Obviousness

An analysis of the obviousness of U.S. Patent No. 8,069,073 B2 ("the '073 patent") under 35 U.S.C. § 103 reveals a strong case for invalidity. The patent, which claims a system and method for facilitating bilateral and multilateral decision-making, appears to be a combination of known elements from the prior art that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The key elements of the patent—the use of forced-choice questions, the creation of preference profiles, and the application of conjoint analysis for matching—were all well-established in fields such as market research, survey methodology, and early e-commerce systems before the patent's priority date of December 23, 1999.

Breaking Down the '073 Patent Claims

While the full text of all claims is extensive, the core of the invention is captured in its independent claims. These claims generally describe a computer-implemented method for facilitating an evaluation between parties and counterparties in a transactional context. The method involves:

1. Presenting a series of forced-choice questions to at least one party and at least one counterparty to elicit their respective responses.
2. Generating preference profiles for each party and counterparty based on their responses.
3. Utilizing conjoint analysis on these preference profiles.
4. Delivering a list that matches at least one party with at least one counterparty based on the analysis of their preference profiles.

Identifying Relevant Prior Art

A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been familiar with several key technologies and methodologies that, when combined, would render the claims of the '073 patent obvious.

1. Conjoint Analysis as a Tool for Preference Measurement:

Conjoint analysis was a widely used and well-documented marketing research technique long before 1999. Academic journals and marketing publications extensively discussed its use for understanding consumer preferences for product features and attributes. For example, the work of Green and Srinivasan in the 1970s and 80s laid the foundational principles of conjoint analysis. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of using conjoint analysis to decompose overall judgments into part-worths for specific attributes, thereby creating a quantitative model of user preferences.

2. The Use of Forced-Choice Questions in Surveys:

The field of survey methodology had long recognized the utility of forced-choice questions to elicit more accurate and deliberate responses from participants. Research in this area, published in psychology and survey research journals, demonstrated that forcing a respondent to make a definitive choice between options, rather than allowing for neutral or "check-all-that-apply" answers, could lead to more reliable data for building profiles of preferences and behaviors.

3. Early E-commerce and Recommendation Systems:

The late 1990s saw the rise of e-commerce, and with it, the development of recommendation systems. Companies like Amazon were already using algorithms to suggest products to users based on their past purchases and browsing behavior. These systems, in essence, created user preference profiles and used them to match users with items they were likely to be interested in. While perhaps not using the formal term "conjoint analysis," the underlying principle of matching based on user data was a known concept.

4. Matching Systems in Other Domains:

Prior to 1999, various computer-implemented systems for matching individuals based on profiles and preferences already existed. A notable example is online dating services, which used questionnaires to gather data on users' interests, personalities, and what they were looking for in a partner. These systems would then use algorithms to suggest compatible matches. This demonstrates the established practice of using computer systems to facilitate bilateral matching based on user-provided preference data.

Motivation to Combine the Prior Art

A person of ordinary skill in the art, tasked with creating a more effective online system for facilitating business transactions or agreements, would have been motivated to combine these existing technologies for several reasons:

• Predictable Results: Combining the rigorous preference measurement of conjoint analysis with the accurate data collection of forced-choice questions would have been a logical step to create more robust and predictive user preference profiles. This would be a predictable improvement over simpler user profiling methods.
• Efficiency and Automation: In the burgeoning world of e-commerce and online business-to-business interactions, there was a clear need to automate and scale the process of finding suitable partners or products. Applying a well-understood analytical method like conjoint analysis to computer-generated preference profiles would be a natural way to achieve this.
• Analogous Applications: The success of matching systems in other domains, such as online dating, would have provided a clear motivation to apply similar principles to the commercial and financial spheres. The idea of matching a "buyer" and a "seller" or two collaborating businesses is analogous to matching two individuals for a relationship.
• Market Demands: As businesses moved online, there was a growing demand for tools that could help them navigate a larger and more complex marketplace. A system that could intelligently match parties based on their specific needs and preferences would have been a valuable and, from a technical standpoint, obvious solution to this problem.

Conclusion

The claims of US Patent No. 8,069,073 B2 appear to be an obvious combination of pre-existing technologies and methodologies. The use of forced-choice questions to build user profiles, the application of conjoint analysis to understand those preferences, and the use of computer systems to match parties based on those profiles were all known concepts in the prior art before the patent's priority date. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements to create a system for facilitating bilateral and multilateral decision-making in a commercial context, with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the '073 patent is likely invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for being obvious.