Appeal No. 2004-1981 Page 4
Application No. 09/404,692
Inherency, however, may not be established by
probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact
that a certain thing may result from a given set
of circumstances is not sufficient.
The examiner's position is set forth on pages 3-5 of the
answer. Appellants assert (brief, pages 4 and 5) that Clearwater
fails to teach two elements of the claimed invention. Firstly,
appellants assert (brief, page 4) Clearwater does not teach or
suggest1 the claimed marketwire element. Appellants argue (id.)
that Clearwater does not teach “that it is the same control
signal or circuit that goes to each of the producing units and
consuming units.” Appellants further argue (brief, page 5) that
“the signal provided in Clearwater is a control signal that does
not inherently represent a market price.” Secondly, appellants
assert (brief, page 5) that Clearwater fails to teach a producing
unit that is itself responsive to a market price signal.
Appellants argue that in the system of Clearwater, the auction
controller determines the market price and then sends a signal to
the producing unit, rather than the producing unit itself
responding to the market price.
1 Appellants' assertion regarding “suggestions” of Clearwater are
misplaced as the claims have not been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007