W.W. GRAINGER, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 8, 2021

2021001096 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 2021)

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.
13/731,291 12/31/2012 Geoffry A. Westphal 31083.45US1 7025
34018 7590 09/08/2021
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 W. Wacker Drive
Suite 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
EXAMINER
ELKASSABGI, ZAHRA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/08/2021 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):
chiipmail@gtlaw.com
clairt@gtlaw.com
jarosikg@gtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEOFFRY A. WESTPHAL
Appeal 2021-001096
Application 13/731,291
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JASON J. CHUNG, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1–3 and 5 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by
Appellant, and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1
See Final Act. 1–2.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as W.W. Grainger, Inc.
See Appeal Br. 2.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Dec. 31, 2012;
Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Mar. 19, 2020; and Reply Brief (“Reply
Br.”), filed Dec. 1, 2020. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office
Appeal 2021-001096
Application 13/731,291
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter, according to Appellant, “relates generally
to e-commerce and, more particularly, to systems and methods for providing
navigation tendencies to users of a website”. Spec. ¶ 1. More specifically
Appellant’s invention relates to computer readable media for monitoring
interactions a user with an electronic commerce website. See Spec. ¶¶ 2–3.
The computer-readable media performs a process for monitoring user
interactions including the steps of monitoring interactions of a user with a
web page (a first web page) of an electronic commerce website comprised of
hyperlinks that redirect the electronic commerce website to a linked web
page. Each such hyperlink is associated with one of multiple categories of
web content, as well as a displayed measure of user traffic. The process
determines if the user has performed an interaction with one of the
hyperlinks, and starts a timing element responsive to the navigation. Once
the timer has started, the process continues to monitor interactions of the
user with the website and determines if the user navigates away from the
web page. The process determines if the user has navigated away from the
web page prior to the timer expiring. The process stores the monitored
interactions of the user in a data repository only when (only if) the user has
not navigated away from the webpage before the time limit (before the
expiration of a predetermined period of time measured by the timing
element). The process periodically updates (modifies) the displayed
measures of user traffic for the hyperlinks based on the stored monitored
user interactions. See Spec. ¶¶ 12, 13, 15, 28–30, 32, 33, 37, 38, 40–49;

Action (“Final Act.”), mailed Oct. 10, 2019; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed
Oct. 6, 2020.
Appeal 2021-001096
Application 13/731,291
3
Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is directed to a computer-readable
medium. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim and is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory computer readable media having
stored thereon instructions which, when executed by a computer,
perform steps comprising:
monitoring interactions of at least one user with a menu of
a first web page of an electronic commerce website comprised of
a plurality of hyperlinks, wherein each of the plurality of
hyperlinks is activable to redirect the electronic commerce
website to a linked to one of a plurality of further web pages each
of which is associated with a one of a plurality of categories of
web content of the electronic commerce website and wherein
each of the plurality of hyperlinks is associated with a displayed
measure of user traffic, to determine if the at least one user has
performed an interaction with a one of the plurality of hyperlinks;
in response to it being determined that the at least one user
has performed an interaction with the one of the plurality of
hyperlinks, causing a timing element to start a measure of a
predetermined period of time;
continuing to monitor for interactions of the at least one
user with the electronic commerce website to determine if the at
least one user has performed an interaction indicative of a
navigation away from the one of the plurality of further web
pages that is linked to the one of the plurality of hyperlinks;
causing the monitored interactions of the at least one user
to be stored in a data repository only when it is determined from
the continued monitoring that the at least one user has failed to
perform an interaction indicative of a navigation away from the
one of the plurality of further web pages that is linked to the one
of the plurality of hyperlinks before an expiration of the
predetermined period of time being measured by the timing
element; and
periodically causing the displayed measure of user traffic
that is associated with each of the plurality of hyperlinks of the
menu of the first web page to be modified based at least in part
Appeal 2021-001096
Application 13/731,291
4
on the monitored interactions of the at least one user that are
caused to be stored in the data repository.
Appeal Br. 10–11 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Pfeifer et al.
(“Pfeifer”)
US 2004/0095383 A1 May 20, 2004
Wampler US 2009/0164940 A1 June 25, 2009
Broman US 2011/0252329 A1 Oct. 13, 2011

REJECTION3
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wampler, Broman, and Pfeifer. See Final Act. 3–
10.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (as well as dependent
claims 2, 3, and 5) as being obvious over Wampler, Broman, and Pfeifer.
See Final Act. 3–8; Ans. 3–6. The Examiner relies on Broman to teach the
timing element as well as storing a user’s monitored interactions. See Final
Act. 5–6 (citing Broman ¶¶ 85–87, 101–102). In the Answer, the Examiner

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application
has an effective filing date prior to the AIA’s effective date (March 16,
2013), this decision refers to 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2021-001096
Application 13/731,291
5
maintains that Broman teaches storing user interactions (see Ans. 4–5
(quoting Broman ¶ 101)) and explains:
Broman . . . is specifically concerned with identifying and storing
what the user has done (i.e. interactions with the web pages)
while the user is on the web page for a predetermined time frame
before the user’s actions (i.e. interactions with the web pages)
has come to a stop. Broman . . . has a greater scope of the storing
action [than the recited limitation]. It encompasses all actions of
the user. Thus, the Appellant’s invention overlaps with the
encompassments of Broman.
Ans. 5. The Examiner continues the explanation:
The Examiner respectfully maintains that “all navigation
operations” is required by the claim if the user stays on the web
page for a predetermined time frame. Thus, as disclosed by the
claim, if the user stays on the web page for the predetermined
time frame, then their actions are stored, however, if the user
exceeds the predetermined time frame and then moves on to
another web page, the claim’s scope is silent as to the invention’s
procedure. Thus, leaving the possibility of either storing or not
storing the next interactions. Therefore, the rejection must be
maintained.
Ans. 6.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner misconstrues the disputed
claim limitation, as demonstrated by the Examiner’s explanation (supra),
and that the Examiner-cited portions of Broman do not teach or suggest the
disputed storing limitation—that is storing the monitored user interactions
“in a data repository only when it is determined . . . that the . . . user has
failed to perform an interaction indicative of a navigation away from the . . .
web page[] . . . linked to the . . . hyperlink[] before an expiration of the
predetermined period.” Appeal Br. 8 (Claim App.) (claim 1) (emphasis
added); see Appeal Br. 5–8; Reply Br. 2–6. The Examiner incorrectly
interprets the disputed limitation to allow storage of user interactions
Appeal 2021-001096
Application 13/731,291
6
regardless of the time constraint. See Ans. 5–6. The Examiner’s
interpretation directly contradicts the plain meaning of the disputed
limitation, which allows for storing only when the time constraint has been
met—i.e., that the user stays on (does not navigate away from) a web page
for a predetermined period of time. If the time constraint is not met, the user
interactions are not stored. The Examiner-cited portions of Broman do not
teach storing only when a time constraint has been satisfied. See Broman
¶¶ 85–87, 101–102. Thus, the Examiner does not sufficiently explain how
Broman, in combination with Wampler and Pfeifer, would have taught or
suggested the disputed features of claim 1.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Wampler, Broman,
and Pfeifer renders obvious Appellant’s claim 1. Claims 2, 3, and 5 depend
from and stand with claims 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 1–3 and 5.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–3
and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We, therefore, do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–3 and 5.

Appeal 2021-001096
Application 13/731,291
7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5 103(a) Wampler, Broman,
Pfeifer
1–3, 5

REVERSED