Appeal No. 96-1421
Application 08/065,773
5. The examiner finally rejected claims 2-4 under
35 U.S.C. § 112 (Paper 7 at 4), but has since withdrawn this
rejection (Paper 12).
6. The examiner finally rejected claims 1-15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 (Paper 7 at 5) as unpatentable over the following
references:
Sako EP 0 463 183 A1 2 Jan. 1992
Smith et al. (Smith) 5,167,204 24 Nov. 1992
(eff. filing date 8 Sep. 1989)
7. We find, and Applicants' counsel at oral argument
conceded, that Sako is essentially identical to Applicants'
admitted prior art.
8. Smith teaches a power manager for a laptop computer.
(3:13-14.) The power manager monitors the activity of devices in
the laptop and deactivates the idle ones to conserve battery
power. (3:33-41.)
9. We find that Sako is directed to the same field of
endeavor as the subject matter of the invention and that Smith is
directed to the problem facing the inventor: reducing power
consumption in a battery-powered device by cutting off power to
idle devices.
10. Neither reference teaches what claim 12 describes as:
a control circuit for controlling an amount of
power provided by the power supply and consumed by the
- 3 -3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007