I haven't checked the prior art, but I don't see anything in this patent about how they differentiate finger from stylus. A finger is not a different instrument than a stylus in touch method, other than obviously not requiring a stylus. The difference in method is how you discern that it's a finger instead of a stylus and what you do with the information.
I DO see that they have a method for gesture identification, and that's (again without checking prior art) very likely a valid claim. But the "finger" part of it? I call that pretty weak, given that stylus touch screens and touchpads both existed before this patent.
Then again, the patent office has been totally corrupt for a hundred years or more now. The Patent Academy and Patent Office together are basically a revolving door to the corporate patent world and 3-figure hourly rates, 40 hours a week baby. The important thing when you're there is that:
a) you get your credentials in some field, and
b) you make friends with examiners who agree with how you write patents so that you can get them specifically (and there's an official request process for this, no joke) to review the patents you write for clients after you leave and set up your own shop. Because that makes it more likely the patents will not be challenged.
So I long ago gave up on seeing anything objective come out of a system like that. Sad really, but since the Patent Office actually makes money for the government, I don't see it changing.
