The Toronto-Dominion Bank

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 28, 2020

2020002547 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 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.
14/656,519 03/12/2015 Steve GERVAIS G4144-00075 1096
39290 7590 09/28/2020
Duane Morris LLP
Duane Morris LLP
505 9th Street N.W.
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004
EXAMINER
MILLER, JAMES H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3694
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVE GERVAIS, ERIC KAISER, PETER HORVATH,
ANDREW CHAK, CHRISTIANNE MORETTI,
LAUREN VAN HEERDEN, ORIN DEL VECCHIO,
GUNALAN NADARAJAH, and TOMMY PHUNG
Appeal 2020-002547
Application 14/656,519
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, LARRY J. HUME, and JAMES W. DEJMEK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–10, 12–17, 19–21, 23, 24, 26, 27,
and 29–31, which are all claims pending in the application. Appellant has
canceled claims 11, 18, 22, 25, and 28. See Claims App. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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 The Toronto-
Dominion Bank. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-002547
Application 14/656,519

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The claims are directed to systems and methods for providing
populated transaction interfaces based on user-generated triggers. See Spec.
(Title). In particular, Appellant’s disclosed embodiments and claimed
invention “generally relate to systems and methods for account transactions,
and more particularly, and without limitation, to systems and methods for
automatically populating interfaces for electronic fund transfer transactions
in response to user-generated trigger events.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
Appeal (emphases added to contested prior-art limitations):
1. A system, comprising:
a communications interface;
a memory storing instructions; and
one or more processors configured to execute the
instructions to perform operations including:
detecting an occurrence of an event that triggers an
account transfer transaction, the triggering event comprising a
request to access an interface associated with the account
transfer transaction at a first device;
[(a)] obtaining online session data that identifies (i) first
elements of digital content presented within a first web page
accessed by the first device during at least one prior online
session and (ii) second elements of digital content presented

2 Our decision relies upon Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
Sept. 16, 2019); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 11, 2020); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 23, 2019); Final Office Action (“Final Act.,”
mailed Dec. 23, 2019); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed
Mar. 12, 2015) (claiming benefit of US 61/951,795, filed Mar. 12, 2014).
Appeal 2020-002547
Application 14/656,519

3
within a second web page accessed by the first device during
the at least one prior online session, the second web page being
accessed subsequent to the first web page;
[(b)] determining an identifier of a first account based on
a first portion of the online session data that corresponds to the
first elements of digital content, and determining an identifier
of a second account based on a second portion of the online
session data that corresponds to the second elements of digital
content;
determining a first amount of funds to transfer from the
first account to the second account based on the online session
data;
generating, based on a set of rules, first information for
presentation in the interface, the first information including
prefilled content identifying at least one of the first account as a
first source account in the interface, the second account as a
destination account in the interface, or the first amount in a first
amount field of the interface; and
generating and transmitting a first signal to the first
device via the communications interface, the first signal
comprising the first information, and the first information
instructing an application program executed by the first device
to display the prefilled content on the interface without input
from a first user.
Related Appeal
Although not identified by Appellant in their briefs, copending
Application Serial No. 14/656,541 (Appeal No. 2020-002664) is related to
this Appeal. Our Decision in that case, issued contemporaneously with this
Decision, affirms the Examiner’s rejections. See Ans. 3.
Appeal 2020-002547
Application 14/656,519

4
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Wehmer US 7,873,571 B1 Jan. 18, 2011
Hoke et al. (“Hoke”) US 2012/0290479 A1 Nov. 15, 2012
Schwarzkopf et al. (“Schwarzkopf”) US 2013/0006782 A1 Jan. 3, 2013
Hinghole et al. (“Hinghole”) US 8,560,447 B1 Oct. 15, 2013
Eigner et al. (“Eigner”) US 9,639,597 B2 May 2, 2017
REJECTIONS
R1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13–16, 19, 24, 27, 29, and 31 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination
of Hoke and Eigner. Final Act. 5.
R2. Claims 3, 12, 23, 26, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hoke, Eigner, and
Schwarzkopf. Final Act. 18.
R3. Claims 6 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hoke, Eigner, and Hinghole. Final
Act. 22.
R4. Claims 9, 10, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of Hoke, Eigner, and Wehmer.
Final Act. 25.
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 12–20) and our
discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal of
Appeal 2020-002547
Application 14/656,519

