Appeal 2006-1601
Application 09/828,579
With respect to Appellant’s earlier request for documentary proof,
Appellant’s Reply Brief does not address or comment on the specific examples
provided in the Examiner’s Answer. Therefore, we deem this request to be fully
satisfied.
With respect to the Examiner’s rebuttal of lack of motivation and hindsight,
Appellant points out that while the cited column may provide “some small
suggestion” it does not suggest the specifically claimed features of “determining
whether the future rate change is a single plan change” (claims 2, 7, 12, and 17)
and “verifying consistency of a future rate plan with an old rate plan” (claims 3, 8,
13, and 18).
(6)
Representative claims 7 and 8
We select claim 7 as representative of claims 2, 7, 12, and 17 for purposes of
our decision, and we select claim 8 as representative of claims 3, 4, 8, 13, and 18
for purposes of our decision. We then address claims 5, 10, 15, and 20 jointly.
(7)
The Board’s Claim Construction
Upon our review of Appellant’s claim 7 in light of Appellant’s
Specification, we conclude the following:
(a) Step of “determining if the future rate change is a single plan change” –
As above, no limitation is placed on this step as to the supplier
side or customer side. No limitation is placed on when this step
occurs in relation to the steps of claim 6. No limitation is placed on
how this step is to be carried out.
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013