Appeal No. 2006-3126 Page 12
Application No. 10/154,060
Appellant argues that neither Flynn nor Rusch discloses estimating
power currently available from a power supply [brief, pages 9 and 10].
We note that we have found supra that Flynn teaches a power
estimator (i.e., microprocessor 112 that performs the function of estimating
power currently available from a power supply) [see discussion of claim 6,
supra].
Appellant argues that neither Flynn nor Rusch discloses allocating
power to each component of a plurality of components of the device based
on the one or more current characteristics of the device [brief, pages 9 and
10]. Appellant notes that the examiner has relied upon Rusch as teaching
allocating power based on a user preference [brief, page 10]. Appellant
argues that Rusch’s user preferences relate to service/function preferences
of the wireless device and not to individual components within the wireless
device among which power is selectively allocated [brief, page 10].
We note that we have found supra that Flynn discloses allocating
power based on one or more current characteristics of the device and/or
associated device components [see discussion of claim 6, supra]. We note
that the examiner’s rejection is based on the combination of the references.
With respect to Rusch, we note that appellant has acknowledged in the
brief that Rusch discloses switching to a lower-power communication link if
the battery of the wireless device becomes low based on user preference
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007