Appeal No. 2001-1390
Application No. 08/922,599
about "probable acceptance" (page 5, column 1, lines 56 through
62). As explicitly stated by Peryam (page 6, column 1, lines 9
through 11),
accept both the measurement of preference and
the prediction of acceptance as the
objectives of hedonic test measurement.
The above teachings within the Peryam reference provide ample
evidence that the method of claim 1 would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art; in particular, the
reference document would have been suggestive of the step of
processing hedonic test data to determine at least one predicted
forced choice preference result (acceptance), the result
(acceptance) being indicative of the likelihood that a test
subject would select one test sample over another in a forced
choice comparison.
The arguments advanced by appellants (main brief, pages 3
through 7, and reply brief, pages 1 and 2) do not persuade us of
error on the part of the examiner in concluding that claim 1
would have been obvious based upon the overall teaching of the
Peryam document. The argument is presented (main brief, page 4)
that the prior art does not suggest "calculating" a forced choice
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007