Appeal 2006-1601
Application 09/828,579
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact, as necessary, appear in the Analysis infra.
IV. ANALYSIS – EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS
A. Claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 19 - Whether Appellant has established
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 102?
(1)
Introduction
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found only if
the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim. See In re King, 801
F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458,
221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
(2)
Examiner’s Prima Facie Case
The Examiner’s prima facie case is set forth at pages 3-4 of the Answer.
(3)
Appellant’s Response and Argument in the Brief
Appellant argues at page 16 of the Brief that Ehlers does not disclose “a
billing system as is the subject of each and every claim.”
Further, Appellant argues at page 17 of the Brief that Ehlers’s use of the
word “future” relates to future energy usage rather than future rate changes.
Appellant argues, at page 18, that “[t]he processor in Ehlers et al. does look at rate
tables of energy suppliers but those are current rate tables” and “there is no
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013