Houtao Deng

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 26, 2020

14469238 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 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.
14/469,238 08/26/2014 Houtao Deng 37202/586001; 1408019US 6996
57956 7590 06/26/2020
FBFK/Intuit
Robert Lord
9 Greenway Plaza
Suite 500
HOUSTON, TX 77046
EXAMINER
SNIDER, SCOTT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2020 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@fbfk.law
jhathaway@fbfk.law
rlord@fbfk.law
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HOUTAO DENG
Appeal 2020-001713
Application 14/469,238
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1, 3, 6–9, 11, 14–17, 19, and 22–24. 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(a). According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Intuit Inc.
Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2020-001713
Application 14/469,238

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention delivers targeted advertisements to selected
consumers. Abstract.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A system for targeted communication, comprising:
a computer processor;
a commerce platform configured to perform a plurality of
financial transactions, wherein the plurality of
financial transactions comprises payments from a
plurality of consumers in exchange for goods and
services provided by a plurality of businesses;
a financial management server separate from the
commerce platform and comprising:
a personal financial management application (PFMA)
used by the plurality of consumers, when executed
causing the computer processor to:
generate a consumer user profile for each of the plurality
of consumers,
access, based on a consumer user input from a consumer
of the plurality of consumers, consumer
transaction records representing a portion of the
financial transactions associated with the
consumer, and
display, to the consumer, a business-initiated message
received from a targeted communication
application (TCA);
a business financial management application (BFMA)
used by the plurality of businesses, when executed
causing the computer processor to:
Appeal 2020-001713
Application 14/469,238

3
generate a business user profile for each of the plurality
of businesses, access, based on a business user
input from a business of the plurality of
businesses, business transaction records
representing a portion of the financial transactions
associated with the business, and
display, to the business, a consumer-initiated message
received from the TCA,
wherein the PFMA communicates with the BFMA
through the TCA;
wherein the TCA when executed causing the computer
processor to enable targeted communication
between the PFMA and the BFMA on the financial
management server by causing the computer
processor to:
receive, from the business, the business-initiated message
that is generated by the business to selectively
target the plurality of consumers;
determine a first match by comparing the business-
initiated message with respect to the consumer
user profile of the consumer and the consumer
transaction records of the consumer, wherein this
comparing includes tallying occurrences of
frequently-found merchant categories in the
consumer transaction records over a first pre-
determined time window;
send the business-initiated message to the consumer via
the PFMA based on the first match, wherein the
business-initiated message invites the consumer to
engage in a first additional financial transaction
with the business using the commerce platform;
receive, from the consumer, the consumer-initiated
message that is generated by the consumer to
selectively target the plurality of businesses;
Appeal 2020-001713
Application 14/469,238

4
determine a second match by comparing the consumer-
initiated message with respect to the business user
profile of the business and the business transaction
records of the business, wherein this comparing
includes tallying spending amounts in the
frequently-found merchant categories in the
business transaction records over a second
predetermined time window;
send the consumer-initiated message to the business via
the BFMA based on the second match, wherein the
consumer-initiated message invites the business to
engage in a second additional financial transaction
with the consumer using the commerce platform,
wherein sending the consumer-initiated message to the
business via the BFMA is further based on a
reputation score of the consumer multiplied by a
maximal number of matched businesses and
wherein the reputation score is a number between
0 and 1 resulting from a click-through rate
associated with one or more previous consumer-
initiated messages;
and
a repository for storing:
a plurality of business-initiated messages from the
plurality of businesses,
and
a plurality of consumer-initiated messages from the
plurality of consumers.
Appeal Br. 39–41.2

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Office Action (“Final”),
mailed March 7, 2019; the Advisory Action (“Advisory”), mailed June 27,
2019; the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed July 29, 2019; the Examiner’s
Appeal 2020-001713
Application 14/469,238

5
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the references in the table below.
Name Reference Date
Tomlin US 2009/0063249 A1 Mar. 5, 2009
Schmitt US 2012/0066045 A1 Mar. 15, 2012
Hochstatter US 2012/0158500 A1 June 21, 2012
Brelig US 2013/0151345 A1 June 13, 2013

REJECTION3
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 6–9, 11, 14–17, 19, and 22–24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hochstatter, Tomlin, Brelig, and
Schmitt. Final 4–12.
OPINION
The Rejection
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Hochstatter, Tomlin,
Brelig, and Schmitt. Final 4–9. As for the consumers and businesses recited
in claim 1, the Examiner finds that businesses can be consumers, such as
sellers acting as purchasers on eBay. Ans. 7. So, according to the Examiner,
the users of Hochstatter’s software can be both the businesses and the
consumers recited in claim 1. Id. Under this interpretation, the Examiner
finds that Hochstatter’s merchant-offering database 218 and profiling
module 204 relate to the functions of the recited personal financial
management application (PFMA), which is used by consumers, and the

Answer (“Ans.”), mailed November 19, 2019; and Reply Brief (“Reply
Br.”), filed January 3, 2020.
3 The Examiner withdrew the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 found in the
Final mailed March 7, 2019. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2020-001713
Application 14/469,238

