SugarCRM Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 5, 2020

14562659 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 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.
14/562,659 12/05/2014 Matthew Marum 1301-051U 6442
112025 7590 03/05/2020
Shutts & Bowen LLP
Steven M. Greenberg, Esq.
525 Okeechobee Blvd
# 1100
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
EXAMINER
REAGAN, JAMES A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/05/2020 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
patents@shutts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MATTHEW MARUM and WES MORAN
____________

Appeal 2019-000889
Application 14/562,659
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before DAVID M. KOHUT, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
and GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–18. We have jurisdiction over the pending
rejected claims 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
SugarCRM, Inc. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2019-000889
Application 14/562,659

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a customer
relationship management (“CRM”) method for retail environments that
includes sensing entry of a mobile device into a physical space and
identifying a customer record for a customer in a CRM system associated
with the detected mobile device. (Abstract.)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. A customer relationship management (CRM) method for
retail environments, the method comprising:
sensing entry of a mobile device into a physical space;
identifying a customer record for a customer in a CRM
system associated with the detected mobile device;
detecting a proximity of the mobile device to a product
stored in the physical space;
creating an opportunity record in the CRM system in
connection with the customer for the product; and,
responsive to sensing egress of the mobile device from
the physical space, marking the opportunity record as closed-
won if the product has been purchased by the customer and
deleting the opportunity record in the CRM system.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2015/0112838 A1, pub. Apr. 23, 2015)
(hereinafter “Li”), Purves et al. (US 2015/0073907 A1, pub. Mar. 12, 2015)
(hereinafter “Purves”), and Heath (US 2013/0073388 A1, pub. Mar. 21,
2013). (Final Act. 7.)

Appeal 2019-000889
Application 14/562,659

3
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs present the following issue:2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Li, Purves,
and Heath teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitation:
responsive to sensing egress of the mobile device from the
physical space, marking the opportunity record as closed-
won if the product has been purchased by the customer,
and the commensurate limitation recited in independent claim 10. (Appeal
Br. 4–12, Reply Br. 2–8.)
ANALYSIS
In finding that the combination of Li, Purves, and Heath teaches or
suggests the independent claim 1 limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on
Purves’s disclosure of (1) a block diagram of in-store check-in and dataflow
diagrams of augmented retail shopping, (2) a merchant system including a
check-in detector, (3) a customer service representative (“CSR”) application
that may convey offers, coupons, recommendations, and price comparisons
to a customer, and assist in checkout notification, and (4) a mobile
application that may identify when the user is in a store and detect when the
user is in close proximity to a store. (Final Act. 7–8, Ans. 5; Purves Figs.
1C-1, 2A–B, ¶¶ 67, 125, 310.)
Appellant argues:
The transaction confirmation message and purchase receipt [in
Purves] relates to the customer record as defined by Examiner,

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 29, 2018, hereinafter
“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief (filed Nov. 13, 2018, hereinafter “Reply
Br.”); the Final Office Action (mailed Aug. 10, 2017, hereinafter “Final
Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Sept. 12, 2018, hereinafter
“Ans.”) for the respective details.
Appeal 2019-000889
Application 14/562,659

4
not the opportunity record. In this regard, no action is
performed to the purchase history of Li and the transaction
confirmation of Purves in response to the egress of a mobile
device from a physical space. Unlike Appellants’ claimed
invention, the customer’s receipt is sent in response to a
purchase, not the egress of their mobile device from the
store.
(Reply Br. 5.)
We agree. The Examiner finds that Purves discloses “the user may
exit the store 161 with proof of purchase” (Ans. 5, citing Purves ¶ 125), and
further discloses
a position icon may be displayed next to a store (e.g.,
Walgreens) when the user is in close proximity to the store and
the mobile payment application may refresh its location
periodically in case the user moved away from the store (e.g.,
Walgreens).
(Ans. 5, citing Purves ¶ 310.)
However, the Examiner’s findings do not explain how Purves, or the
combination of references, teaches or suggests “responsive to sensing egress
of the mobile device from the physical space, marking the opportunity
record as closed-won if the product has been purchased by the customer,”
because the cited portion of Purves teaches a periodic location refreshment
to determine if “the user moved away from the store” (Purvis ¶ 310), but
does not tie that determination to any subsequent action related to the user
having first been in the store. The Examiner has not cited the additional
references as teaching this limitation and we will not engage in any inquiry
as to whether the additional references cure the noted deficiencies. Thus the
Examiner has not shown how “[e]ach of the elements claimed are all shown
by the prior art of record” (Ans. 5).
Appeal 2019-000889
Application 14/562,659

5
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claim 10
commensurate in scope, as well as dependent claims 2–9 and 11–18.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we reverse the obviousness rejection of
claims 1–18.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. §  Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–18 103   Li, Purves, Heath 1–18

REVERSED