Appeal 2007-1308
Application 10/097,398
1 Examiner made up for this deficiency in finding that Zaltman discloses exposing
2 the subject to stimulus about a target product, and further behavioral measurement
3 at a predetermined later time, and that the subject is provided an opportunity to
4 interact with a product and other similar products. In addition, Zaltman discloses
5 measuring the preference shown to the subject product as opposed to the similar
6 products.
7 The Examiner found the motivation to combine Eldering and Zaltman in a
8 manner to reach the claimed subject matter by noting that Eldering discloses the
9 heuristics rules being able to include any type of market study which provide the
10 basis for better estimating the demographics of the consumer, and concluding that
11 therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
12 time the invention was made to include exposing a plurality of consumers to at
13 least one reference product and a plurality of comparative relevant market
14 products, and additionally exposing at least some of said plurality of consumers to
15 market stimuli at a pre-determined rate in Eldering, as seen in Zaltman as a basis
16 for better estimating the demographics of the consumer, thereby making the system
17 more effective. (Answer 3-5).
18 The Appellants contend that the Examiner presents only a general statement of
19 motivation to combine the references without showing the motivation to combine
20 the references to produce the specific combination recited in the claims and that
21 while Eldering is directed to a consumer profiling system for estimating consumer
22 demographics and Zaltman is directed to prediction of future behavior, such as
23 future purchase behavior, the Appellants’ invention is directed to something totally
24 different – measuring the market with a virtual test market system. (Br. 6-7).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013