Target Brands, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 17, 2020

2020002420 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 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.
14/943,629 11/17/2015 Jay Matthew Fricke 201502550 5379
67260 7590 11/17/2020
TARGET BRANDS, INC.
1000 NICOLLET MALL, TPS-3165
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403
EXAMINER
ANDREI, RADU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2020 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 JAY MATTHEW FRICKE, STEVEN JOHN CAMPBELL,
JEFFREY PATRICK NELSON, ANANTH RANGANATH, KATHRYN
LOUISE MORIN, and HEIDI BUEHLER TEWINKEL
____________

Appeal 2020-002420
Application 14/943,629
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES R. HUGHES, and CATHERINE
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–20, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies Target Brands, Inc., as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 3.

Appeal 2020-002420
Application 14/943,629

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to “computer resource management for
manufacturer and retailer offers.” Title (emphasis omitted). In particular,
A method includes receiving information that represents a first
offer made by a manufacturer and is related to a product.
Information that represents a second offer made by a retailer
that is also related to the product is also received. A request to
display offers related to the product is received and in response,
a user interface is generated that shows the first offer and the
second offer. The user interface allows a retailer to set
designations for the first offer and the second offer such that the
first offer is available to customers and the second offer is not
available to customers. A request from a customer for offers
available at the retailer is received and in response the first offer
but not the second offer is provided based on the designations
set for the first offer and the second offer.
Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving information over a network, the information representing a
first offer made by a manufacturer, wherein the first offer is related to a
product;
storing the first offer together with a designation for the first offer
indicating that the first offer is unavailable such that when customers request
offers, the first offer is not provided to the customer while other offers are
provided to the customer and such that every received and stored offer made
by a manufacturer is initially designated as being unavailable when other
offers are designated as being available so as not to increase a bandwidth
required for responding to queries for offers;
receiving information representing a second offer made by a retailer,
wherein the second offer is related to the product;
receiving a search query;
in response to receiving the search query, searching offers designated
as being available and offers designated as being unavailable, and generating
a user interface that shows the results of the searching and that includes the
first offer and the second offer, the user interface allowing a retailer to
Appeal 2020-002420
Application 14/943,629

3
change the designation for the first offer and set a designation for the second
offer such that the first offer is available to customers and the second offer is
not available to customers; and
receiving a request from a customer for offers available at the retailer
and in response providing the first offer but not the second offer based on
the designations set for the first offer and the second offer.

Rejection2

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References
1–20 101
1–3, 7 103 Lieblang (US 2011/0047018 A1, pub: Feb. 24,
2011), Strickler (US 2015/0026138 A1, pub: Jan.
22, 2015), Debow (US 2010/0049620 A1, pub:
Feb. 25, 2010), Dicke (US 2011/0313892 A1, pub;
Dec. 22, 2011)
8–13 103 Lieblang, Strickler, Debow
14 103 Lieblang, Strickler, Debow, Cunningham (US
8,090,615 B1, iss: Jan. 3, 2012)
15−17, 20 103 Lieblang, Strickler, Debow, Krejcarek (US
2011/0183306 A1, pub: July 28, 2011)
4−6 103 Lieblang, Strickler, Debow, Cunningham, Dicke
18 103 Lieblang, Strickler, Debow, Krejcarek, Ouimet (US
2015/0324882, pub. Nov. 12, 2015)
19 103 Lieblang, Strickler, Debow, Krejcarek, Ouimet,
Strimling (US 2009/0248527 A1, pub. Oct. 1,
2009)

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated May
21, 2019 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated Oct. 21, 2019 (“Appeal
Br.”); (3) Examiner’s Answer dated Dec. 5, 2019 (“Ans.”); and (4) Reply
Brief dated Feb. 5, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-002420
Application 14/943,629

4
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 101
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments. To the extent consistent
with our analysis below, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
in (i) the action from which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer.
Section 101 of the Patent Act provides “[w]hoever invents or
discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may
obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this
title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted
35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. Pty.
Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and, thus, patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
Appeal 2020-002420
Application 14/943,629

5
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
(15 How.) 252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S.
at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We
view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
Appeal 2020-002420
Application 14/943,629

6
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a
patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (citation omitted). “A
claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to
ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office published revised
guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO, 2019 REVISED PATENT
SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Guidance”).3 Under the Guidance, we first look to whether the claim
recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes) (Step 2A, Prong 1); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)) (9th ed. rev.
08.2017 2018) (Step 2A, Prong 2).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or

3 The Guidance was updated in October 2019, and the Manual of Patent
Examination Procedure (MPEP), Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised
June 2020) also includes the Guidance. See MPEP §§ 2103 through
2106.07(c).
Appeal 2020-002420
Application 14/943,629

7
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception. (Step 2B.)
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–56.

