Appeal 2006-1601
Application 09/828,579
the individual premise systems to re-compute their economic models
and either remain committed to the provider and the new price per
energy unit, curtail usage or switch to another energy unit provider”);
and
column 27, line 67 through column 28, line 2 (“the user will be prompted for
supplier ID, rates, start time for each rate, length of time the rate is
valid”).
Looking to lines 31-37 of column 23 in particular, the price change for
upcoming time periods (future rate change) has occurred as to the provider in that
they have decided to change prices, but has not as to customer as they have yet to
commit to the provider’s new price. Therefore, we conclude that Ehlers explicitly
teaches “future rate changes” that have not yet occurred as to the customer.
Additionally, we conclude that Ehlers teaches that the future rate changes will have
an effective date (start time).
Further, Appellant argues that his claim is concerned with the supplier side.
We disagree. As we have already noted, we find no such limitation in claim 6.
Therefore, for the reasons above, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013