Xero Limited

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 13, 2020

2019004529 (P.T.A.B. May. 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.
14/689,894 04/17/2015 Rodney Kenneth Drury 3923.001US2 1281
142333 7590 05/13/2020
Xero
c/o Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
P.O. Box 2938
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
CHOO, JOHANN Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2020 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):
SLW@blackhillsip.com
uspto@slwip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RODNEY K. DRURY and MATTHEW J. VICKERS
____________

Appeal 2019-004529
Application 14/689,894
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–12, 14–16, and 18–20, which
constitute all of the claims pending in this application. Claims 3, 9, 13, and
17 have been cancelled. Final Act. 2.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

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 Xero
Limited. Appeal Br. 2.
2 We refer to the Specification filed Apr. 17, 2015 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action mailed June 20, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed Dec. 3, 2018
Appeal 2019-004529
Application 14/689,894

3
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to “systems and
methods for facilitating direct account transfers.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations italicized, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for secure four-server operation comprising:
receiving, at a server of an accounting platform via a
network, from a first machine associated with an entity, a
request, the request including an identity of a user, an amount to
be paid, and data identifying an account of the entity;
causing, by the server of the accounting platform, a first
user interface to be presented on a web browser running on a
second machine, the second machine being distinct from the
server of the accounting platform and from the first machine,
the first user interface comprising an identification of the
amount to be paid;
receiving, at the server of the accounting platform via the
network, a request entered in the first user interface to pay the
amount to the entity through an account of the user at a bank;
responsive to receiving the request to pay:
automatically encrypting data at the server of the
accounting platform, the data comprising the amount to
be paid, the encrypted data able to be decrypted by a
decryption key;
automatically sending, from the server of the
accounting platform and via the network, the encrypted
data to the second machine; and
automatically redirecting, by the server of the
accounting platform, the web browser running on the
second machine to a website associated with the account

(“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed Mar. 22, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the
Reply Brief filed May 22, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-004529
Application 14/689,894

4
of the user at the bank, the website hosted on a server of
the bank, the server of the bank being distinct from the
first machine, the second machine, and the server of the
accounting platform; and
responsive to the redirection of the web browser by the
server of the accounting platform, at the server of the bank:
receiving, from the second machine via the
network, the encrypted data;
decrypting, using the decryption key, the encrypted
data;
automatically causing a second user interface to be
presented on the web browser running on the second
machine, the second user interface comprising an option
to transfer a quantity of funds from the account of the
user to the entity, the quantity of funds being set by the
server of the bank to the amount to be paid based on the
decrypted data; and
in response to selection of the option, transferring
the quantity of funds from the account of the user to the
account of the entity.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Name Reference Date
Tim US 2002/0120566 A1 Aug. 29, 2002
Soto US 2004/0059924 A1 Mar. 25, 2004
Brown US 2005/0177518 A1 Aug. 11, 2005
Wolpow US 2005/0283259 A1 Dec. 22, 2005
Kuhlman US 2006/0282680 A1 Dec. 14, 2006
Curling US 2008/0320576 A1 Dec. 25, 2008
Appeal 2019-004529
Application 14/689,894

5
Name Reference Date
Machani US 2011/0288881 A1 Nov. 24, 2011
Latulipe US 2013/0080298 A1 Mar. 28, 2013

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 10–12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Tim, Brown, and Kuhlman. Final Act. 4.
Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Tim, Brown, Kuhlman, and Latulipe. Final Act. 8.
Claims 5–8 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Tim, Brown, Kuhlman, and Soto. Final Act. 9.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Tim, Brown, Kuhlman, and Curling. Final Act. 10.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Tim, Brown, Kuhlman, and Wolpow. Final Act. 11.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Tim, Brown, Kuhlman, and Machani. Final Act. 11.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant.

