The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte YOSUKE KONAKA
_______________
Appeal No. 2006-1215
Application No. 09/781,324
_______________
HEARD: MAY 11, 2006
_______________
Before MARTIN, JERRY SMITH, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant requests that we reconsider our decision of June 7, 2006 wherein we sustained
the rejection of claims 1-42 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We have reconsidered our decision of June 7, 2006 in light of appellant’s comments in
the Request for Rehearing, and we find no error therein. We, therefore, decline to make any
changes in our prior decision for the reasons which follow.
Appellant’s Request for Rehearing makes the following arguments:
However, Takizawa and Pole, either alone or in
combination, do not teach or suggest a processing ability
determination section to determine whether the power
supplied from the remaining batteries is an electric power
which needs to lower the processing ability as set forth in
claim 1, for example.
Takizawa determines whether one of a plurality of battery
packs provides a sufficient voltage. There is no
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007