Appeal 2006-1601
Application 09/828,579
Consistent with our construction of claim 6 above, we conclude
that this determining step merely requires that anyone or anything at
any time determines whether there is more than a single rate change.
Upon our review of Appellant’s claim 8 in light of Appellant’s
Specification, we conclude the following:
(b) Step of “verifying that the future rate plan is consistent . . .” –
As above, no limitation is placed on this step as to the supplier
side or customer side. While this step must follow the step of claim 7,
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.
Consistent with our construction of claim 6 above, we conclude
that this verifying step merely requires that anyone or anything at any
time verifies in any form the consistency of the future rate plan with
an old rate plan.
(8)
The Board’s analysis of Appellant’s Arguments with respect to claims 7 and 8
With respect to Appellant’s request for documentary proof, we deem this
issue to be moot in view of the specific examples provided in the Examiner’s
Answer which were not challenged in the Appellant’s Reply.
As discussed above, Appellant also argues lack of motivation in Ehlers’s
“determining whether the future rate change is a single plan change” and
“verifying consistency of a future rate plan with an old rate plan.” We disagree.
As to the first feature, we agree with the Examiner that the motivation of
obtaining maximum benefit to the customer suggests that it would be desirable in
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013