Target Brands, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 28, 2020

14943609 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 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.
14/943,609 11/17/2015 Daniel Mark Cundiff 201502462 2535
91547 7590 08/28/2020
Target Brands Inc.
1000 Nicollet Mall
TPS-3165
Minneapolis, MN 55403
EXAMINER
WANG, JIN CHENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2020 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 DANIEL MARK CUNDIFF and JOSHUA JAMES BECK
Appeal 2019-003501
Application 14/943,609
Technology Center 2600
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JOYCE CRAIG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8, 10–15, and 17–20. See Final Act.
1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Target Brands, Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003501
Application 14/943,609

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate to planogram resets in a retail environment and,
more particularly, to facilitating a planogram reset using augmented reality.
Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system using augmented reality to facilitate a planogram
(POG) reset in a retail environment, the system comprising:
a location benchmark associated with an area of the retail
environment including a plurality of retail displays;
a display generator located relative to the location
benchmark, the display generator displaying an image
corresponding to the POG reset on one of the retail displays;
a control processor communicating with the display
generator and driving the display generator to display the
image; and
a data source communicating with the control processor,
the data source being a computer device that provides control
signals to the control processor based on pre-stored POG data,
wherein the control processor is programmed to identify a
specific location of the display generator in the retail
environment based on the relative position of the location
benchmark.
REJECTION
Claims 1–4, 7, 8, 10–13, 15, and 17–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Winkel (US 2014/0324642 A1, published Oct. 30,
2014). Final Act. 16.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combination of Winkel and Chirakansakcharoen et al. (US
2016/0110902 A1, published Apr. 21, 2016) (“Chirakansakcharoen”). Final
Act. 57.
Appeal 2019-003501
Application 14/943,609

3
Claims 5 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combination of Winkel and Durham et al. (US 2016/0088268 Al,
published Mar. 24, 2016) (“Durham”). Final Act. 58.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–4, 7, 8, 10–13, 15, and 17–20
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant contends the cited
portions of Winkel do not disclose the limitation “wherein the control
processor is programmed to identify a specific location of the display
generator in the retail environment,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 15.
Appellant argues that “[i]n no instance does the computing device or
projector identify a particular location of the projector and/or display board
relative to the retail space.” Id. at 12–13.
We are persuaded that the Examiner erred. The Examiner explained
that Appellant “misinterpreted applicant’s own claim invention as
specifically referring to a specific physical location of the display generator
12.” Final Act. 22. The Examiner interpreted the limitation “specific location
of the display generator in the retail environment based on the relative
position of the location benchmark” as the display position of the display
generator (projector) or the display position of the projected image by the
projector relative to the location benchmark of the display board. Id. (citing
Spec. ¶ 24). The Examiner then found that Winkel discloses identifying
where the planogram is to be recreated, “which is the same as the display
location of the display generator that generates the planogram as well as
calibrating/adjusting the projector to the particularly set distance away
from the display board.” Id. (citing Winkel, ¶¶ 117–118). The Examiner
further found that “the software of FIG. 12 inherently requires
Appeal 2019-003501
Application 14/943,609

4
identifying/adjusting a location of the projector,” id. (citing Winkel, Fig.
12), and that Winkel discloses that any projected position may be manually
adjusted or moved within the PIP system to correct the alignment of the
relative location, id. (citing Winkel, ¶ 18). The Examiner pieced together
further findings from paragraphs 25, 78, 117, 125, 126, and 137–142. Id. at
22–25; see also Ans. 5–19 (citing Winkel, Figs. 1A, 1B, 2, 9, ¶¶ 5, 12, 17,
25, 29, 31, 38, 39, 45, 94, 96–98, 115, 117, 118, 124, 126, 135–142).
We do not agree with the Examiner that Appellant misinterprets the
disputed limitation of claim 1. See Final Act. 22 (citing Spec. ¶ 24). The
plain language of claim 1 recites “to identify a specific location of the
display generator in the retail environment based on the relative position of
the location benchmark.” Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App’x). Thus, claim 1 on
its face requires identifying the specific location of a display generator (e.g.,
projector) in the retail environment. Paragraph 24 of Appellant’s
Specification describes that location benchmarks may include a keystone or
the like positioned in an aisle in the retail environment, and that the system
looks for and identifies the location benchmark nearest the display generator
to identify the location of the display generator. Spec. ¶ 24. Reading claim 1
in light of paragraph 24 of the Specification, and contrary to the Examiner’s
interpretation, claim 1 requires that the system identify a specific location of
the display generator in the retail environment based on the relative position
of a location benchmark. The Examiner has not proffered adequate support
that “specific location” means “display position,” or that the disputed
limitation is broad enough to include “the display position of the projected
image by the projector.” For at least these reasons, we conclude the
Appeal 2019-003501
Application 14/943,609