Step 2A, Prong 1 of the Guidance
Turning to Step 2A, Prong 1 of the Guidance, independent claims 1, 8,
and 15 (with emphases added) recite:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving information over a network, the information representing a
first offer made by a manufacturer, wherein the first offer is related to a
product;
storing the first offer together with a designation for the first offer
indicating that the first offer is unavailable such that when customers
request offers, the first offer is not provided to the customer while other
offers are provided to the customer and such that every received and stored
offer made by a manufacturer is initially designated as being unavailable
when other offers are designated as being available so as not to increase a
bandwidth required for responding to queries for offers;
receiving information representing a second offer made by a retailer,
wherein the second offer is related to the product;
receiving a search query;
in response to receiving the search query, searching offers designated
as being available and offers designated as being unavailable, and
generating a user interface that shows the results of the searching and that
includes the first offer and the second offer, the user interface allowing a
retailer to change the designation for the first offer and set a designation for
the second offer such that the first offer is available to customers and the
second offer is not available to customers; and
receiving a request from a customer for offers available at the retailer
and in response providing the first offer but not the second offer based on
the designations set for the first offer and the second offer.

8. A server comprising:
an offer database receiving offers made by manufacturers and offers
made by a retailer such that when any offer made by any manufacturer is
Appeal 2020-002420
Application 14/943,629

8
received and stored in the offer database it is initially designated in the offer
database as being unavailable to customers while other offers in the offer
database are designated as being available to customers;
an offer management tool executed by a processor to display a user
interface to allow a retailer to enter and submit a search query, to use the
search query to search available and unavailable offers, to show the results
of the search query to allow the retailer to individually set offers in the offer
database made by manufacturers as available and offers in the offer database
made by the retailer as available; and
an offer application executed by the processor to generate user
interfaces that allow a customer to select an available offer made by a
manufacturer such that after the offer is selected, the selected offer can be
redeemed by the customer.

15. A method comprising:
storing offers made by a retailer in a database;
receiving offers made by manufacturers over a network;
filtering the offers made by manufacturers to select fewer than all of
the offers made by manufacturers and storing all selected offers in the
database such that all selected offers are designated as being unavailable to
customers when initially stored while other offers in the database are
designated as being available so as not to increase a bandwidth associated
with responding to queries for offers;
displaying a first user interface to allow a retailer to enter and submit
a search query to search available and unavailable offers, to show the
results of the search query, and to allow the retailer to designate which of
the offers made by the retailer and which of the offers made by
manufacturers are to be made available to customers; and
displaying a second user interface that allows a customer to view
offers made by the retailer and offers made by manufactures that are
available to customers and to select a viewed offer for later redemption.

All of the italicized limitations are associated with marketing.
Turning to claim 1, “receiving information . . . the information representing
a first offer made by a manufacturer, wherein the first offer is related to a
product” promotes marketing by receiving a manufacturer’s offer for a
product (“first offer”). Similarly, the limitation:
Appeal 2020-002420
Application 14/943,629

9
storing the first offer together with a designation for the first
offer indicating that the first offer is unavailable such that when
customers request offers, the first offer is not provided to the
customer while other offers are provided to the customer and
such that every received and stored offer made by a
manufacturer is initially designated as being unavailable when
other offers are designated as being available so as not to
increase a . . . required for responding to queries for offers;

facilitates marketing by managing offers and resources: storing the
manufacturer’s offer with a designation and designating the received
manufacturer offer as being unavailable, so that the resources required for
responding to offer inquiries will not be increased. Appellant asserts the
receiving and storing limitations “are not part of advertising, marketing or
sales activities” (Appeal Br. 7), but does not persuasively explain why.
Further, “receiving information representing a second offer made by a
retailer, wherein the second offer is related to the product” of claim 1
promotes marketing by receiving an offer from a retailer (“second offer”).
Finally, the limitations:
receiving a search . . . ;
in response to receiving the search . . ., searching offers
designated as being available and offers designated as being
unavailable, and generating a user . . . that shows the results of
the searching and that includes the first offer and the second
offer, the user . . . allowing a retailer to change the designation
for the first offer and set a designation for the second offer such
that the first offer is available to customers and the second offer
is not available to customers; and
receiving a request from a customer for offers available at the
retailer and in response providing the first offer but not the
second offer based on the designations set for the first offer and
the second offer.

