TARGET BRANDS INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 21, 2021

2019006175 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 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.
14/519,778 10/21/2014 Chris JOHNSON 201403571 4983
118758 7590 05/21/2021
Target Brands, Inc.
1000 Nicollet Mall, TPS 3165
Minneapolis, MN 55403
EXAMINER
ALMANI, MOHSEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/21/2021 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):
USPTO.Mail@target.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRIS JOHNSON, DAVID KLEIN, and
DAKOTA REESE BROWN
________________

Appeal 2019-006175
Application 14/519,778
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOYCE CRAIG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–4, 7–14, 18, and 20, which are all the claims pending
in this application. Claims 5, 6, 15–17, 19, and 21 are canceled. Appeal
Br. 31–40 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

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. 1.
Appeal 2019-006175
Application 14/519,778

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to evaluating a search engine by
comparing search result sets, where a search result set could be, for example,
“a list of products returned to a user entering a search into a search engine of
a website of a retailer.” Spec. 3:17–23. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed
subject matter and reads as follows:
1. An electronic search evaluation system, comprising:
an application that is loadable onto a user device, the user
device including a display and an input;
a server in communication with the user device,
wherein the application, when loaded onto the user device,
permits the user device to display a configuration user interface
for receiving selections to configure a baseline search
configuration including a baseline search index including one or
more fields to search and an order in which to search the one or
more fields and a baseline ranking strategy including an order in
which search results are to be returned, and to configure a
candidate search configuration including a candidate search
index including one or more fields to search and an order in
which to search the one or more fields and a candidate ranking
strategy including an order in which search results are to be
returned, and to communicate with the server to send to the
server the baseline search configuration, the candidate search
configuration, and a plurality of search terms, and to receive from
the server baseline search results and candidate search results for
the plurality of search terms, and to cause display of the baseline
search results and candidate search results for one of the plurality
of search terms on the display,
the server being communicable with the user device and
configured to receive the baseline and candidate search
configurations and the plurality of search terms, identify the
baseline and candidate search results for each of the plurality of
search terms, compare the baseline and candidate search results
Appeal 2019-006175
Application 14/519,778

3

for each of the plurality of search terms, and send the baseline
and candidate search results for one of the plurality of search
terms to the application for display on the user device,
wherein the baseline and candidate search results sent to
the application include a comparison marker to indicate whether
the baseline and candidate search results are matching,
wherein the application makes available a detailed
comparison user interface configured to display a side-by-side
comparison of the baseline search results and the candidate
search results for one of the plurality of search terms, the detailed
comparison user interface including a search result summary
displayed at a top of the detailed comparison user interface, the
search result summary including the one of the plurality of search
terms being displayed and a search result count for each of the
baseline search configuration and the candidate search
configuration, and the detailed comparison user interface
includes one or more results indicators graphically highlighting
a point of interest in the baseline search results or the candidate
search results, wherein the one or more results indicators include
an “out of stock” indicator that identifies one of the baseline
search results or the candidate search results displayed that
should have been removed from the baseline search results or the
candidate search results and the one or more results indicators
include a location difference between a particular product in the
candidate search results and the baseline search results,
wherein the comparison marker indicates the baseline
search results and the candidate search results are not matching,
and wherein the detailed comparison user interface
includes an input means for receiving a candidate score and a
comment for the candidate search results.

Appeal 2019-006175
Application 14/519,778

4

The Examiner’s Rejection2
Claims 1–4, 7–14, 18, and 203 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Jonker (US 2006/0116994 A1; June 1, 2006) and Chang
(US 2008/0027913 A1; Jan. 31, 2008). Final Act. 4–18.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner errs because “Jonker’s system does
not display the actual search results,” and therefore “does not teach or
suggest a side-by-side comparison of baseline search results and candidate
search results for one of a plurality of search terms, as required by
independent claim 1.” Appeal Br. 15–16. In particular, Appellant argues that
Jonker “presents a compact representation of the search results (in the form
of an icon) to the user,” and so, “as clearly and unambiguously described in
Jonker, the actual search results are not displayed.” Id. at 15; see also Reply
Br. 4 (“Jonker provides a picture of the search results, but does not display
the search results.”).
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. Jonker describes a
visualization tool for processing a collection of information, for example,

2 In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew rejections of claims 1, 7, and 14
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a) and 112(b). Ans. 3.
3 The Examiner’s statement of the rejection includes claim 21, and the
Examiner provides reasons for rejecting claim 21 (Final Act. 4, 17–18), even
though claim 21 is canceled (see Amendment and Response After Final filed
Nov. 14, 2018; Advisory Action mailed Nov. 27, 2018). We deem the
Examiner’s rejection of canceled claim 21 to be harmless error. The
limitations of canceled claim 21 are included in independent claims 1, 7, and
14, as amended (see Amendment and Response After Final filed Nov. 14,
2018), and the Examiner properly addresses the canceled claim 21
limitations with reference to claim 1 in the Answer. See Ans. 5–6.
Appeal 2019-006175
Application 14/519,778

