Target Brands, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 2, 2020

2019005910 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/626,253 02/19/2015 Sarah Roxanne Peterson 201404094 1075
67260 7590 06/02/2020
TARGET BRANDS, INC.
1000 NICOLLET MALL, TPS-3165
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403
EXAMINER
STOLTENBERG, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
USPTO.MAIL@TARGET.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SARAH ROXANNE PETERSON, AMBER M. REIMER,
ANANTH RANGANATH, PATRICK JON VESPERMAN,
EVAN JACOB HOVORKA, ANDREW JOHNSON,
RAJA RAMACHANDRAN, and JOHN HOWARD REINSCHMIDT
____________

Appeal 2019-005910
Application 14/626,253
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LISA M. GUIJT, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision in the Final Office Action (dated Nov. 1, 2018, hereinafter “Final

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Target Brands, Inc. is identified as the real party in
interest in Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed Mar. 29, 2019, hereinafter
“Appeal Br.”). Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005910
Application 14/626,253

2

Act.”) rejecting claims 1–4, 6–10, 12–18, and 20.2 We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a computer-implemented method
and a computer-readable medium that permit a user to receive, select, and
redeem vendor offers. Spec. paras. 4–6.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving at an online retail website a plurality of
promotional codes for a plurality of respective offers as
part of a request for a dynamic landing page user
interface where the request is provided in response to
selection of a single control provided on a page
displaying the plurality of respective offers as previously
selected offers;
for each promotional code in the plurality of
promotional codes, using the promotional code to
identify a product associated with the promotional code;
and transmitting the dynamic landing page user interface
to display for each promotional code in the plurality of
promotional codes:
an identifier for the product associated with the
promotional code, a discount associated with the
promotional code’s offer, and

2 Claims 5, 11, and 19 are canceled. Appeal Br. 16, 17, 19, Appendix A.
Appeal 2019-005910
Application 14/626,253

3

a shopping cart control for adding the product
associated with the promotional code to an electronic
shopping cart.

REJECTIONS3

I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 7–10, 12, 13, 15, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Faith4 and Boehle.5
II. The Examiner rejects claims 2, 6, 14, 16, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Faith, Boehle, and
Boal.6
III. The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Faith, Boehle, and Main.7
IV. The Examiner rejects claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Faith, Boehle, and Kassan.8

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Claims 1 and 7
Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, the “selection of a single
control” located on a page displaying a plurality of previously selected

3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims
1–4, 6–10, 12–18, and 20. Examiner’s Answer 4 (dated May 22, 2019,
hereinafter “Ans.”).
4 Faith et al., US 2013/0332283 A1, published Dec. 12, 2013.
5 Boehle, US 2012/0084122 A1, published Apr. 5, 2012.
6 Boal, US 2014/0180793 A1, published June 26, 2014.
7 Main et al., US 2013/0024261 A1, published Jan. 24, 2013.
8 Kassan, US 2005/0144093 A1, published June 30, 2005.
Appeal 2019-005910
Application 14/626,253

4

offers in order to receive at an online retail website a plurality of
promotional codes for the offers. Appeal Br. 15, Appendix A.
The Examiner finds that Faith discloses “a listing of multiple offers
including a single control [412B] to access a page listing preselected offers .
. . [and] a user profile,” wherein “each offer in the listing is presented as a
product related promotional code or offer, including a selection button to
invoke a redemption process which navigates to a merchant webpage [434].”
Final Act. 24–25 (citing Faith, paras. 79–84, Figs. 4A–4C). Thus, according
to the Examiner,
Faith discloses the selection or invocation of a single control
such as a profile button [412B], which results in a display of a
listing of pre-selected offers to a user, and each offer includes a
method such as a “use coupon” control to access a merchant
webpage such as a shopping cart, in order redeem an offer by
purchasing the associated product, as is claimed by the instant
invention.