Appeal 2020-002420
Application 14/943,629

10
facilitate marketing by managing offers: searching for available and
unavailable offers, resulting in offers that include the first offer and the
second offer, and the retailer can change availability of the offers by making
the first offer and the second offer available and unavailable to customers,
respectively. As a result, a customer requesting available offers will receive
the first offer (available), but not the second offer (unavailable).
Turning to claim 8, for similar reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 1, the first two limitations (“an offer . . . receiving offers . . .” and “an
offer management tool . . .”) facilitate marketing with the recited functions.
Further, the third limitation “an offer application executed by . . . to generate
user . . . that allow a customer to select an available offer made by a
manufacturer such that after the offer is selected, the selected offer can be
redeemed by the customer” facilitates marketing by allowing a customer to
select an available offer that can be redeemed.4
Turning to claim 15, for similar reasons discussed above with respect
to claims 1 and 8, the limitations “storing offers . . .,” “receiving offers . . .,”
“displaying a first user . . .,” and “displaying a second user . . .” facilitate
marketing with the recited steps. Further, the limitation
filtering the offers made by manufacturers to select fewer than
all of the offers made by manufacturers and storing all selected
offers in . . . such that all selected offers are designated as being
unavailable to customers when initially stored while other
offers in . . . are designated as being available so as not to
increase . . . associated with responding to queries for offers;

4 Appellant asserts the limitation “an offer . . . receiving offers . . .” is “not
part of advertising, marketing or sales activities” (Appeal Br. 8), but does
not persuasively explain why. We note the claimed “server” in the preamble
is an additional element.
Appeal 2020-002420
Application 14/943,629

11
facilitates marketing by managing offers and resources: selecting some
manufacturers’ offers and designate them as being unavailable, in order to
not increase the resources associated with responding to offer inquiries.5
Our determination is supported by the Specification, which describes
the deficiencies of the existing systems, and the need to provide more
efficient techniques to managing offers, in order to facilitate marketing by
manufacturers and retailers:
[0019]A number of different web sites and mobile applications
exist that allow customers to search for coupons or other offers
for products. Each site or application includes its own
collection of such offers. As a result, customers tend to access
multiple web sites or use multiple applications to find as many
offers as possible.

[0020] This has created an inefficient system where customers
are submitting the same queries multiple times to multiple
different web sites and/or applications. Further, the offers that
are selected from different web sites or applications are stored
separately from each other. As a result, at checkout, the
customer must access multiple locations to retrieve the
identifiers for the offers that are being redeemed. This slows
down the checkout process and results in retailers having to hire
additional employees to run additional registers so that the total
wait time for checking out does not increase.
[0021] In addition, since not all products are available at a
particular retail store, many of the offers selected by the
customer cannot be redeemed at the store where the customer
intends to shop. As a result, the customer has wasted their time
and the computing resources of the servers that provide the web
sites and mobile applications.

5 Appellant asserts the limitation “receiving . . .” and “filtering . . .” are “not
part of advertising, marketing or sales activities” (Appeal Br. 9), but does
not persuasively explain why.
Appeal 2020-002420
Application 14/943,629

12

[0022] The current technology also does not provide any tools
that allow a retailer to select between a manufacturer's offer
and a retailer's offer when establishing a set of offers that
customers can search and select from and as a result, both
manufacturer and retailer offers are returned in response to
search queries.

Spec. ¶¶ 19–22 (emphases added).
Because marketing activities are similar to “showing an advertisement
before delivering free content” in Ultramercial, the concept of marketing is
an abstract idea. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“showing an advertisement before delivering free content”
is an abstract idea). Consistent with Ultramercial, marketing activities
constitute commercial interactions under the Guidance. See Guidance, Step
2A, Prong 1 (Groupings of Abstract Ideas). Therefore, we conclude each of
claims 1, 8, and 15 recites a commercial interaction, which is one of certain
methods of organizing human activity identified in the Guidance, and thus
an abstract idea. See Guidance, Step 2A, Prong 1 (Groupings of Abstract
Ideas).

Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Guidance
Turning to Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Guidance, contrary to Appellant’s
assertions (Appeal Br. 7–10; Reply Br. 2–4), none of claims 1, 8, and 15
recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application. Appellant cites paragraph 29 of the Specification, and
argues that “the additional elements . . . represent an improvement in the
Appeal 2020-002420
Application 14/943,629

13
functioning of a computer because the additional elements allow additional
items to be added to a database from a third party without increasing the
bandwidth required to respond to queries.” Appeal Br. 7–8, 10; see also
Reply Br. 2–3. That argument is unpersuasive because “a claim for a new
abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1151. “[U]nder
the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered law of
nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) cannot rely on the novelty of
that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility . . . .”
Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(citations omitted).
Contrary to Appellant’s assertions (App. Br. 7, 9–10), the rejected
claims 1, 8, and 15 are unlike the claims in Enfish. In Enfish, the court
determined:
The . . . patents are directed to an innovative logical model for a
computer database. . . . A logical model generally results in the
creation of particular tables of data, but it does not describe how
the bits and bytes of those tables are arranged in physical
memory devices. Contrary to conventional logical models, the
patented logical model includes all data entities in a single
table, with column definitions provided by rows in that same
table. The patents describe this as the “self-referential”
property of the database.
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(emphases added).
[T]he plain focus of the claims is on an improvement to
computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for
which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity.
[T]he claims . . . are directed to a specific improvement to the
way computers operate, embodied in the self-referential table.
Id. at 1336.
Appeal 2020-002420
Application 14/943,629

14
Unlike the claims of Enfish, claims 1, 8, and 15 are not “directed to an
innovative logical model for a computer database [that] . . . includes all data
entities in a single table, with column definitions provided by rows in that
same table” or similar improvements. Id. at 1330. Instead, claims 1, 8, and
15 are directed to the abstract idea of managing offers in order to facilitate
marketing by manufacturers and retailers, using known computing devices
and networks as tools. Indeed, the Specification describes the claimed
server as a well-understood and conventional computing device:
FIG. 12 provides an example of a computing device 10 that can
be used as a server device or client device in the embodiments
above. Computing device 10 includes a processing unit 12, a
system memory 14 and a system bus 16 that couples the system
memory 14 to the processing unit 12. System memory 14
includes read only memory (ROM) 18 and random access
memory (RAM) 20. A basic input/output system 22 (BIOS),
containing the basic routines that help to transfer information
between elements within the computing device 10, is stored in
ROM 18.
Spec. ¶ 49. Similarly, the Specification describes the claimed “network” and
“processors” as well-understood and conventional devices. See Spec. ¶ 50
(“a communications network (e.g., communication utilizing Internet or web-
based software systems)”); Spec. ¶ 57 (“network connections shown in FIG.
12 are exemplary and other means for establishing a communications link
between the computers, such as a wireless interface communications link,
may be used”); Spec. ¶ 53 (“Processing unit 12, also referred to as a
processor, executes programs in system memory 14 and solid state memory
25 to perform the methods described above.”). In addition, consistent with
the knowledge of one skilled in the art, the Specification repeatedly refers to
a conventional database, but does not describes it in particular detail. See,
Appeal 2020-002420
Application 14/943,629

15
e.g., Spec. ¶ 29 (“The manufacturer’s offers that are not removed by offer
filter 112 are stored in an offer database 118 as unavailable manufacturer
offers 120 at step 206.”); Spec. ¶ 38 (“offer management tool 122 updates
offer database 118 to reflect the received availability settings”). In short,
Enfish is inapplicable here.
Appellant also cites Example 40 (Appeal Br. 7–10), but does not
persuasively explain why that case is similar to the present case. According
to the USPTO:
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of: 1)
collecting, by the network appliance, traffic data relating to the
network traffic passing through the network appliance, the
traffic data comprising at least one of network delay, packet
loss, or jitter; 2) using a network appliance to perform the
comparing step; and 3) collecting additional traffic data relating
to the network traffic when the collected traffic data is greater
than the predefined threshold, the additional traffic data
comprising NetFlow protocol data.

USPTO, Example 40.

Although each of the collecting steps analyzed individually
may be viewed as mere pre- or post-solution activity, the claim
as a whole is directed to a particular improvement in collecting
traffic data.

The additional elements recite a specific manner of collecting
additional NetFlow protocol data whenever the initially
collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids
excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network
performance. The collected data can then be used to analyze
the cause of the abnormal condition, which provides a specific
improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network
monitoring.

