Data processing: database and file management or data structures – Database design – Data structure types
Reexamination Certificate
1997-09-26
2001-05-22
Elmore, Reba I. (Department: 2187)
Data processing: database and file management or data structures
Database design
Data structure types
C707S793000, C709S203000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06236990
ABSTRACT:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention is related to computer software and more specifically to computer software for selection of products.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Selecting a product from a number of competing products can be a difficult task. To make an initial selection, the user may rely on the packaging, which is biased towards the product inside and may not provide all the information a user might need for comparison. Selecting a computer hardware or software product is especially difficult because the product may not be available for trial use before the user pays for it.
In the case of computer software, if the user decides after using software for a short period that the software will not meet his or her needs, some retailers will not accept it for return. This inhibits potential purchasers of computer software from purchasing products.
To make software available for trial use, special trial versions of a product may be made available by a manufacturer of the software so that a user can try a copy for a limited time or to perform limited functions. However, to test the software against other similar products, the user is required to learn how to use all of them, a time consuming task. Because some trial versions have only limited functionality or allow a limited duration use, the user may not be able to identify all of the features that he or she might find important. In addition, not all manufacturers wish to go through the trouble of creating trial versions of their products, so a user who is willing to learn and compare competing products may not have many trial versions of products against which to compare.
Computer hardware can be tried and returned, but the hardware must be checked to ensure that it was not damaged and the contents of the package are complete, a time consuming and costly process for the retailer that is prone to error. In addition, the return process is time consuming to the user who may have to bring the product to the retailer where it was purchased and wait for the retailer to check the product.
Some magazines have attempted to fill the need to assist potential users with the product selection process. PC Week and Consumer Reports are examples of magazines that attempt to offer advice on the selection of computer hardware and software products. PC Week recommends to its readers one or more products from multiple competing products. However, because consumers have widely varying needs, the product recommended may not be the best product for each user. Consumer Reports rates each product on a five point scale on how well it performs a few functions, allowing the user more flexibility in selection, but requiring the user to weigh the importance of each function in order to come to a conclusion. In the case of computer products, both magazines become quickly outdated because of the rapid pace of technological improvements. In addition, the same products are not reviewed in each edition, necessitating a search for back issues that may not be available at the place of purchase of the product.
It is therefore desirable to assist a user with selecting a product without requiring the user to learn how to use, or to purchase and return, multiple products, in a manner that can be kept up to date as new products appear and existing products are updated, that can be tailored to the user's requirements and that can be made available at the place of purchase of the product.
SUMMARY OF INVENTION
A method and system stores a product catalog, which includes product names and can include a category for each product. Attributes for each product category are identified and products within each category are evaluated by experts who can compare each of the products and how they rate with respect to each attribute. Each of the products in each category is rated for compliance with the attributes identified, for example using a 100-point scale, and the ratings are stored. The user is prompted to select a category. For the category selected, stored prompts are provided to the user, allowing the user to weigh the importance of each attribute, and this preference information is stored. The preference and rating information stored is used to rank each product within the category and provide the ranking to the user, tailored to the preferences of the user. The user can change a preference and recalculate the rankings based on the new preference information. The user can obtain additional evaluation information, and can order the product. The catalog, attributes, prompts and evaluation information is remotely updatable.
Because experts test and evaluate the products, and the preference of the user is used to rank each product in a category, the user is able to see product rankings that are tailored to his or her requirements without requiring the user to learn how to operate multiple competing products, or to purchase and return those not suitable. Because the system is remotely updatable, attribute and rating information can be kept up to date, and always available at the point of purchase.
REFERENCES:
patent: 4996642 (1991-02-01), Hey
patent: 5550746 (1996-08-01), Jacobs
patent: 5717865 (1998-02-01), Stratmann
patent: 5717923 (1998-02-01), Dedrick
patent: 5721832 (1998-02-01), Westrope et al.
patent: 5731991 (1998-03-01), Kinra et al.
patent: 5754850 (1998-05-01), Janssen
patent: 5754938 (1998-05-01), Herz et al.
patent: 5872850 (1999-02-01), Klein et al.
patent: 5884282 (1999-03-01), Robinson
patent: 5890175 (1999-03-01), Wong et al.
patent: 5897639 (1999-04-01), Greef et al.
patent: 5913202 (1999-06-01), Motoyama
patent: 5937389 (1999-08-01), Maxwell
patent: 5950172 (1999-09-01), Klingman
patent: 5970473 (1999-10-01), Gerszberg et al.
patent: 6029195 (2000-02-01), Herz et al.
patent: 6038554 (2000-03-01), Vig
patent: 6041311 (2000-03-01), Chislenko et al.
patent: 6049777 (2000-04-01), Sheena et al.
patent: 0 265 083 (1988-04-01), None
“Personalogic: PersonaLogic Inc. Launches Breakthrough Web-Based Personalized Decision Guides”; Business Wire [online]. Retrieved from Dialog Information Services, Accession No. 0723048, Jul. 1997.
Geller Mark S
Rubin David R
Elmore Reba I.
Gotlieb Charles E.
Intraware, Inc.
LandOfFree
Method and system for ranking multiple products according to... does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Method and system for ranking multiple products according to..., we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Method and system for ranking multiple products according to... will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2566343