6
recited business financial management application (BFMA), which is used
by businesses. See id. at 12. The Examiner finds that Hochstatter’s matching
module 206 corresponds to the target communication application (TCA),
which the PFMA and BFMA communicate through. Id.
Appellant’s Arguments
Appellant argues that Hochstatter does not teach or suggest a PFMA
that communicates with the BFMA through a TCA. Appeal Br. 34–35;
Reply Br. 5. According to Appellant, Hochstatter’s merchant-offering
database does not communicate with the profiling module, much less
through the matching module. Reply Br. 5. In Appellant’s view, the claimed
TCA is a transaction moderator between the BFMA and PFMA, unlike
Hochstatter’s matching module 206. Id. at 13.
Appellant makes other arguments, but we find this argument
dispositive of all issues on appeal.
Issue
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in finding that Hochstatter
teaches or suggests communication between the PFMA and BFMA through
the TCA, as recited in claim 1?
Analysis
Claim 1 recites, in part “wherein the PFMA communicates with the
BFMA through the TCA; wherein the TCA when executed causing the
computer processor to enable targeted communication between the PFMA
and the BFMA on the financial management server.” Appeal Br. 40. The
claim further recites the details of the various communications between the
applications. Id. at 40–41.
Appeal 2020-001713
Application 14/469,238

7
The Examiner asserts that the claim does not require the TCA to
perform the recited communication functions that follow the phrase “cause
the computer processor to.” Ans. 11. We disagree. Claim 1 expressly recites
that the “PFMA communicates with the BFMA through the TCA.” Claim 1
also requires that the PFMA is used by consumers and that the BFMA is
used by the business. So the step of sending consumer- and business-
initiated messages via the PFMA and BFMA must be interpreted as being
performed through the TCA to be consistent with the rest of claim 1.4
We agree with Appellant that, following the Examiner’s mapping as
best understood (id. at 12), Hochstatter’s merchant-offering database 218
(PFMA) does not communicate with the profiling module 204 (BFMA)
through the matching module 206 (TCA) in the claimed manner.
Reply Br. 5. Hochstatter’s Figure 2, below, shows the transaction-account-
holder-matching system. Hochstatter ¶ 11.

4 We note that independent claims 9 and 17 expressly recite similar
functions with the limitation “by the TCA.” The Examiner rejects these
claims under the same reasoning as claim 1. See Final 4–9.
Appeal 2020-001713
Application 14/469,238

8

Figure 2, above, shows a block diagram with the modules and databases of
Hochstatter’s system. Id. The system matches merchants with buyers using
the buyer’s transaction history and other data. Id. ¶ 17.
In this system, data-gathering module 202 obtains data about
merchants and buyers and stores the data in various databases. See id. ¶¶ 35–
37. One of those databases is merchant-offering database 218, which stores
information about a merchant’s products and services. Id. ¶ 36. The stored
information includes pricing, discounts, location information, among other
things from the merchant’s website. Id. ¶¶ 36, 70, cited in Final 8.
Appeal 2020-001713
Application 14/469,238

9
Unlike the recited PFMA, merchant-offering database 218 does not
“send the business-initiated message to the consumer” based on matches.
Rather, merchant-offering database 218 is simply a repository for data. See
id. ¶¶ 36–37. A separate entity—matching module 206—handles matching.
Id. ¶¶ 38, 40.
Matching module 206 analyzes the profiles so that other modules can
create custom-proposed merchant offerings. See id. ¶¶ 38, 40. Specifically,
recommendation module 208 invokes matching module 206 to find a
merchant. Id. ¶ 38. Matching module 206 then matches the buyer’s profile
with those of other buyers. Id. For example, matching module 206 may find
two buyers with similar purchasing behavior. Id. ¶ 40. Recommendation
module 208 then organizes offerings to the buyer using the other buyer’s
selections. Id. A user interface presents those offers to the buyer. Id. ¶ 41. In
this way, Hochstatter’s system communicates offers from businesses to
consumers. See id. ¶¶ 17, 23, 41, 70, cited in Final 8.
Even so, the Examiner has not shown that Hochstatter’s merchant-
offering database 218 or some other module communicates with the
profiling module 204 through the matching module 206 (TCA) as claimed.
Appeal Br. 34–35; Reply Br. 5, 13. That is, in claim 1, the recited TCA
moderates communications sent by consumers and the business via the
PFMA and the BFMA, respectively. See Reply Br. 13. By contrast,
Hochstatter’s matching module 206 merely analyzes the information stored
in database 218 or stored by profiling module 204. See Hochstatter ¶¶ 38–
41. In fact, a separate module, recommendation module 208, handles
actually organizing the offers and communicating them to the buyer.
Id. ¶¶ 40–41.
Appeal 2020-001713
Application 14/469,238

10
Thus, the Examiner erred in finding that Hochstatter teaches or
suggests targeted communication between the PFMA and BFMA through
the TCA, as recited in claim 1. Because this issue is dispositive of the error
in the rejection, we need not address Appellant’s other arguments.
On this record, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the
same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 9
and 17, which recite similar limitations, and dependent claims 3, 6–8, 11,
14–16, 19, and 22–24, which incorporate the limitation at issue.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 6–9, 11, 14–17, 19, and
22–24 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 6–9, 11,
14–17, 19,
22–24
103 Hochstatter, Tomlin,
Brelig, Schmitt
1, 3, 6–9,
11, 14–17,
19, 22–24

REVERSED