Appeal No. 2004-2074
Application No. 09/862,946
and the mean data is then put into spider diagrams which show the
response, thus indicating that the panelist data is not
graphically presented and is not modified. Thus, appellants
assert, “this disclosure can not be fairly said to provide a
simultaneous response of the data to the panelist” (principal
brief-page 4).
Rather than providing for a simultaneous visual
interpretation, appellants assert that Darrington teaches that
the scores are averaged and then put into a graphical form so
that the panelist in Darrington cannot reconfigure the data based
upon its presentation and the panelist’s perception of the
product. Appellants urge that Darrington “teaches away” from the
instant invention “since the supervisor of the panels are
compiling the data and using the mean data to score the results”
(principal brief-page 4).
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-6, and 13-18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The claims require the subject to be able to manipulate the
positions of a perception scale, based on the rating to be given
to a plurality of attributes, and the position of the variable
position scale is provided to a computing means which provides a
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007