Appeal No. 2001-1390
Application No. 08/922,599
testing and without specifically conducting
forced choice testing.4
Simply stated, it is quite apparent to us, from a reading of
the overall Peryam reference, that those having ordinary skill in
the art, at the time of appellants' invention, would have been
able to predict the likelihood that a consumer would select one
product over another from a consideration of or processing of the
data derived from hedonic testing. As expressly revealed by
Peryam (page 2, column 2, lines 20 through 25), the hedonic scale
method yields direct responses for "predicting actual behavior"
toward food. Of particular significance, is the teaching in the
Peryam document of the interpretation and use of hedonic scale
data (page 4, column 2, lines 49 through 58). More specifically,
the reference reveals that, to a food technologist (one having
ordinary skill in the art), hedonic test data yields information
as to the "probable acceptance" of foods by consumers; in other
words, foods are evaluated (consumer preference) indirectly by
making inferences from behavioral measures (hedonic testing).
The hedonic scale method is recognized for yielding information
4 Appellants indicate (specification, page 3) that, in
forced choice testing, a consumer is forced to choose which
product he or she prefers from among a forced selection of two
possible products.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007