Appeal 2019-004529
Application 14/689,894

6
Claims 1, 2, 4–8, 11, 12, 14–16, and 18–20
Claim 1 recites “automatically sending, from the server of the
accounting platform and via the network, the . . . data to the second
machine” and “the data comprising the amount to be paid.”
The Examiner relies on the combination of Tim and Kuhlman to teach
or suggest the limitation. Final Act. 4, 6. Specifically, the Examiner finds
that Tim’s presenting bills, invoices, and debit notes teaches receiving a
request including an amount to be paid. Final Act. 4 (citing Tim ¶¶ 7–9, 36–
40, 42); Ans. 3 (citing Tim ¶¶ 30–42).
Appellant argues Kuhlman’s “cryptographic elements” and “biometric
information” do not teach or suggest an “amount to be paid.” Appeal Br.
13–14. Appellant further argues that Tim discusses “‘bill/invoice
information’ generally, but never specifically identif[ies] the amounts
involved or ‘data comprising the amount to be paid.’” Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred. As cited by the Examiner, Tim describes “facilitating bill payment”
including the “bill payer logs onto the system and views the available bills
and the payment status for each bill” as well as “bill/invoice information
from the system.” Tim ¶¶ 35, 37. Tim also describes a process by which the
bill payer selects a bill to be paid, the bank account from which the bill is to
be paid, and then processing the bill payment. See id. ¶¶ 37–39.
Appellant does not persuasively explain why Tim’s available bills,
payment status, or other bill/invoice information, selectable by the bill payer
in order to facilitate bill payment, does not teach the claimed data
comprising the amount to be paid.
Appeal 2019-004529
Application 14/689,894

7
Moreover, to the extent Appellant argues that “Kuhlman and Tim are
not analogous art,” we are similarly not persuaded by the argument that the
Examiner erred. Reply Br. 3 (“Tim is directed to ‘methods and devices for
facilitating bill payment’” while “Kuhlman is directed to a ‘method and
system for registering a user device in a domain of a domain authority using
biometric information.’”).
Art is analogous when it is: (1) from the same field of endeavor as the
claimed invention; or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
faced by the inventor, if the art is not from the same field of endeavor. In re
Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325–26 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In other words, the focus is
on comparing the prior-art references to the claimed invention, not to each
other. Because Appellant’s argument focuses exclusively on the references
and not comparing the references to the field of the claimed invention or the
problem faced by the inventor, it is not persuasive in demonstrating that the
Examiner erred in relying on a combination of Tim and Kuhlman.
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that Kuhlman
and Tim are both “in the field of secure transmission of data.” Final Act. 6;
see Kuhlman, Abstract (“A method and system for registering a user device
in a domain of a domain authority . . . . The security information of the
domain is transferred [] to the user device once the authentication . . . both
successful”); see Tim, Abstract (“the present invention provides for
electronically facilitated transactions of money . . . while providing a
convenient and secure way to conduct these types of . . . transactions”). The
claimed invention is directed to “systems and methods to facilitate direct
bank transfers,” including “to enable the secure exchange of data.” Spec.
¶¶ 21, 23. Therefore, the claimed invention is in the field of endeavor of
Appeal 2019-004529
Application 14/689,894

8
secure transmission of data, and both Kuhlman and Tim are also in the same
field of endeavor of secure data transfers.
Claim 1 also recites “responsive to the redirection of the web browser
by the server of the accounting platform, at the server of the bank: receiving,
from the second machine, via the network, the encrypted data.”
The Examiner finds that Tim teaches “that a redirection is performed
to a bank server.” Ans. 4 (citing Tim ¶¶ 7–9, 36–42). The Examiner
concludes that “the combination of references would most certainly result in
billing information being forwarded through the user devices as disclosed by
Kuhlman while the user device is being redirected to a bank payment
website as disclosed by Tim, and that such information would be
extracted/presented as disclosed by Brown.” Ans. 4.
Appellant argues that “[d]isclosure of a billing interface by one
reference in combination with alleged disclosure of redirecting a web
browser to a payment server by another reference does not teach or suggest
the specific combination of elements in the claim.” Appeal Br. 16.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred. As cited by the Examiner, Tim describes that the “bill payer logs onto
the system and views the available bills and the payment status for each
bill.” Tim ¶ 37. In Tim, “‘bank selection’ is shown when the payer clicks
bills with ‘outstanding’ status.” Id. ¶ 38. Then Tim describes that the payer
selects a bank and then “once the payer chooses a bank, they are directed to
the payment server of the selected bank,” allowing the payment. Id. ¶ 39.
Tim, therefore, teaches that, as part of a process to pay a bill: a user views
available bill information and selects a bill to pay; responsive to the user
selecting a bill to pay, the user is then directed to select a bank account from
Appeal 2019-004529
Application 14/689,894

