Appeal 2007-0660
Application 10/116,574
device after a booting process has been completed, and a next scheduled
sleep event has begun. (Findings of Fact 10). We find that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have readily recognized that when the portable device
is rebooted, stored Auto on/ Auto off files must be retrieved in order for the
next sleep event to take place. Furthermore, we have found that Kuroda
teaches shutting down the portable device if it is not used over a specific
amount of time. (Findings of Fact 12). In light of these findings, it is our
view that the combination of Taylor and Kuroda would have suggested the
limitation of automatically re-enabling the automatic shutdown to occur after
the pre-specified period of inactivity, upon a subsequent power up of the
handheld device. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of
Taylor and Kuroda to yield the invention as claimed. It follows that the
Examiner did not err in rejecting representative claim 1 as being
unpatentable over Taylor and Kuroda. It follows for the same reasons that
the Examiner did not err in rejecting dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 11
through 13 as being unpatentable over Taylor and Kuroda.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
has failed to establish that the combination of Taylor and Kuroda renders
claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 11 through 13 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013