Dropbox, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 13, 2020

14635976 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 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.
14/635,976 03/02/2015 Daniel Bernard 381805-302800/P550US1 7489
136442 7590 11/13/2020
DLA Piper LLP (US)
11911 Freedom Dr.
Suite 300
Reston, VA 20190
EXAMINER
YU, ARIEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/13/2020 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):
BostonIPDocketing@dlapiper.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
______________

Ex parte DANIEL BERNARD, ERIC FENG,
MARTY HU, and VERONICA ZHENG
_____________

Appeal 2020-003360
Application 14/635,976
Technology Center 3600
______________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, JAMES P. CALVE, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 11–20, which are all of the pending claims.2
Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Dropbox, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 1–10 and 21 are withdrawn. Appeal Br. 11–13, 16 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-003360
Application 14/635,976

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 11 and 17 are independent. Claim 11 recites:
11. A method comprising:
receiving, at a message management service, a first
message, from a messaging service, to be delivered at a remote
client device of a user;
determining, by the message management service, that
the first message is a candidate for processing as a receipt based
on detecting a presence of one or more predefined features that
are indicative of a receipt;
comparing, at the message management service, one or
more established rules for processing receipts to the first
message to determine whether any of the one or more
established rules applies to the first message;
determining, by the message management service, that
none of the one or more established rules for processing
messages as receipts applies to the first message;
adding metadata to the first message indicating that the
first message is a candidate for processing as a receipt, the
metadata comprising a triggering condition for a suggested rule
to process subsequent messages similar to the first message as a
receipt; and
routing, to the client device, the first message and the
metadata to prompt the user to verify processing the first
message as a receipt.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).

REJECTION
Claims 11–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Rowe (US 2015/0288627 A1, pub. Oct. 8, 2015) and Miller (US
8,392,288 B1, iss. Mar. 5, 2013).

Appeal 2020-003360
Application 14/635,976

3
ANALYSIS
The claimed message management service collects and stores receipts
issued by merchants to consumers for purchase transactions. Spec. ¶¶ 1–3.
The service receives a receipt in a message such as an email message and
compares the message to established rules to determine whether to process
the message as a receipt. Id. ¶¶ 56, 57. The service can add metadata to a
message to indicate that it is a candidate for processing as a receipt where
the metadata is a triggering condition for a suggested rule to process future
messages similar to the current message as a receipt. Id. ¶¶ 5, 58, 72, 90.
Independent claims 11 and 17 both recite features of adding metadata
to a message received by the message management service. Claim 11 recites
“adding metadata to the first message indicating that the first message is a
candidate for processing as a receipt, the metadata comprising a triggering
condition for a suggested rule to process subsequent messages similar to the
first message as a receipt.” Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). Claim 17 recites
“the filter module further configured to add metadata to the messages
received via the messaging interface, the metadata indicating that each
message is a candidate for processing as a receipt, the metadata comprising a
triggering condition for a suggested rule to process subsequent messages
similar to the first message as a receipt.” Id. at 15.
The Examiner relies on Miller to teach metadata. The Examiner finds
that Miller adds metadata to a message by generating a message 1102 that is
displayed on consumer computer 110 to inform a consumer that a displayed
page includes receipt data. Final Act. 3–6, 17; Ans. 3–4.
Figure 11 of Miller is reproduced below to illustrate message 1102.
Appeal 2020-003360
Application 14/635,976

4

Figure 11 of Miller illustrates a message 1102 displayed on a screen
or page 602 to notify a consumer that candidate electronic receipt data 213
was identified within page/screen 602. Miller, 13:53–64. The consumer can
decide whether to save the data as a receipt. Id. at 13:64–14:20.
Appeal 2020-003360
Application 14/635,976

5
If the consumer decides the candidate electronic receipt data should
not be included in receipt database 234, the consumer selects “No” 1106 and
the message 1102 is disregarded. Id. at 13:64–14:4. If the consumer selects
“Yes” 1104, the candidate receipt data is transmitted to host computer 130
and stored in receipt database 234. Id. at 14:4–10.
The Examiner interprets “metadata” under a broadest reasonable
interpretation to mean “information/description/context about data.” Ans. 3.
The Examiner takes the position that message 1102 is a form of metadata
that provides information about page 602 by advising a consumer that “the
page you are viewing appears to include receipt data.” Id. at 3–4.
Appellant argues that message 1102 is generated and displayed on a
consumer computer to notify the consumer that potential or candidate receipt
data has been identified and allow the consumer to decide whether the data
should be transmitted to host computer 130 for inclusion in receipt database
234. Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 1. Appellant argues “[a]t no point is anything,
let alone metadata, added to the message received from the non-participating
merchant.” Appeal Br. 6; see Reply Br. 1. Appellant asserts that the receipt
data in Figure 11 is the message itself and message 1102 is an overlay or a
pop-up element rather than metadata added to a first message. Appeal Br. 7;
Reply Br. 1–2. Appellant further asserts that even if the screen in Figure 11
is considered to be a message, it is a second message that is independent
from the original, first email message that was received from a merchant and
illustrated in Figure 7 of Miller. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 2. Appellant also
contends that the Examiner considers “receipt data” to be “metadata” but
“receipt data is never added to a message received from a non-participating
merchant or a participating merchant” in Miller. Appeal Br. 6.
Appeal 2020-003360
Application 14/635,976

