Appeal No. 2001-1390
Application No. 08/922,599
We sustain the rejection of appellants' claim 1. It follows
that the rejection of claim 6 is likewise sustained since, as
indicated in the main brief (page 3), claims 1 and 6 stand
together. Our reasoning appears below.
Claim 1 is drawn to a method for determining forced-choice
preference information, said method comprising, inter alia,
processing hedonic data from all of a number of test subjects to
determine at least one predicted forced choice preference result,
with said at least one predicted forced choice preference result
being indicative of the likelihood that a test subject would
select one of two or more test samples over another of said test
samples in a forced choice comparison of a pair of the test
samples.
At this point, we refer to appellants' statement in the
"Summary of the Invention" section of the specification (page 4
and 5) that
it is possible to determine the likelihood
that a consumer will choose one product
(product A) over another product (product B)
of the same type simply by conducting hedonic
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007