5
Examiner’s interpretation of the disputed limitation is overly broad,
unreasonable, and inconsistent with the Specification.
The Examiner cited paragraph 118 of Winkel as disclosing a “set
distance” away from the display, which the Examiner mapped to the
limitation “a location benchmark associated with an area of the retail
environment including a plurality of retail displays,” as recited in claim 1.
Final Act. 16. The Examiner found that “[t]he set distance in the context of
FIG. 7C and/or FIG. 8A clearly indicates a specific location of the projector
in the aisle of the retail environment.” Id. We agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not adequately explained how the set distance between a
display generator and a display board in Winkel discloses that a processor is
programmed “to identify a specific location of the display generator in the
retail environment based on the relative position of the location benchmark.”
See Appeal Br. 11–12.
In the Answer, the Examiner explained that
Winkel refers to each of the storewide unique
fixture/merchandise marker codes of a display board to the
display location with a corresponding planogram Display #.
Winkel’s planogram data file for the fixture/merchandise to be
displayed on a particular display board affixed with the unique
marker code can be uniquely retrieved from the database based
on the scanned unique fixture/merchandise marker code.
Ans. 4. The Examiner found that, because each marker code at a display
location is unique, the display location for the fixture or for the merchandise
item is unique in the retail store. Ans. 4 (citing Winkel, Figs. 1A, 1B, ¶ 12).
We agree with Appellant that there is no correlation in Winkel
between the marker codes for the display board and the specific location of
Appeal 2019-003501
Application 14/943,609

6
the display board or the display generator in the store. Appeal Br. 11. As
Appellant explains
Winkel refers to a unique marker code label that is attached to
each display board for identifying particular fixtures to be
mounted on the display board. See, e.g., paragraph [0015].
Winkel defines “fixtures” as “hooks, shelves, bins, etc.” in
paragraph [0041]. A completed PIP system planogram program
119A is sent to a storage device 119B and/or centralized
computer server 119C. The marker code labels enable the
projector to access the planograms from the storage device
and/or server. See paragraph [0079]. The information embedded
in the marker codes includes readable marker codes for fixtures
and merchandise and other fixture and merchandise
information. See paragraph [0083]. Nothing in the marker
codes, however, identifies a specific location of the projector
and/or display board relative to the retail environment.
Appeal Br. 12.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not clearly shown that
Winkel discloses, expressly or inherently, the disputed limitation arranged in
the same way as in claim 1. Based on the record before us, we are persuaded
that the Examiner erred in finding Winkel anticipates claim 1, which recites
“wherein the control processor is programmed to identify a specific location
of the display generator in the retail environment based on the relative
position of the location benchmark.” Whether this limitation would have
been obvious over Winkel or Winkel and another reference are questions
that are not before us, and we will not speculate in that regard here in the
first instance on appeal.
Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
§ 102(e) rejection of independent claim 1, or the Examiner’s § 102(e)
rejection of independent claims 10 and 15, not argued separately with
particularity. Appeal Br. 10. Nor do we sustain the Examiner’s § 102(e)
Appeal 2019-003501
Application 14/943,609

7
rejection of dependent claims 2–4, 7, 8, 11–13, and 17–20, which depend
from, and incorporate the limitations of, one of independent claims 1, 10,
and 15.
With regard to the § 103 rejection of claim 6 in view of the
combination of Winkel and Chirakansakcharoen, the Examiner did not rely
on Chirakansakcharoen in any manner that remedies the deficiencies noted
above with respect to the Winkel reference. Final Act. 57–58. Therefore, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 6.
Regarding the § 103 rejection of claims 5 and 14 in view of the
combination of Winkel and Durham, the Examiner did not rely on Durham
in any manner that remedies the deficiencies noted above with respect to the
Winkel reference. Final Act. 58. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
§ 103 rejection of claims 5 and 14.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–8, 10–15, and
17–20.

Appeal 2019-003501
Application 14/943,609

8
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 7, 8,
10–13, 15,
17–20
102(e) Winkel 1–4, 7, 8,
10–13, 15,
17–20
6 103 Winkel,
Chirakansakcharoen
6
5, 14 103 Winkel, Durham 5, 14
Overall
Outcome:
1–8, 10–
15, 17–20

REVERSED