9
which to pay the bill; responsive to the user selecting a bank account from
which to pay the bill, the user is then directed to the payment server of the
selected bank to pay the bill.
Appellant has not explained why Tim’s directing a payer to a selected
bank’s payment server, in response to the payer selecting a bill to pay and
the bank account from which to pay the bill, does not teach the claimed
receiving the bank information responsive to the redirection of the web
browser. Appellant has not articulated why the Examiner erred in
combining Tim’s teaching with Kuhlman’s forwarding of information while
maintaining security. See Final Act. 6.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1, along with the rejection of independent claims 11 and 20, which
recite commensurate limitations and for which Appellant relies on the same
arguments as discussed above for claim 1, along with dependent claims 2, 4–
8, 12, 14–16, 18, and 19, which are not argued separately. See App. Br. 15,
17, 19.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites “the first user interface comprises a button associated
with an option to pay the amount to the entity through a bank of the user
having access to a decryption key” and “in response to activation of the
button associated with the option to pay the amount, presenting a third user
interface with a second option to select a financial institution associated with
the account of the user.”
The Examiner finds that Tim’s selecting a bank from which to debit
payment teaches a button associated with an option to pay an amount. Final
Act. 7–8 (citing Tim ¶¶ 37–40, Fig. 2). According to the Examiner, Tim
Appeal 2019-004529
Application 14/689,894

10
describes using “an interface where elements are able to be selected/clicked,
i.e., ‘pressed,’ in such a way that elements would act the same way, and
therefore read on a ‘button.’” Ans. 5.
Appellant argues that there is “no teaching in Tim of the presentation
of the choice of banks being ‘in response to activation of’ any ‘button.’”
Appeal Br. 18. Specifically, Appellant argues that “Tim does not disclose
anything being ‘pressed,’” and instead describes selecting a hyperlink
without reference to a user interface. Reply Br. 5–6.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred. As cited by the Examiner, Tim describes “the payer clicks bills with
‘outstanding’ status” which prompts “‘bank selection’ is shown,” and then
the “bill payer to select the bank from which the payment is to be debited.”
Tim ¶ 38. Tim’s “clicking” on a bill to pay in one interface and “selecting”
of a bank account from the next interface both involve interacting with an
interface to make a selection and triggering the next step. In other words,
Tim’s options that are selected or clicked at least suggest selecting or
clicking on a “button.”
Appellant has not explained why Tim’s user interface with options for
the payer to click or select (i.e., click on a bill to pay), which prompts
another set of selectable options (i.e., select a bank account to pay the bill),
does not teach or otherwise suggest the claimed user interface comprising a
button with an associated option, and the activation of that option prompting
another option.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10.
Appeal 2019-004529
Application 14/689,894

11
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–12,
14–16, and 18–20.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
References/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 10–12,
20
103 Tim, Brown,
Kuhlman
1, 2, 10–
12, 20

4, 14 103 Tim, Brown,
Kuhlman,
Latulipe
4, 14
5–8, 15 103 Tim, Brown,
Kuhlman, Soto
5–8, 15
16 103 Tim, Brown,
Kuhlman,
Curling
16
18 103 Tim, Brown,
Kuhlman,
Wolpow
18
19 103 Tim, Brown,
Kuhlman,
Machani
19
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–8,
10–12, 14–
16, 18–20

TIME PERIOD FOR 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED