, 72 hours,
`1 week, 3, 5 and 7 weeks
`subsequent to collection, in addition to those prints processed the same day as
`collection. The schedule was arranged so as to develop equal numbers of
`prints from each person and under each condition of the fingertips at each
`time interval.
`
`In developing the latents, the same dusting materials were used throughout
`the two month duration of the study: a single camel hair brush and Sirchie
`black fingerprint powder. Attempts were made to keep dusting procedures and
`techniques the same throughout the study.
`In order to make some type of quantitative assessment as to the effects of
`the various storage conditions on the permanency of the latents, it was necessary
`to devise some scheme to “grade” the developed prints. This was done by
`scoring each developed print by comparison with a “quality” scale. This
`quality scale gave a highest quality print a score of I, and a lowest quality print
`(a smudge) a score of 5. Prints developed initially were selected to prepare a
`comparison chart to score the subsequent prints (see Figure 1). In the choice
`of standards for comparison and grading of the lifts two properties were con-
`sidered: (I) The amount of interpretable ridge detail present in the lift, and
`(2) the degree of adherence of the fingerprint powder to the microscope slide.
`
`AVERAGE SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATION FOR LIFTS FROM LATEN'I'S
`MADE AND STORED UNDER CONDITIONS INDICATED
`
`TABLE 1
`
`All Prints
`
`Stored at 20°C, 32% RH
`
`Stored at 20°C, 73%J RH
`
`Stored at 30°C, 69% RH
`
`Stored at 20°C, 98% RH
`
`Stored at 20°C, 93% RH
`
`Cleaned Hands
`
`Normal Hands
`
`“Greased” Hands
`
`0
`3-8
`l-l
`
`4-5
`0-7
`3-6
`0-9
`3-2
`1-1
`
`24 hm.
`3-9
`1-1
`3-7
`1-7
`4-2
`1-0
`4-0
`1-0
`4-2
`0-3
`3-9
`0-9
`4-8
`0-4
`3-9
`0-8
`3-1
`1-2
`
`72/1”.
`4-1
`0-8
`3-8
`1-2
`3-7
`1-0
`4-2
`1-0
`4-1
`1-2
`3-9
`0-9
`4-6
`0-5
`4-0
`1-0
`3-3
`1-0
`
`Age of Lateth
`1 wk.
`3 wks.
`3-6
`3-7
`1-5
`1-4
`3-2
`3-3
`1-8
`1-7
`4-0
`3-4
`1-1
`1-6
`2-7
`3-8
`1-6
`1-1
`3-6
`3-9
`1-7
`1-2
`4-8
`4-2
`0-4
`1-3
`4-4-
`4-5
`1-4
`0-9
`3-8
`3-7
`1-4
`1-4
`2-5
`2-9
`1-4
`1-3
`
`250
`
`5 wks.
`3-9
`1-2
`3-7
`1-6
`3-7
`1-2
`3-6
`1-4
`4-0
`1-1
`4-5
`0-7
`4-7
`0-7
`3-8
`1-1
`3-2
`1-3
`
`7 w/m.
`4-2
`1-0
`4-0
`1-0
`3-9
`1-1
`4-1
`0-9
`4-3
`0-9
`4-5
`0-9
`4-7
`0-6
`4-3
`0-9
`3-6
`1-0
`
`

`

`
`
`Figure 1. Fingerprint grading standards. Developed prints were graded by
`comparing them with the standards shown. (left) a grade 1 print;
`(centre) a grade 3 print; (right) a grade 5 print.
`
`Separate grading scales were used to these two characteristics and lifts were
`individually scored as to their standing in each category.
`
`Discussion
`
`It is obvious that the “quality” of a latent print not only is a function of the
`ridge detail that has been reproduced but is also a function of the contrast
`between the reproduced ridge detail and the background. In grading the
`prints for clarity of ridge detail, it was attempted to take into account only
`the clarity of the ridge detail and not the amount of background present,
`although contrast certainly plays a part in the impression of clarity of the
`latent print. The following discussion will be restricted only to the scoring
`of the ridge detail clarity and no attempt has been made to take into account
`the amount of background or the contrast of the latent impression.
`The latent prints were scored for ridge detail clarity independently by two
`individuals. It is interesting to look at the comparison between the scores
`obtained by the two individuals (see Table 2). Approximately 660/O of the time
`the two individuals scored the prints the same, 220/0 of the time one individual
`scored the print better than the other and 120/0 of the time the other individual
`scored the print higher. In most cases the difference in scoring was only by one
`rank although in some instances the difference was greater. In comparing the
`average score obtained by both individuals, the overall average score for the
`first individual was 3-9 and for the second was 3-8 with standard deviation of
`1-1 and 12 respectively. The difference between these two average scores is not
`significant (P >0-1) indicating that the two scorers have reasonable consistency
`in their grading.
`Since the number of prints from each subject placed in the various environ-
`mental chambers and developed at specific times is approximately the same
`the comparison from subject to subject should show a difference if there is any
`subject variability. It can be seen from Table 2 that, although there is some
`difference between the various subjects, even the extreme subject, No. 1, falls
`only one standard deviation away from the mean for all subjects. Also, relatively
`consistent values found for the standard deviations indicate that any changes
`which might take place are roughly of the same magnitude for each subject.
`The next variable which was studied was variation in the condition of the
`
`hand. Whether or not the hands had been freshly washed or purposely “greased”
`did make a significant difference. (See Table 1). The difference between clean
`hands and dirty hands, and clean hands and greased hands, both are highly
`significant (P< 0-01) whereas the difference between dirty and greased hands
`is not significant (P >0-05). It is interesting to note that this difference remained
`fairly constant throughout the course of the experiment with there being no
`appreciable difference between the ageing effects on the clean hand fingerprint
`as opposed to the dirty or greased hand fingerprint.
`251
`
`

`

`OVERALL AVERAGE SCORE AND STANDARD DEVIATION FOR EACH SUBJECT
`AND EACH SCORER
`
`TABLE 2
`
`Subject
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`
`Scorer #
`2-8 (1-3)
`3.2 (1-5)
`4-1 (1-1)
`4-4 (1-0)
`4-3 (0-8)
`3-6 (1-3)
`3.3 (1-0)
`4-0 (1-2)
`3-7 (1-4)
`3-9 (0-9)
`4-3 (1-1)
`3-7 (1-4)
`
`Scorer #2
`2-9 (1-4)
`3.5 (1-4)
`4-2 (0.9)
`4-7 (0-5)
`4-4 (1-0)
`3-7 (1-1)
`3-7 (0-9)
`4-1 (0-8)
`3-7 (1-4)
`3-7 (1-2)
`4-1 (1.2)
`3-9 (1-3)
`
`Table 1 shows the changes for prints stored under all conditions over the
`approximately 50 day time span of the experiment. Applying statistical tests
`for differences of the mean shows a significant difference (P<0-05) between
`the original average and the average overall after seven weeks. This would
`indicate that overall there is some deterioration with age of latent fingerprints,
`however the statistical argument is not highly persuasive. In looking at the
`numbers of prints which were useable as opposed to those which were of no
`value (that is arbitrarily defined as those which scored 1, 2 or 3 Were useable
`and those prints which scored 4 or 5 were not useable) it can be seen (Figure 2)
`that even after seven weeks storage there was a total of approximately 15
`out of 72 prints which were good and approximately 57 which were bad. This
`compares with approximately 12 prints which were good in the group developed
`immediately as opposed to 23 which were bad. Therefore, the percentage of
`good prints has decreased, but still there is a significant percentage of prints
`stored for seven weeks which are useable. The useable prints were reasonably
`evenly distributed throughout each of the various temperature and humidity
`conditions.
`
`The various humidity environments can be arbitrarily classified as low or
`high, with high humidity being 930/0 and 980/0 relative humidity and low
`humidity being 32%, 73 0/0 and 69 C’/(, relative humidity. These data are shown
`in Table 3. Comparing the overall average score after seven weeks for prints
`stored at high humidity with the score for prints developed immediately shows
`that the difference between the averages is highly significant (P<0-01). It
`should be noted that the differences indicate that the prints are in worse
`condition after having been stored at high humidity for seven weeks than they
`were originally. This is a somewhat surprising result since it seems to be the
`common belief that the primary effect of age is one of drying of the prints. Such
`effect should be significantly retarded at storage conditions approaching a
`saturated atmosphere.
`For the prints stored at the lower humidity conditions, there is no statistically
`significant difference between the average score for these prints after seven
`weeks and the score for prints developed immediately.
`The next effect to be looked at is the efiect of storing the prints at relatively
`high temperature, approximately 30°C. In comparing the overall scores for
`these prints with prints developed immediately, there is no statistically signi-
`ficant difference (P >0~1). For the prints stored at low temperature conditions,
`approximately 20°, there is no significant difference (P >0'l).
`
`Conclusion
`
`It may, in general, be stated that the clarity of a developed print is primarily
`related to the original latent print quality and is not related to the temperature
`252
`
`

