Appeal No. 2006-1215
Application No. 09/781,324
Pole as teaching a system and method for managing power in an
electronic apparatus such that the power applied to the device
can be lowered while keeping the device operative. The examiner
holds that it would have been obvious to the artisan to modify
Takizawa to include a lower processing ability as taught by Pole
in response to a determination that the charge level is
insufficient to fully power the device [answer, pages 3-5].
With respect to claim 1, which is argued as the
representative claim for claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20,
22, 23, 25, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40 and 41, appellant argues,
without substantial explanation, that neither Takizawa nor Pole
has any teaching or suggestion relating to the claimed processing
ability determination section. Appellant also argues that the
examiner’s line of reasoning for combining the teachings of
Takizawa and Pole is deficient and is simply a hindsight
reconstruction of the claimed invention [brief, pages 9-12].
The examiner responds that Takizawa teaches a processing
ability determination section that determines whether there is
sufficient power to operate the device if one of the batteries is
removed. The difference between Takizawa and the claimed
invention is that Takizawa turns off power to the device if there
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007