Appeal No. 2006-1215
Application No. 09/781,324
the processing ability of an electronic device to a lower, but
still operative, state upon detection of a power source change.
We agree with the examiner that the artisan would have been
motivated to modify Takizawa to permit lower processing states as
taught by Pole instead of requiring a complete shutdown whenever
the lower processing states can be handled by the other battery.
With respect to claim 2, which is argued as the
representative claim for claims 2, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21,
24, 26, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39 and 42, appellant makes the same
arguments we considered above with respect to claim 1.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of these claims for the same
reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
With respect to claim 3, which is argued as the
representative claim for claims 3, 6, 15 and 27, appellant makes
the same arguments we considered above with respect to claim 1
and additionally argues that neither Takizawa nor Pole teaches or
suggests the feature of lowering the processing ability of the
device in response to the detection of removal of a battery
[brief, page 13]. The examiner responds that the claims do not
require lowering the processing ability in response to detection
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007