Appeal No. 96-2444
Application 08/360,194
Applicant's remarks in that response specifically
referenced case close detectors for sensing the case
closed and sounding an alarm. There was no discussion of
placing the computer in a sleep mode when the case was
closed. The Examiner simply concludes that placing the
Carter system into a sleep mode when the case was closed
would have been obvious to one skilled in the art for
various reasons. The Examiner, however, did not come
forth with references teaching this feature of switching
power modes based on case closure. Applicant requested
specific references clearly illustrating the computer
placed in sleep mode upon closure of a portable computer,
rather than merely reciting such as notorious knowledge.
We agree that the examiner should have, when challenged,
provided a reference. Regardless of what was admitted in
appellants' remarks in the response of February 1, 1993, the
examiner could have pointed to appellants' own specification,
which describes that when a prior art case-closed switch is
tripped, "[a] power saving mode was entered, slowing down the
processor, and turning off all unnecessary features"
(specification, page 5), which indicates going into a sleep
mode as defined by appellants. Appellants' arguments that the
admitted prior art case-closed switch is only for sensing when
the case closed and sounding an alarm are therefore not
consistent with the specification.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-38 is reversed.
- 15 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007