5
obviousness Rejection R1 of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13–16, 19, 24, 27, 29,
and 31 on the basis of representative claim 1.
Remaining claims 3, 6, 9, 10, 12, 17, 20, 21, 23, 26, and 30 in
Rejections R2 through R4, not argued separately, stand or fall with the
respective independent claim from which they depend.3
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellant. To the extent Appellant has not
advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other
issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–10,
12–17, 19–21, 23, 24, 26, 27, and 29–31 and, unless otherwise noted, we
incorporate by reference herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner’s Answer
in response to Appellant’s arguments. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows.

3 “Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
In addition, when Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of
dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they
depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appeal 2020-002547
Application 14/656,519

6
1. § 103 Rejection R1: Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13–16, 19, 24, 27, 29, 31
Issue 1
Appellant argues (Appeal Br.12–17; Reply Br. 2–12) the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combination of Hoke and Eigner is in error. These contentions present us
with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests a system comprising “one or more processors configured to
execute the instructions to perform operations including,” inter alia:
(a) obtaining online session data that identifies (i) first
elements of digital content presented within a first web page
accessed by the first device during at least one prior online
session and (ii) second elements of digital content presented
within a second web page accessed by the first device during
the at least one prior online session, the second web page being
accessed subsequent to the first web page;
(b) determining an identifier of a first account based
on a first portion of the online session data that corresponds to
the first elements of digital content, and determining an
identifier of a second account based on a second portion of the
online session data that corresponds to the second elements of
digital content,
as recited in claim 1?
Principles of Law
“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of
references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). “The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather,
Appeal 2020-002547
Application 14/656,519

7
the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 425.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior
art would have suggested to the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the
art. Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
In KSR, the Court stated “[t]he combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007).
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill . . . . [A] court
must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable
use of prior art elements according to their established
functions.
Id. at 417.
Further, the relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth
“some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Appeal 2020-002547
Application 14/656,519

8
Analysis
The Examiner cites the combination of Hoke and Eigner as teaching
or suggesting the contested limitations of claim 1. See Final Act. 5–9; and
see Ans. 4–14 (incorporated herein by reference).
The Examiner cites Eigner as teaching or suggesting limitation (a)
“obtaining online session data.” Final Act. 8. In particular, the Examiner
finds Eigner teaches or suggests “session data that identifies (i) first
elements of digital content presented within a first web page accessed by the
first device during at least one prior online session,” and session data that
identifies “(ii) second elements of digital content presented within a second
web page accessed by the first device during the at least one prior online
session, the second web page being accessed subsequent to the first web
page.” Id. (citing Eigner Figs. 5 and 6, element 610).
In addition to arguing against Hoke teaching or suggesting the
contested “obtaining” limitation (Appeal Br. 13–14), a finding the Examiner
never propounded, Appellant further contends “Eigner fails to cure any of
these quoted deficiencies of Hoke” (Appeal Br. 14), and specifically argues:
While Eigner may generate and securely store “user
profile” data that includes user information captured, extracted,
or collected from various electronic documents, electronic
forms, and electronic or non-electronic records . . . nowhere
does Eigner teaches or suggest any process that associates,
within the comprehensive user profile, an element of user
information with any data identifying a source of that element
of user information, such as one of the claimed “first webpage”
or the claimed “second web page.” [ ]
Thus, even assuming that the “one or more data sources”
in Eigner could include a first web page and a second web
page, and that the “user profile” data could correspond to on
Appeal 2020-002547
Application 14/656,519

