Appeal No. 2006-1215
Application No. 09/781,324
a processing ability determination section responsive to the
removal requirement for a battery from said removal requirement
receipt section to determine whether a supplying possible
electric power from the remaining batteries is an electric power
capable of maintaining a processing ability or an electric power
which needs to lower the processing ability; and
a processing ability control section lowering the processing
ability while keeping the electronic apparatus operative in
accordance with a decision from said processing ability
determination section that the electric power needs to lower the
processing ability.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Dunstan 5,600,230 Feb. 04, 1997
Takizawa et al. (Takizawa) 5,739,596 Apr. 14, 1998
Pole, II et al. (Pole) 6,272,642 Aug. 07, 2001
(filed Dec. 03, 1998)
Claims 1-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As
evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Takizawa in view of
Pole with respect to claims 1-15 and 25-34, and Dunstan is added
to this combination with respect to claims 16-24 and 34-42.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence of
obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007