Appeal No. 2006-1215
Application No. 09/781,324
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 7,
9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40 and
41 for essentially the reasons argued by the examiner in the
answer. Takizawa clearly teaches a processing ability
determination section responsive to the removal requirement for a
battery. In Figure 6 for example, Takizawa teaches that when a
first battery is to be removed, a determination is made as to
whether the voltage of the other battery is sufficient to
continue to operate the device (S56). If the voltage of the
other battery is sufficient, then power to the device is switched
to the other battery (S60). If the voltage of the other battery
is not sufficient to power the device, however, the device is
turned off (S62). Thus, in our view, Takizawa teaches the
invention of claim 1 except that Takizawa turns the device off
rather than keeping the device operative under a lower processing
ability. Pole teaches that an electronic device may have
multiple performance states based on the desired power
consumption of the device [column 2, lines 4-6]. Pole also
teaches that one of the events that may trigger a transition from
a first power mode to a second lower power mode is a change in
the power source used by the device. Thus, Pole teaches changing
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007