Ex Parte TRESSLER et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2000-2205                                                        
          Application No. 08/991,107                                                  

               Claim 16 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it              
          reads as follows:                                                           
                    16.  A method of preventing computer malfunction during           
               a change in power consumption states, comprising:                      
                    providing power at a first voltage level to a load, the           
                         load having a low power consumption state and a              
                         high power consumption state;                                
                    receiving power consumption state information; and                
                    increasing the first voltage level to a second voltage            
                         level based on the power consumption state                   
                         information indicating an impending transition               
                         from the low power consumption state to the high             
                         power consumption state.                                     
               The references relied on by the examiner are:                          
          Mozdzen et al. (Mozdzen)      5,537,656           Jul. 16, 1996             
          Pitsch                        5,852,377           Dec. 22, 1998             
                                                  (filed Nov. 14, 1996)               
               Claims 16 through 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)           
          as being unpatentable over Mozdzen in view of Pitsch.                       
               Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 9 and 11) and           
          the answer (paper number 10) for the respective positions of the            
          appellants and the examiner.                                                






                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007