Appeal No. 96-2444
Application 08/360,194
switch to perform the functions of the normal mode/standby
mode switch and the case-closed switch, which has not been
established, some way of distinguishing between the different
modes would have to be provided. However, the examiner does
not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to use the particular time-dependency technique
claimed. In our opinion, the examiner has failed to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to switching
between modes depending on the time period the switch is
depressed, which limitations appears in various forms in all
claims. The rejection of claims 1-38 is reversed for this
additional reason.
Appellants' arguments
Although we reverse the examiner's rejection, we note our
disagreement with appellants' arguments regarding the sleep
function.
Appellants' argue (Br9-10):
Applicant has acknowledged a case closed detector which
senses whether the case is closed for sounding an alarm
to the user. However, in such circumstances, the user
has a responsibility to respond to the alarm and to act
in accordance with good computer practice by opening the
computer, toggling the computer to a standby mode and
closing the computer. Opening and closing the case with
- 13 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007