Appeal 2007-0660
Application 10/116,574
shift to the Appellants. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See
also Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788. Thus, the Examiner
must not only assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence
of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are
deemed to support the Examiner’s conclusion.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
As set forth above, representative claim 1 requires (1) providing an
audible warning that the automatic shutdown is imminent, at a pre-
designated time prior to the automatic shutdown. As detailed in the Findings
of Fact section above, we have found Taylor generally teaches a visual
notification mechanism as well as an audio notification mechanism
(Findings of Fact 6). More specifically, Taylor explicitly teaches displaying
a warning with a count down of an imminent shutdown of the portable
device. (Findings of Fact 9). Additionally, we have found that Kuroda
teaches issuing visual and audio warnings that the power of the portable
device has fallen below a pre-specified level. (Findings of Fact 11). In light
of these findings, it is our view that the combination of Taylor and Kuroda
would have suggested the limitation of providing an audible warning that the
automatic shutdown is imminent, at a pre-designated time prior to the
automatic shutdown, as recited in representative claim 1.
Further, as set forth above, representative claim 1 requires (2)
automatically re-enabling the automatic shutdown to occur after the pre-
specified period of inactivity, upon a subsequent power up of the handheld
device. As detailed in the Findings of Fact above, we have found that
Taylor teaches that restoring the Auto on/Auto off features of the portable
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013