Appeal No. 2006-3126 Page 9
Application No. 10/154,060
consuming operations or components are disabled when the “dead capacity”
threshold is detected [id.]. Thus, we find that Flynn discloses allocating
power based on one or more current characteristics of the device and/or
associated device components.
Therefore, we find that representative claim 6 broadly but reasonably
reads on the reference in the manner asserted by the examiner.
Accordingly, because Flynn teaches all that is claimed, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of representative claim 6 as being anticipated by Flynn.
We further note that appellant has not presented any substantive
arguments directed separately to the patentability of dependent claims 7
and 9. In the absence of a separate argument, with respect to the
dependent claims, those claims stand or fall with the representative
independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Therefore, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims for the
same reasons discussed supra with respect to representative claim 6.
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007