Appeal No. 2006-1215 Page 2
Application No. 09/781,324
determination of whether to maintain a processing ability
or lower the processing ability based on the available
electric power provided by the batteries.
Pole uses a controller adapted to transition a component
from a first performance mode to a lower activity state in
response to a power management event. Pole discloses that
depending on the desired power consumption, the system
may be set to one of multiple performance states. For
example, if the system is powered by a battery, the system
is placed in a lower performance state to conserve power.
Alternatively, if the system is powered by an AC
outlet, the system may be placed in a high performance
state in which additional heat dissipation devices may be
activated.
Thus, Pole does not teach "a processing ability
determination section responsive to the removal
requirement for a battery from said removal requirement
receipt section to determine whether a supplying possible
electric power from the remaining batteries is an electric
power capable of maintaining a processing ability or
electric power which needs to lower the processing ability."
Pole does not contemplate a situation where one or more of
a plurality of batteries is removed, while processing is
carried on with the remaining batteries [Request, page 2].
The decision specifically addressed these arguments at page 8 wherein we stated
the following:
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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007