`

`0
`
`| day
`
`3 days
`
`I wk
`
`3 wk
`
`5 wk
`
`7 wk
`
`
`
`Figure 2. The percentage of prints classified as useable (grades 1 to 3) at the
`time intervals shown.
`
`TABLE 3
`
`AVERAGE SCORES FOR LIFTS MADE FROM PRINTS DUSTED AT TIMES
`INDICATED AND STORED UNDER THE INDICATED CONDITIONS
`
`24 hrs.
`
`72 hn.
`
`Age Q)” Latent Before Dusting
`1 wk.
`3 wkx.
`
`5 wkt.
`
`7 wks.
`
`Stored at high RH
`Stored at low RH
`
`Stored at high temp.
`
`Stored at low temp.
`
`4-0
`0-8
`3-9
`1-3
`3-9
`0-9
`3-9
`1-2
`
`4-0
`1-0
`3-9
`1-0
`4-0
`0-9
`3-9
`1-1
`
`4-1
`l-5
`3-2
`1-6
`3-7
`1-3
`3-6
`1-6
`
`4-0
`1-2
`3-5
`1-5
`4-0
`1-2
`3-5
`1-5
`
`4-2
`0-9
`3-7
`1-3
`4-0
`1-2
`3-8
`1-3
`
`4-4
`0-9
`4-1
`1-0
`4-1
`1-0
`4-1
`1-0
`
`and humidity under which it has been stored, at least for the time period
`which this experiment has studied. Obviously, the effect of physical contamina-
`tion or physical obliteration of the print is a significant factor. However it is
`certainly possible that a fingerprint impression may last for weeks at rather
`extreme storage conditions and still be easily detectable.
`253
`
`

`

`The results of this study would tend to confirm the belief, apparently
`commonly held but just as commonly disregarded,
`that the identification
`technician who examines latent fingerprints in the laboratory is not in a
`position to make any statement concerning the age of the print, at least from
`microscopic examination of the lift.
`There does not appear to be any age dependent process taking place within
`the materials composing latent fingerprints which would allow an age approxi-
`mation of the print to be made as a result of the reaction of the latent print to
`the normal testing procedures. At least for the time period that was considered
`in this study, a significant fraction of the developed prints were found to be
`useable even two months after they were originally put down, and this did not
`seem to be related to the temperature or humidity conditions under which
`the fingerprints were stored prior to dusting. It would seem evident then that
`any approximation of the age of a latent fingerprint must be done either by
`studying the inherent changes in the latent fingerprint materials by some
`technique other than the adherence of dusting powder or else by consideration
`of environmental contamination of the latent fingerprint.
`
`References
`
`CONNER, C. M., 1974, Assoc. Oflieial Anal. Chem. J., 57, 662.
`JOHNSON, P. L., 1972, FF and Ident. Mag., 54(3), 11.
`MOENSSENS, A., 1971, Fingerprint Techniques, Chilton.
`MYRE, D. C., 1974, Death Investigation, International Association of Chiefs of
`Police.
`
`PARKER, B., 1970, Physical Evidence Utilization in the Administration of Criminal
`Justice, National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.
`
`25'1-
`
`