Appeal 2007-1308
Application 10/097,398
1 choice data and product repurchase data. The Appellants are simply hypothesizing
2 an intended use for the claimed subject matter and tailoring their arguments to such
3 use. The claimed subject matter is broader the argued by Appellants, claims are
4 given their broadest reasonable interpretation in examination.
5 As to the Appellants’ remaining contention in (FF03), and as set forth by the
6 Examiner, exposure to a pre-determined rate of exposure to market stimuli is
7 shown (Zaltman, col. 16, ll. 9-12) and the results generated from some components
8 being fed into other components is shown (Eldering, fig. 5).
9 Thus, the only portions of the Appellants’ contended omission from claim 1 in
10 (FF03), aside from those portions that the Examiner has shown to be in claim 1, are
11 not actually within the scope of claim 1.
12 From FF07, we conclude that Zaltman provides suggestions on how to measure
13 consumer behavior towards advertising strategy of targeted products such as
14 Eldering’s new products. A person of ordinary skill in the art solving problems of
15 new product introduction such as solved by Eldering, would have therefore looked
16 to Zaltman to assist in implementing advertising and promotion portion of the new
17 product introduction strategy.
18 In particular, Zaltman teaches how to lay out an environment for controlling
19 the implementation of market research, such as providing both reference and
20 comparative products, and exposure of consumers to market stimuli at a
21 predetermined rate.
22 A new product introduction, such as that indicated by Eldering, would not have
23 the benefit of actual experience, given the novelty of the product, and therefore a
24 person of ordinary skill in the art, in implementing Eldering, would seek market
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013