Geoffry Westphal

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 7, 2020

2020005021 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 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.
12/421,903 04/10/2009 Geoffry A. Westphal 31083.30US1 5418
34018 7590 12/07/2020
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 W. Wacker Drive
Suite 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
EXAMINER
ZELASKIEWICZ, CHRYSTINA E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/07/2020 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):
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 2020-0050211
Application 12/421,903
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 13, 14, 19, 21, and 25, which constitute all
the claims pending in this application. 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. Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed January 28, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
June 22, 2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April 24, 2020)
and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed September 26, 2019).
2 Appellant identifies “W.W. Grainger, Inc.” as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-005021
Application 12/421,903
2
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates generally to “a system and
method for displaying, searching, and interacting with a two dimensional,
electronic version of a product catalog.” Spec. 3:1–2.
Claims 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory computer readable media having stored
thereon computer executable instructions for use in presenting
information relevant to a product catalog, the instructions
performing steps comprising:
[a] presenting to a user via use of a client device in a two-
dimensional format, having an overall visual appearance, a
plurality of links, each of the plurality of links having an
original visual appearance and being a link to a page of a
product catalog on which is listed a plurality of products;
[b] receiving a search request via use of the client device
while the plurality of links are being presented to the user;
[c] in response to the search request, causing the client
device to retrieve from a server device having an associated
search engine a set of product catalog pages wherein each
product catalog page within the retrieved set of product catalog
pages has at least one product that is determined by the search
engine to be responsive to the search request;
[d] using the retrieved set of product catalog pages to
modify the overall visual appearance of the two-dimensional
format of the plurality of links that is being presented to the
user such that the original visual appearance of select links
within the presented plurality of links are caused to be visually
altered while the original visual appearance of remaining ones
of the plurality of links are unaltered;
[e] receiving a selection of a one of the plurality of
visually altered links via use the client device; in the response
to the selection,
[f] selecting from a memory of the client device a one of
the product catalog pages within the retrieved set of product
Appeal 2020-005021
Application 12/421,903
3
catalog pages that is linked to the selected one of the plurality
of visually altered links; and
[g] presenting to the user via use of the client device the
selected one of the product catalog pages within the retrieved
set of product catalog pages.

REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 5, 13, 14, 19, 21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Mayle (US 2008/0109327 A1, pub. May 8, 2008)
and Rothey (US 2009/0254455 A1, pub. Oct. 8, 2009).
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the
combination of Mayle and Rothey fails to disclose or suggest:
using the retrieved set of product catalog pages to modify the
overall visual appearance of the two-dimensional format of the
plurality of links [710] that is being presented to the user such
that the original visual appearance of select links within the
presented plurality of links [710] are caused to be visually altered
while the original visual appearance of remaining ones of the
plurality of links are unaltered.
Appeal Br. 4–6; Reply Br. 2–4.
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds that Rothey discloses
the argued limitation. Final Act. 4 (citing Rothey ¶¶ 24–27, Fig. 3). More
particularly, the Examiner finds that Mayle discloses “the plurality of links
in a two-dimensional format,” but relies on “Rothey for teaching visually
altering the original appearance of the links.” Ans. 4. However, we agree
with Appellant that the Examiner’s proposed combination fails to disclose or
suggest the argued limitation.
Appeal 2020-005021
Application 12/421,903
4
In making this determination, we note that Mayle is directed to an
“interface that makes it possible to quickly and easily browse product
catalogs containing large numbers of products.” Mayle ¶ 10. More
particularly, Mayle discloses “a computer system for generating a two
dimensional catalog with the catalog having a plurality of entries and an
image associated with each of the entries.” Id. ¶ 17. In this regard, Mayle
discloses that
[a] display generation module creates the two dimensional
catalog display representing a layout of the images associated
with each of the entries, the display generation module further
adapted to not have a dimensional preference in generating a
display and also to scale the images so that the two dimensional
catalog display substantially fits within a predetermined
boundary. The generation may further utilize a relationship
between all the entries in the catalog so that similar items are
located closer to one another. The relationship between the
entries may take into account characteristics of each of the
items, for instance in a catalog of products the characteristics
may include shape, color, size, manufacturer, price, material,
popularity and discount.
Id.
Rothey is directed to a system “for virtual canvas generation, product
catalog searching, and result presentation.” Rothey ¶ 2.3 According to
Rothey,
[c]urrent virtual catalogs are designed to function with
static virtual pages and, therefore, virtual catalog services lack
the ability to generate a virtual catalog page or entire virtual
catalog from product search results. As such, what is needed is
a system that enables the dynamic generation of one or more

