Appeal No. 2006-1215
Application No. 09/781,324
of removal of a battery, but only a lowering of the processing
ability while keeping the device operative [answer, page 16].
Appellant responds that the examiner’s interpretation of what is
required by the claimed invention is incorrect [reply brief, page
5].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 6, 15
and 27. Claim 3 differs from claims 1 and 2 in that claim 3
recites “detecting mounting and removal of batteries” and
“detection of a removal of a battery” while claims 1 and 2 only
recite a detection of a removal requirement for a battery.
Appellant argues that neither Takizawa nor Pole teaches detection
of the removal of a battery. We do not agree. Although Takizawa
teaches that the opening of a battery cover is used to signal an
intended battery change, Takizawa also teaches that this
detection is the same as detecting the loading and unloading of
the battery. Specifically, Takizawa states:
The cover detection switch 14 forms the
battery load/unload detector means for
detecting whether a battery pack is being
installed or removed, and preferably operates
by detecting whether the battery cover is
opened or closed [column 5, lines 51-55].
Thus, even though Takizawa detects the opening of the battery
cover, Takizawa also suggests that it is the loading and
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007