Appeal No. 2006-3126 Page 6
Application No. 10/154,060
the claim at issue “reads on” a prior art reference. Atlas Powder Co. v.
IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1945 (Fed Cir. 1999)
(“In other words, if granting patent protection on the disputed claim would
allow the patentee to exclude the public from practicing the prior art, then
that claim is anticipated, regardless of whether it also covers subject matter
not in the prior art.”) (internal citations omitted).
Claims 6, 7 and 9
We consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 7 and 9 as being
anticipated by Flynn. Since appellant’s arguments with respect to this
rejection have treated these claims as a single group which stand or fall
together, we will consider independent claim 6 as the representative claim
for this rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellant argues that Flynn does not disclose how the rate of current
consumption is determined and thus does not disclose a power estimator
[brief, page 6]. Appellant argues that monitoring and comparing voltages
are direct measurements and cannot be equated with estimating power
levels [brief, page 7]. Appellant concludes that Flynn lacks at least the
disclosure of a power estimator, which is adapted to provide an estimate of
currently available power from the power supply to the controller, as claimed
[id.].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007