Appeal 2006-1601
Application 09/828,579
disclosure of a mechanism, plan, arrangement or any scheme for ‘providing for
future rate changes in a billing system’ as Applicant is claiming.”
With respect to the “effective date” limitation of claims 9, 14, and 19,
Appellant argues at pages 18-19 of the Brief, that the “user” in Ehlers is limited to
a customer that “clearly has no prior knowledge of what plans the energy suppliers
have with respect to rates they plan to charge in the future.” Appellant goes on to
argue “[s]uch user also does not have any prior knowledge of when these rates are
to become effective, as such is a function of management decisions of the energy
suppliers.” Appellant then argues Ehlers’s system merely communicates with
various energy suppliers, determines their existing rates and then selects a supplier
based on those rates and other criteria established by the user of Ehlers’s system.
Finally, Appellant argues he “is concerned with the supplier side and the
ability to program a billing system for ease of establishing rate changes at a future
date.”
(4)
The Examiner’s Response in the Answer
With respect to the billing system of the claims, the Examiner responds at
page 8 of the Answer that Ehlers teaches such at column 23, lines 24-28.
With respect to “future rate changes” and their “effective date,” the
Examiner responds at page 8 of the Answer that Ehlers teaches such because the
energy supplier can communicate to the customer that a price change has occurred,
causing the individual premises to re-compute their economic models. (Ehlers at
col. 23, ll. 28-38). Furthermore, Ehlers teaches that the rates and start time for
each rate are entered by the user (col. 27, l. 66 – col. 28, l. 2).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013