The claim as a whole integrates the mental process into a
Appeal 2020-002420
Application 14/943,629

16
practical application.
Id. (emphasis added).
Unlike Example 40, claim 1, 8, and 15 do not “recite a specific
manner of collecting additional NetFlow protocol data whenever the initially
collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic
volume on the network and hindrance of network performance” or provide
similar technology improvements. Id. To the contrary, as discussed above,
the disputed claims merely use known computing devices and networks as
tools. Therefore, Example 40 is inapplicable here.
As a result, we conclude claim 1, 8, and 15 do not recite additional
elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
See Guidance, Step 2A, Prong 2.

Step 2B of the Guidance

Turning to Step 2B of the Guidance (Alice step two), Appellant does
not argue any specific limitation (when viewed individually or as an ordered
combination) was not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field.
Nor does Appellant argue the Examiner erred in that aspect. Since
Appellant does not advance arguments under Step 2B, Appellant has not
shown the Examiner erred with respect to the Guidance’s Step 2B analysis.
See Guidance, Step 2B.
Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
Appeal 2020-002420
Application 14/943,629

17
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–
20, as Appellant does not advance separate substantive arguments about
those claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

35 U.S.C. § 1036
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of Lieblang
and Strickler collectively teach “in response to receiving the search query,
searching offers designated as being available and offers designated as
being unavailable, and generating a user interface that shows the results of
the searching,” as recited in independent claim 1 (emphases added). See
App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 4–5.
The Examiner finds:
Lieblang does not disclose, however, Strickler discloses:
. . .
in response to the search query, searching offers designated as
being available and offers as being unavailable {see at least
[0048] search offers (reads on in response to the search query),
search existing offers (reads on available offers), show expired
offers (reads on unavailable offers); [0056]--[0057] search
existing offers {reads on offers designated as available}, show
expired offers (reads on offers designated as unavailable)}[.]

Final Act. 14–15; see also Ans. 6–7.
We have reviewed the cited Strickler portions, and they do not discuss
“in response to receiving the search query, searching offers designated as

6 Appellant raises additional arguments regarding the prior art rejection.
Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal with respect to the
prior art rejection, we do not address the additional arguments.
Appeal 2020-002420
Application 14/943,629

18
being available and offers designated as being unavailable, and generating a
user interface that shows the results of the searching,” as recited in
independent claim 1 (emphases added). To the contrary, the cited Strickler
paragraphs describe “show[ing]”—not searching—unavailable offers:
search existing offers, show expired offers . . .

The search option of the offer menu may allow a merchant
system to search existing offers by, for example, offer ID, offer
title, offer description, and the like. The show expired offers
option allows a merchant system to change the list of offers
shown from active existing offers to a list of offers that have
since expired or have been revoked. . . .

Strickler ¶¶ 48, 57 (emphases added).
Further, the Examiner’s conclusory statement that “displaying active
and expired offers at the same time is an obvious variant to toggling between
active and non-active offers” (Ans. 6) does not constitute objective evidence,
and is insufficient to show the cited Strickler paragraphs teach or suggest the
disputed limitation.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and independent
claims 8 and 15 for similar reasons.
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–24. Although the Examiner cites additional
references for rejecting some dependent claims, the Examiner has not shown
the additional references overcomes the deficiency discussed above in the
rejection of claim 1.

Appeal 2020-002420
Application 14/943,629

19
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 under 35
U.S.C. § 101.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Because we affirm at least one ground of rejection with respect to
claims 1–20 on appeal, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims
1–20. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 101 Subject Matter
Eligibility
1–20
1−3, 7 103 Lieblang, Strickler,
Debow,
Cunningham,
Dicke
1−3, 7
8−13 103 Lieblang, Strickler,
Debow
8−13
14 103 Lieblang, Strickler,
Debow,
Cunningham
14
15−17, 20 103 Lieblang, Strickler,
Debow, Krejcarek
15−17, 20
4−6 103 Lieblang, Strickler,
Debow,
Cunningham,
Dicke
4−6
18 103 Lieblang, Strickler,
Debow, Krejcarek,
Ouimet
18
19 103 Lieblang, Strickler,
Debow, Krejcarek,
19
Appeal 2020-002420
Application 14/943,629

20
Ouimet, Strimling
Overall
Outcome
1–20

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED