Appeal No. 2006-1215 Page 3
Application No. 09/781,324
Thus, appellant’s bare statement in the Request for Rehearing that Takizawa fails to determine whether
to maintain a processing ability or lower the processing ability based on the available electric power
provided by the batteries is clearly contradicted by the teachings of Takizawa as discussed in the
original decision. As also discussed in the decision, although Takizawa chooses between maintaining
power and turning the power off, Pole teaches that a lower power mode can be selected rather than
turning the power completely off. Thus, appellant’s arguments in the Request for Rehearing fail to
persuade us of error in the original decision. Appellant’s mere citation of several cases at the end of the
Request for Rehearing fails to explain how the original decision in this case is incorrect based on any of
the cited cases.
We have carefully considered the arguments raised by appellant in the Request for
Rehearing, but we can find no errors in our original decision. We are still of the view that the
invention set forth in claims 1-42 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons
discussed in the original decision.
We have granted appellant’s request to the extent that we have reconsidered our decision
of June 7, 2006, but we deny the request with respect to making any changes therein.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007