Appeal No. 2006-3126 Page 14
Application No. 10/154,060
power management system with a user-preference power management
feature, as disclosed by Rusch. We further find that both Flynn and Rusch
are analogous references from the same field of endeavor as the instant
claimed invention. In particular, we note that both Flynn and Rusch are
directed to portable communication devices such as PDAs, mobile
telephones, and the like.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find that the examiner
has met his/her burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for
independent claim 1 and independent claim 13. Accordingly, we will sustain
the examiner’s rejection of these claims as being unpatentable over Flynn in
view of Rusch.
Claims 2-5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15
We note that appellant has not separately argued dependent claims 2-
5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15. Therefore, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of these claims for the same reasons discussed supra with respect
to independent claims 1, 6 and 13, and also for the reasons set forth by the
examiner in the rejection.
Claims 16-18
We consider next the examiner’s rejection of claims 16-18 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Flynn in view of Rusch, and further in
view of Wu.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007