Appeal No. 2006-1817 Page 7
Application No. 09/851,514
In particular, as found by the examiner, the tool of Harhen makes projections
about the business enterprise based on many factors by applying multiple
reasoning methods. (Harhen, col. 4, lines 50-54.) “The process starts when the
user asks the system to solve a problem. The typical question is to determine the
behavior of a variable in the future.” (Harhen, col. 5, lines 52-55.) The tool
performs variable projections by applying multiple reasoning methods. (Harhen,
col. 5, lines 21-24.) Applying different reasoning methods gives rise to the need for
reconciliation rules (choosing between competing evidence based on its
plausibility). (Harhen, col. 5, lines 21-32.) A problem tree, representing the path
to the final hypothesis, is constructed as the search for a solution proceeds.
(Harhen, col. 6, lines 33-37.) “The reconciliation rules prune the search tree by
eliminating inferior hypotheses.” (Harhen, col. 6, lines 7-12.) Harhen’s tool
documents both the evidence that it has adopted and also “those reasoning methods
and conclusions that it has decided to ignore” so as to “facilitate[ ] explanation of
the solution path created.” (Harhen, col. 5, lines 37-49 and Examiner’s Answer,
pp. 15-17.)
With regard to the Deaton reference, the appellants do not challenge the
examiner’s findings as to its teachings. As such, we sustain the examiner’s
findings as to the scope and content of Deaton.
In addition to the prior art relied upon by the examiner, the appellants admit
“[m]ethods of designing customer-specific promotion campaign plans are known,”
and “the typical goal of a promotion campaign plan is to increase the conversion
rate in a cost-efficient manner.” (Specification (Background Art), p. 1, lines 37-38
and page 2, lines 1-2.) The appellants also recognize that a prior art system, sold
under the trademark MARKETSWITCH TRUE OPTIMIZATION, uses a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007