Id. at 25; see also Ans. 5.
Appellant argues that although Faith discloses saving and displaying
favorite offers, nonetheless, “when the favorite offers are displayed, there is
no way in Faith to select a single control to request a page that facilitates
purchasing items associated with all of the favorited offers.” Appeal Br. 9
(citing Faith, para. 68). Rather, according to Appellant, “the user must
individually select each favorited offer in the list of favorites (steps 75 and
108) in order to receive a website page for that particular favorited offer.”
Id. Therefore, Appellant asserts that “[t]here is no way to select a single
control to obtain a website page for purchasing items for multiple different
offers.” Id.
Appeal 2019-005910
Application 14/626,253

5

The Examiner responds that claim 1 is broader than Appellant’s
construction of the claim language. See Ans. 5. Accordingly, “the
Examiner interprets [c]laim 1 to claim the invocation of a single control to
access a listing or page of previously selected offers, and then concluding
purchases via a shopping cart by the invocation of a shopping cart control
with respect to each offer.” Id. Thus, the Examiner asserts that claim 1 “is
not claiming the invocation of a single control to access an electronic
shopping cart for purchasing multiple offers.” Id.
Faith discloses “Profile” button 412B as “enabl[ing] a user to access a
user profile,” which stores user information (attributes), such as a picture of
the user, user identifier, list of favorite offers, list of favorite merchants, user
password, user location, user gender, and account information. See Faith,
paras. 45, 80. Faith further discloses accessing and retrieving a user’s
favorite offers from the user profile which is accessed via button 412B. Id.,
paras. 26, 40, 45, 68. As such, Faith employs “Profile” button 412B to
display a page containing a plurality of offers, whereas claim 1 requires that
the “single control [be] provided on a page displaying the plurality of
respective offers.” In other words, in Faith, the “single control” is selected
and then a plurality of previously selected offers are displayed on a
requested page. However, claim 1 requires that the “single control” be
placed (provided) on the page displaying the plurality of respective offers.
See Reply Br. 2–3.9 Such an interpretation is consistent with Appellant’s
Specification, which describes button 604 as being placed (provided) on a
page displaying “the selected offers that are eligible for online redemption.”

9 Appellant’s Reply Brief, filed July 22, 2019.
Appeal 2019-005910
Application 14/626,253

6

Spec. para. 33, Fig. 6. Accordingly, Faith does not disclose “a single control
provided on a page displaying the plurality of respective offers,” as recited
in claim 1.
As the Examiner does not employ the disclosure of Boehle to remedy
the deficiency of Faith discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1 and 7 as unpatentable over Faith and
Boehle.

Claims 8–10, 12, 13, 15, and 18
Each of independent claims 8 and 15 requires a similar limitation as
the limitation discussed supra in the rejection of independent claim 1. In
particular, independent claim 8 recites, “displaying a set of multiple selected
offers and a single control to redeem selected offers” and independent claim
15 recites, “displaying a plurality of offers selected by the user along
with a single control.” Appeal Br. 17–18, Appendix A.
As discussed above, in Faith, the “single control” is selected and then
a plurality of previously selected offers are displayed on a requested page,
whereas claims 8 and 15 require that the “single control” be displayed with
or along with multiple (set of) selected offers.
Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, we likewise do
not sustain the rejection of claims 8–10, 12, 13, 15, and 18 as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Faith and Boehle.

Rejections II–IV
The Examiner does not employ the disclosure of Boal, Main, or
Kassan to remedy the deficiency of the combination of Faith and Boehle
Appeal 2019-005910
Application 14/626,253

7

discussed supra. See Final Act. 15–21. Therefore, for the same reasons
discussed above, we do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of
claims 2, 6, 14, 16, and 17 as unpatentable over Faith, Boehle, and Boal; of
claims 3 and 4 as unpatentable over Faith, Boehle, and Main; and of claim
20 unpatentable over Faith, Boehle, and Kassan.

CONCLUSION

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 7–10, 12,
13, 15, 18
103 Faith, Boehle 1, 7–10, 12, 13,
15, 18
2, 6, 14, 16,
17
103 Faith, Boehle,
Boal
2, 6, 14, 16, 17
3, 4 103 Faith, Boehle,
Main
3, 4
20 103 Faith, Boehle,
Kassan
20
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–10, 12–
18, 20

REVERSED