Appeal No. 2006-1934
Application No. 09/798,833
1. A computer-implemented method for assessing potential marketing action
to be taken by a business with respect to a customer-of-interest in a set of
customers, comprising the steps of:
(a) identifying, via said computer, a historical customer value (HCV) for
said customer of interest;
(b) computing, via said computer, an intrinsic customer value (ICV) of
said customer-of-interest based on an HCV of said customers from said set of
customers that are similar to said customer of interest;
(c) comparing, via said computer, said HCV and ICV of said customer of
interest to develop a comparison result; and
(d) identifying marketing steps to be taken with respect to said customer-
of-interest based on said comparison result.
Reference
The reference relied upon by the examiner is:
Lazarus et al. (Lazarus) 6,430,539 Aug. 6, 2002
Rejection at Issue
Claims 1 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) as being anticipated
by Lazarus. Throughout the opinion we make reference to the briefs, the answer and the
Office action for the respective details thereof.
Opinion
We have considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced by the
examiner and the evidence of anticipation relied upon by the examiner in support of the
rejection. We have likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s rationale
in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejection and the arguments of appellants and the examiner, and for the
reasons stated infra we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 6 under
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007