Appeal 2006-1601
Application 09/828,579
Thus, we conclude the identifying step merely requires that
anyone or anything identify in any way that a rate change is to occur
as to the customer either immediately or at some later time.
(c) Step of “selecting the future rate plan desired” –
As above, no limitation is placed on this step as to the supplier
side or customer side. No limitation is placed on how this claimed
step is to be carried out.
The language “the future rate plan” does not limit this step to
sequentially following the “identifying step.” Rather, as Appellant
states at page 4 of the Brief, this claimed step is exemplified by box
53 in Appellant’s Figure 4, and box 53 occurs before block 63 (the
identifying step). Further, nothing in this step requires selecting
among more than one possible rate plan. Appellant’s box 53
specifically states “INPUT NEW CUSTOMER RATE PLAN” in the
singular. We find no disclosure in Appellant’s Specification of a
requirement of “more than one” possible rate plan with respect to this
step.
Thus, we conclude the selecting step merely requires that
anyone or anything select in any way a desired rate plan.
(d) Step of “implementing the future rate change” –
As above, no limitation is placed on this step as to the supplier
side or customer side. No limitation is placed on how this step is to be
carried out.
The language “implementing the future rate change” does not
limit this step to only tangible implementations. Rather, as Appellant
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013