9
line session data . . . neither of which Applicant concedes,
Eigner would still fail to teach or suggest [limitation (b)]
“determining an identifier of a first account based on a first
portion of the online session data that corresponds to the first
elements of digital content [presented within the first web
page], and determining an identifier of a second account based
on a second portion of the online session data that
corresponds to the second elements of digital content
[presented within the second web page],” as recited [in]
independent claim 1.
Appeal Br. 16 (citations omitted). Appellant concludes by alleging, “Eigner
is completely silent regarding any classification or mapping techniques that
associates one of more elements of the user profile data with a
corresponding data source, e.g., the specific web page.” Appeal Br. 16.
In response, the Examiner finds “Eigner discloses what is claimed—
the ‘obtaining limitation’—which is a ‘process that associates’ multiple
types of user information captured from multiple web pages.” Ans. 6. The
Examiner supports this finding by pointing out that
Eigner discloses “captur[ing],” “extract[ing],” and
“upload[ing]” “field content (506)” from multiple web pages to
the user's profile “for future use on the same or other forms.” [ ]
First, Eigner discloses that “information may be extracted and
populated even for a complete form that spans numerous
pages.” [ ] As “pages” is plural, Eigner discloses at least two
pages for “captur[ing],” “extract[ing],” and “upload[ing]” “field
content (506)” “for future use on the same or other forms,”
which Examiner contemplates is a first and second web page as
claimed by Appellant.
Ans. 7 (citing Eigner 7:1–3, 6–8; 5:11–53; Fig. 2).
With respect to the “determining” step, Appellant argues, in passing
without analysis, “even assuming that the ‘user profile data’ in Eigner could
include elements of digital content presented within a ‘first web page’ and a
Appeal 2020-002547
Application 14/656,519

10
‘second web page,’ which Applicant does not concede, Eigner would still
fail to teach or suggest [the recited ‘determining an identifier of a first
account’ step].” Ans. 16.
In agreement with the Examiner (Ans. 13),4 we also note Eigner
discloses
[t]he information obtained from the various information sources
discussed above is used to build a user profile of an individual
user which ideally includes comprehensive information on the
user’s finances, contact information, health information and
historical information. The user profile may include the user’s
. . . bank account numbers, account balances. . . .
Eigner 8:57–65 (emphasis added).
Based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded
of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art combination to teach
or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do we find error in the
Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped
claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13–16, 19, 24, 27, 29, and 31 which fall therewith. See
Claim Grouping, supra.

4 “Eigner discloses first and second elements of digital content may be bank
account numbers, stored in the user profile, ‘obtained from the various
information sources discussed above . . . to build a user profile of an
individual user which ideally includes comprehensive information on the
user’s finances.’ [ ] Eigner discloses ‘field mapping’ techniques to determine
‘which information belongs in which fields.’” Ans. 13 (citing Eigner 7:28–
30, Fig. 6, 8:67–66, 937–11:55).
Appeal 2020-002547
Application 14/656,519

11
2. Rejections R2–R4 of Claims 3, 6, 9, 10, 12, 17, 20, 21, 23, 26, and 30
In view of the lack of any substantive or truly separate arguments
directed to obviousness Rejections R2 through R4 of claims 3, 6, 9, 10, 12,
17, 20, 21, 23, 26, and 30 under § 103 (see Appeal Br. 17–20), we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. Arguments not made are waived.5
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellant may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 1–12) not in response to a shift in the Examiner’s position
in the Answer, arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the
Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner’s
Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellant has not shown.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness Rejections R1
through R4 of claims 1–10, 12–17, 19–21, 23, 24, 26, 27, and 29–31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over the cited prior art combinations of record, and we
sustain the rejections.

5 Appellant generally alleges these dependent claims in Rejections R2
through R4 are allowable by virtue of their dependence on independent
claims 1 and 13 in Rejection R1. See Appeal Br. 18–20.
Appeal 2020-002547
Application 14/656,519

12
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis /
References Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5, 7,
8, 13–16, 19,
24, 27, 29, 31
103
Obviousness
Hoke, Eigner
1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8,
13–16, 19, 24,
27, 29, 31

3, 12, 23, 26,
30 103
Obviousness
Hoke, Eigner,
Schwarzkopf
3, 12, 23, 26,
30
6, 17 103
Obviousness
Hoke, Eigner,
Hinghole
6, 17
9, 10, 20, 21 103
Obviousness
Hoke, Eigner,
Wehmer
9, 10, 20, 21
Overall
Outcome
1–10, 12–17,
19–21, 23, 24,
26, 27, 29–31

FINALITY AND 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