Appeal No. 2006-1215
Application No. 09/781,324
is insufficient power to operate the device. The examiner notes
that Pole also teaches a processing ability determination section
that lowers the processing ability of the device while
maintaining the device in an operable condition. The examiner
also responds that the combination of the reference teachings is
not based on hindsight because Pole suggests to the artisan that
the life of the batteries can be lengthened by switching to a
lower performance state during low usage [answer, pages 13-15].
Appellant responds that although Takizawa determines whether
one of a plurality of battery packs provides a sufficient
voltage, there is no determination of whether to maintain a
processing ability or lower the processing ability based on the
available electric power provided by the batteries. Appellant
also responds that although Pole teaches that depending on the
desired power consumption, the system may be set to one of
multiple performance states, it does not teach the claimed
processing ability determination section. Finally, appellant
argues that the cited portion of Pole would not have led the
artisan to combine the teachings of Takizawa and Pole to achieve
the claimed invention [reply brief, pages 1-4].
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007