Appeal 2006-1601
Application 09/828,579
the system of Ehlers to handle energy price increases (Ehlers, col. 23, ll. 24-28)
from plural suppliers. Such would necessarily entail determining if there is more
than a single rate change so that each could be processed in the system of Ehlers.
As to the second feature, we again agree with the Examiner as this feature is
the whole basis for the Ehlers system. At column 31, lines 36-39, Ehlers explicitly
describes using “criteria for the system to use to select acceptable suppliers” and
that the criteria includes “price.” Thus, future rate changes are verified against the
criteria to determine consistency of the rate change with the criteria.
(9)
The Board’s analysis with respect to claims 5, 10, 15, and 20
As previously noted, Appellant argues at page 23 of the Brief that “the
Examiner has failed to provide the supporting documentary proof requested by
Applicant with respect to the taking of Official Notice in the February 10, 2004
Office Action.” This was Appellant’s only specific point or argument with respect
to claims 5, 10, 15, and 20. In response to Appellant’s request, the Examiner
provided a specific example (Answer 5-6). Appellant’s Reply Brief does not
further address or comment on the specific example provided in the Examiner’s
Answer. Therefore, we deem Appellant’s request to be fully satisfied and the
rejection of these claims is sustained.
(10)
Summary
Therefore, for the reasons above, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 2-5, 7-8, 10, 12-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013