5

“documents, Web pages, images, text, etc.,” that allows an analyst to engage
in a workflow that is “a non-linear, iterated sequence of search and
discovery that aims for retrieval of a complete and relevant information
space, and analysis of those data to find patterns and trends.” Jonker ¶¶ 36–
37. In particular, Jonker describes that the visualization tool has a user
interface called “TRIST,” which “is an information retrieval system that
supports searching, rapid scanning over thousands of search results and
information sources.” Id. ¶¶ 40–41. “TRIST supports the ability to search
against multiple search engines or information sources,” and a “query result
view 209 lists the results (i.e. result set) for each query in a mirror of the tree
structure of the queries.” Id. ¶¶ 95, 97. “This provides a fast and efficient
way for the analysts to scan result sets and compare different queries side-
by-side.” Id. ¶ 97. Further, Jonker describes that “[r]esults for similar queries
by different tools can be compared side by side to determine the strengths
and weaknesses of the respective tools” so that certain “discoveries can be
used to improve the tools and the way people use them.” Id. ¶ 101.
We find Jonker’s disclosure of the side-by-side comparison of search
results from different search tools at least suggests “wherein the application
makes available a detailed comparison user interface configured to display a
side-by-side comparison of the baseline search results and the candidate
search results for one of the plurality of search terms,” as recited in claim 1.
The fact that Jonker describes displaying search results as icons (see, e.g., id.
¶ 44), does not change our finding because claim 1 does not specify any
particular form of the displayed search results. And in any case, Jonker
describes opening and reading documents represented by icons in a
document viewer for more in depth analysis, where the “viewer highlights
Appeal 2019-006175
Application 14/519,778

6

entities and search terms found in the document” (id. ¶ 45), confirming that
Jonker’s displayed icons represent results responsive to a particular search.
In addition, Jonker uses the term “search results” in describing the items
TRIST allows an analyst to scan through (see, e.g., id. ¶ 41).
Appellant also argues the Examiner errs because “the record does not
support a conclusion that Jonker teaches or suggests one or more of an ‘out
of stock’ indicator and a location difference between a particular product in
the candidate search results and the baseline search results, as required by
claim 1.” Appeal Br. 16. In particular, Appellant argues Jonker’s hiding of
certain search results, such as those categorized as “Shopping,” does not
teach an “‘out of stock’ indicator [that] can visually highlight to a user a
search result returned by the search engine that should not have been
included in the search results list in the first place.” Id. at 17. Rather,
Appellant argues, “Jonker merely describes an option to toggle display of
documents in the search results.” Id. In other words, in Jonker “a user can
prevent certain results from being shown at all,” which “does not teach or
suggest inclusion of an ‘out of stock’ indicator on the results that are
actually displayed.” Reply Br. 5.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. Claim 1 recites the
following:
the detailed comparison user interface includes one or more
results indicators graphically highlighting a point of interest in
the baseline search results or the candidate search results,
wherein the one or more results indicators include an ‘out of
stock’ indicator . . . and the one or more results indicators include
a location difference between a particular product in the
candidate search results and the baseline search results.

Appeal 2019-006175
Application 14/519,778

7

Appeal Br. 32–33 (Claims App.). We find the broadest reasonable
interpretation of claim 1, based on the plain language of the claim,
encompasses an interface with a results indicator that may be, but is not
required to be, an “‘out of stock’ indicator” or a “location difference
between a particular product in the candidate search results and the baseline
search results.” In other words, by reciting “the one or more results
indicators include,” claim 1 makes optional the recited “out of stock” and
“location difference” results indicators, and leaves open the possibility of
implementing some other, unspecified type of results indicator.
Jonker describes that an analyst can annotate documents that then
“appear with a yellow pin.” Jonker ¶ 104. Jonker’s Table 2 shows what a
search result icon for a particular document may look like with an
annotation. Further, Jonker describes that upon a mouse-over of a document,
a hovering pane “displays summary information on the document.” Id.
Jonker describes flexibility in identifying document information through the
use of dimensions, which are “a property or aspect of documents” and “can
be selected from pre-defined dimensions or determined by the analyst” Id.
¶ 105. All of this collectively suggests “one or more results indictors
graphically highlighting a point of interest” in search results, as recited in
claim 1.
As noted above, claim 1 does not require any particular “results
indicator.” Nevertheless, even if we consider the optional claim language, in
particular, the “out of stock” results indicator Appellant specifically argues
(see Appeal Br. 16–17), Appellant’s arguments are unavailing. We agree
with the Examiner that “[t]he type of information, say ‘out of stock’ or
‘Shopping’ included in a search result in order to be identified as ‘point of
Appeal 2019-006175
Application 14/519,778

8

interest’ to be shown by an indicator will not change the procedure that
applies the indicator to the identified information/keywords.” Ans. 6. In
other words, “out of stock” is merely non-functional descriptive material that
does not further limit claim 1. See Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887–
90 (BPAI 2008) (Precedential) (finding sequence data identifying nucleic
acid sequences in a computer-based system to be non-functional descriptive
material not due patentable weight in an obviousness analysis). As
mentioned above, Jonker describes flexibility in identifying document
information through custom dimensions. See Jonker ¶ 105. Accordingly,
Jonker suggests a “results indicator” highlighting any relevant information
pertaining to a particular search result, whether it be an identification of a
product as “out of stock” or some other piece of information.
The claim 1 language that defines the “out of stock” indicator as one
that identifies a search result that “should have been removed” is also merely
descriptive. Specifically, it does not further define the functionality of the
claimed invention, because whether a search result “should have been
removed” is simply subjective information that does not alter how the
interface displays the search result. In any case, we note Jonker’s Table 2
shows that duplicate documents can have a particular modification of their
icons. As one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, a duplicate
document is one that “should have been removed” from search results.
Accordingly, Jonker suggests a “results indicator” that identifies search
results that “should have been removed.”
For these reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1, as well as independent claims 7 and 14, for which Appellant relies
on similar arguments. See Appeal Br. 18–29. We also sustain the
Appeal 2019-006175
Application 14/519,778

9

obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2–4, 8–13, 18, and 20, for which
Appellant does not provide separate arguments.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 7–14,
18, 20
103 Jonker, Chang 1–4, 7–14,
18, 20

CONCLUSION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1–4, 7–14,
18, and 20. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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