Appeal No. 2006-1817 Page 17
Application No. 09/851,514
We disagree with the appellants’ reading of Harhen. We find that Harhen
clearly discloses this feature of the claim, as found by the examiner, in the teaching
of an output report that includes information concerning the reasoning methods and
solutions discarded (i.e., contradiction) and reasoning methods selected (i.e.,
resolutions). (Harhen, col. 46, lines 9-56.) As such, we hold that a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, possessed with the
understandings and knowledge reflected in the prior art, and motivated by the
general problem facing the inventor, would have been led to apply the teachings of
Harhen to the system and method Gerace in view of Deaton to make the
combination recited in claim 4.
VI. Dependent Claim 9
With respect to dependent claim 9, the examiner determined that Gerace
teaches using null values in testing marketing and targeting projections.
(Examiner’s Answer, p. 28.) As such, the examiner rejected this dependent claim
as obvious over Gerace in view of Harhen in view of Deaton.
The appellants argue that their specification provides a definition of the
claim term “null promotion” to mean “’a conversion that occurs without the
presentation of a promotion.’” (Appellants’ Brief, p. 15 (quoting Specification,
page 6, lines 28-29)). The appellants argue that Gerace “is using the word ‘null’ in
the context of performing a regression analysis” and that this concept is
“completely different” from “null promotion data” as recited in claim 9.
(Appellants’ Reply Brief, p. 5.)
We sustain the examiner’s rejection. As the examiner found, Gerace
suggests the use of null data in its method, and we do not see how Gerace’s
teaching of the use of null data is “completely different” as urged by appellants.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007