Appeal No. 2006-1817 Page 18
Application No. 09/851,514
Specifically, in the discussion of the use of regression analysis to refine the weight
assigned to various criteria used in the ad campaign, Gerace discloses using “null
and alternative hypothesis testing to determine the significance … of criteria and
variables.” (Gerace, col. 15, lines 30-33.) We find this to mean that Gerace uses a
null hypothesis (i.e., giving no weight to a particular criteria) to see if it affects the
overall score of the campaign. As such, the null hypothesis data are indicative of
the probability of achieving the business objective (e.g., a certain number of hits or
click throughs) by a customer segment while taking a particular criterion out of the
analysis.
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 and Deaton to the system and method of Gerace
to make the combination recited in claim 9.
VII. Dependent Claim 16
With respect to dependent claim 16, the examiner determined that “Harhen
discloses recognizing inconsistencies, balancing business goals and objectives, and
utilizing hierarchies concerning business goals and objectives.” (Examiner’s
Answer, p. 29.) As such, the examiner rejected this dependent claim as obvious
over Gerace in view of Harhen in view of Deaton.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007