Ex Parte Johnson - Page 8

                 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