Appeal 2007-1468
Application 09/912,784
However, claims 34 and 38 are dependent upon claims 32 and 36
respectively, the rejection of which we affirm. Thus, we will consider the
rejection of claims 34 and 38 together as a group. As discussed above,
independent claim 32 does not recite a limitation limiting the scope of the
claim to performing the seek when the computer is powered off. However,
claim 34 further limits claim 32 by reciting wherein the seek logic refrains
from enabling the wireless communication means module from seeking
wireless access clients if the computer is powered-on” which limits the
scope of the claim to refraining from scanning unless the computer is in the
powered-off condition (opposite of powered-on). Dependent claim 38
recites similar limitations. As discussed above with respect to claim 40, we
find that the combination teaches turning off power to a radio receiver
except when activated by a user. However, as also discussed above, with
respect to claim 17, we do not find that the combination teaches a radio
module scans for access ports while the computer is off (not operational as
far as the user is concerned). Thus, we do not find that the combination of
AARA and Ishigaki teaches all of the limitations of claims 34 and 38. For
the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25, 34, 38,
46, and 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the combination of
AARA and Ishigaki.
II) Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as unpatentable over
Applicant Admitted Related Art (AARA) in view of Ishigaki
and Official Notice of what is well known in the art.
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013