6
The claimed system and method receive messages from a messaging
service (e.g., email service, (Spec. ¶ 23)) and add metadata to a first message
in claim 11 and to messages in claim 17 (Appeal Br. 13–15). Miller receives
pages 602 and email messages 702 sent by merchants to consumer computer
210 as shown in Figures 6 and 7 of Miller. Miller, 12:8–44; Appeal Br. 5–6.
Miller then extracts data from page 602 or email message 702 and compares
captured data 213 to pre-determined criteria to determine if data 213 relates
to a completed transaction. Miller, 12:61–13:52. If a comparison indicates
that a message or page includes candidate receipt data, page 602 or message
702 is sent to the consumer with message 1102 advising the consumer that
page 602/message 702 appears to include receipt data. Id. at 13:30–65.
The Examiner correctly finds that Miller teaches to add message 1102
to the original page 602/message 702 received from a merchant or from a
transaction completed over the Internet or online. Thus, the first message of
claim 11 and the messages received from a messaging service in claim 17 do
not provide a point of distinction over Miller’s method and system.
Therefore, we next consider whether Miller’s pop-up message 1102
corresponds to “metadata” as recited in claims 11 and 17. Appellant does
not offer a definition of metadata. Nor does Appellant identify a description
in the Specification for metadata beyond citing paragraphs 58, 71, and 72 in
the Summary of Claimed Subject Matter as support for the overall metadata
limitation in both claims. See Appeal Br. 2, 3.
An ordinary meaning of “metadata” is “data that provides information
about other data.” See Merriam-Webster.com at “http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/ metadata” (accessed Oct. 30, 2020). This definition
supports the Examiner’s interpretation of metadata. See Ans. 3–4.
Appeal 2020-003360
Application 14/635,976

7
We next consider whether this definition is consistent with the claim
language interpreted in light of the Specification. The plain meaning of both
claims is that metadata is added to a message(s). Claim 11 recites “adding
metadata to the first message.” See Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.) (emphasis
added). Claim 17 recites a “filter module further configured to add metadata
to the messages.” See id. at 15 (emphasis added).
Miller “generat[es] a message 1102 that is displayed on the consumer
computer 110 to the consumer 115 to notify the consumer 115 that potential
or candidate electronic receipt data 213c has been identified within the
screen or page of the software application 112.” Miller, 13:60–64 (emphasis
added). There is no indication that message 1102 is “added to” page 602 or
email message 702 as claimed.
Message 1102 does advise a consumer that the underlying page 602 or
message 702 is a candidate for processing as a receipt by stating “[t]he page
you are viewing appears to include receipt data.” Miller, Fig. 11. However,
it is unclear how message 1102 also comprises a triggering condition3 for a
suggested rule to process subsequent messages similar to the first message.
If the Examiner relies on data 213 in page 602 (i.e., “Your Receipt,”
“Total,” and “$540.00”) as triggering conditions, this receipt data is part of
page 602. Message 1102 does not comprise receipt data 213, which was not
added to page 602 by message 1102. Appeal Br. 6–7. Message 1102 uses a
pointer in Figure 11 of Miller to identify the terms “Total” and “$540.00” in
page 602. Thus, the Examiner’s finding that message 1102 comprises a
triggering condition is not supported by a preponderance of evidence.

3 A “triggering condition” is used to identify receipt data. It can be based on
a sender, the word “receipt” in a message, and the like. Spec. ¶ 56.
Appeal 2020-003360
Application 14/635,976

8
Message 1102 explains that page 602 appears to include receipt data,
and it points to candidate receipt data. Message 1102 does not “comprise”
receipt data 213, which Miller extracts from page 602 and compares to pre-
determined criteria (words, phrases, numbers, characters, icons, symbols,
logos) to identify candidate receipt data. Miller, 12:8–13:42. Thus, even if
we consider message 1102 to be metadata, message 1102 does not comprise
“a triggering condition for a suggested rule” as claimed. It points to terms
like “Total” and “$540.00” in page 602 that might be triggering conditions.
The Specification also describes pop-up dialog box 802, which can be
displayed on a user interface 700 to ask a user whether to establish a rule and
also to suggest a triggering condition “SuperRide,” which is the name of the
merchant who sent the receipt. Id. ¶ 81, Fig. 8. Appellant thus distinguishes
pop-up windows displayed on a user interface 700, similar to message 1102
in Miller, from “metadata” that is added to a message.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 11–20.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
11–20 103 Rowe, Miller 11–20
REVERSED