3 Rothey explains that “[a] virtual canvas can be a presentation in which one
or more objects, such as products, are electronically displayed.” Rothey
¶ 14.
Appeal 2020-005021
Application 12/421,903
5
virtual catalog pages based on a given product set (i.e. search
result data set).
Id. ¶ 5. In Rothey,
[a] user can input a search query to search canvases from
a single virtual catalog or from multiple virtual catalogs. System
search engine 118 can receive the query and evaluate it against
product metadata associated with the virtual canvases stored in
database 123. System search engine 124 can limit its search to
the products and/or virtual canvases (e.g., virtual canvases)
associated with the Web site that the user is viewing. Once
system search engine 124 determines a result set, the result set is
relayed to user device 140 and can be displayed in a variety of
ways.
Id. ¶ 23; see also id. ¶¶ 30–31. And, “[i]f the user has conducted a search of
multiple virtual catalogs, the result set can include a visual relevancy
ranking of catalogs based on the number of virtual canvases (e.g., virtual
catalog pages) that match the search query.” Id. ¶ 24. Rothey describes that
“catalog pages are displayed non-sequentially as only those pages that match
the user’s search query are included. This targeted display of catalog pages
enables the user to ascertain quickly whether or not any of the matching
catalog pages include products for which the user might have an interest.”
Id. ¶ 26.
After reviewing the cited portions of Rothey in combination with
Mayle, we agree with Appellant that there is nothing in the relied upon
portions of Rothey and Mayle that discloses or suggests the argued
limitation (Appeal Br. 4–6; Reply Br. 2–4).
Although we agree with the Examiner that Mayle discloses presenting
a plurality of links in a two-dimensional format, wherein each of the links
has an original visual appearance and is a link to a page of a product catalog
that lists a plurality of products (Ans. 4 (citing Mayle ¶¶ 10, 17–19, Figs.
Appeal 2020-005021
Application 12/421,903
6
21–22)), we cannot agree with the Examiner that the addition of Rothey
discloses or suggests limitation [d], i.e.,
using the retrieved set of product catalog pages to modify the
overall visual appearance of the two-dimensional format of the
plurality of links [710] that is being presented to the user such
that the original visual appearance of select links within the
presented plurality of links [710] are caused to be visually altered
while the original visual appearance of remaining ones of the
plurality of links are unaltered.
In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner takes the position
that “a product image can serve as a link” (Ans. 4–5 (citing Spec. 14)), and
finds that:
[i]n Rothey, the “plurality of links” are catalog cover
images. A user can conduct a search of the multiple virtual
catalogs (i.e. a search request while the links are presented to the
user, see [0024]). Based on that search, certain catalog cover
images can be altered for the user. For example, the catalog
cover image can include supplemental data such as the number
of matching catalog pages or matching product zones (see
[0024]). In addition to the supplemental data, images of
matching catalog pages can be displayed next to the catalog
cover image. Highlighting, coloring, and arrows are other ways
of visually altering the image (see [0027], figure 3). Under the
broadest reasonable interpretation, changing the order of how the
catalog cover images are presented is also visually altering them
(e.g. displayed in order of relevancy, see [0024]).
Ans. 5. We agree with the Examiner that “a product image can serve as a
link.” We also agree with the Examiner that Rothey describes visually
altering links. However, as Appellant points out, “Rothey only describes
presenting to a user a set of catalog pages that are obtained via use of a
search where the set of catalog pages obtained via use of the search is itself
provided with visual information.” Reply Br. 3. Thus, we agree with
Appellant that
Appeal 2020-005021
Application 12/421,903
7
Rothey does not disclose, teach, or suggest using the retrieved
set of product catalog pages to modify the overall visual
appearance of a two-dimensional format of a plurality of links
that was being presented to a user at a time a search request
was submitted such that the original visual appearance of select
links within the presented plurality of links are visually altered
while the original visual appearance of remaining ones of the
plurality of links are unaltered as claimed.
Appeal Br. 5.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we
also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2, 5, 13, 14,
19, 21, and 25.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5, 13,
14, 19, 21,
25
103(a) Mayle, Rothey 1, 2, 5, 13,
14, 19, 21,
25

REVERSED