Avaya Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 9, 2020

2019003051 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 9, 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.
14/080,618 11/14/2013 David Skiba 4366CSM-206 1009
48500 7590 10/09/2020
SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200
DENVER, CO 80202
EXAMINER
CHAVEZ, RODRIGO A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/09/2020 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):
cjacquet@sheridanross.com
edocket@sheridanross.com
pair_Avaya@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID SKIBA, GEORGE ERHART, LEE BECKER, and
VALENTINE C. MATULA
Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a) (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Avaya,
Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to deep language attribute analysis in a
contact center where the contact center may benefit from routing messages
to agents who have similar, or complementary, attributes as the customer of
the message. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphases added, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:

1. A method, comprising:

receiving, via a network interface of a contact center, a
message from a device utilized by a customer, the message
having message elements and the customer is unknown to the
contact center at the time the message is received;

deriving, by a processor, a conversational attribute of a
customer based on a semantic attribute describing the message
elements;

selecting, by the processor, an agent from a plurality of
agents in the contact center to interact with the customer based,
at least in part, on the derived conversational attribute being
associated with the selected agent; and

enabling, by the processor, a communication session
between the selected agent and the customer and routing the
message to the selected agent.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Dedrick US 5,696,965 Dec. 9, 1997
Bodin et al. US 2005/0131703 A1 June 16, 2005
Mezo et al. US 2007/0255611 A1 Nov. 1, 2007
Bangalore et al. US 2009/0076795 A1 Mar. 19, 2009
Seah US 2013/0085870 A1 Apr. 4, 2013
Kim et al. US 2014/0111689 A1 Apr. 24, 2014
Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a
natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 11–14, 16–18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Bangalore.
Claims 3 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kim and Bangalore further in view of Seah.
Claims 4, 5, 7, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kim and Bangalore further in view of Bodin.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
Kim and Bangalore further in view of Mezo.
Claims 8 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kim and Bangalore further in view of Dedrick.

OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 101

1. 35 U.S.C. § 101
a. Legal Principles
An invention is patent eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).
Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618

4
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with
that framework, under Step 2A, we first determine what concept the claim is
“directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before
us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a
third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S.
593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the
basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas and, thus, patent ineligible
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
If, under Step 2A, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, then,
under Step 2B, “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine
whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the
claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at
221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must
Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618

5
include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer
implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible
invention.” Id.
On January 7, 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) published revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance. See
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50,
2019 (“Revised Guidance”). Under the Revised Guidance, Step 2A of the
Alice two-step framework is divided in two prongs. For Step 2A, Prong 1,
we look to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions falling into
certain groupings of abstract ideas (e.g., mathematical concepts, certain
methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes). For Step 2A, Prong 2, if the claim recites
such a judicial exception, we look to whether the claim recites any additional
elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–
(h)).
Only if a claim recites a judicial exception and does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then determine, under Step 2B
of the Alice two-step framework, whether the claim adds a specific
limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood,
routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) or simply
appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known
to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial
exception.
Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618

6

b. Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions2
The Examiner identifies all of the claimed steps as part of the recited
abstract idea. Final Act. 5 (“selecting an agent to speak to a customer based
on the customer’s derived semantic conversational attributes. All the steps
of Applicant’s claims 1, 9 and 13 are an abstract concept that could be
performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”); see
also Ans. 3.
The Examiner finds that the recited “processor” and “network
interface” components merely provide a generic environment in which to
carry out the abstract idea. Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds that none of
recited steps refer to a “specific machine by reciting structural limitations of
any apparatus or to any specific operations that would cause a machine to be
the mechanism to perform these steps.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner further
finds the “communication network” is described in the Specification in such
a conventional way such that the communication network behaves in a
conventional manner of providing for communication between a customer
and an agent. Ans. 4.
The Examiner also finds that the behavior of the network can be
rooted in past network technologies, such as switchboard operators. These

2 We note that the Final Action, Appeal Brief, and the Examiner’s Answer
were mailed before or contemporaneously with the USPTO published the
Revised Guidance and, therefore, do not rely on or apply the Revised
Guidance. However, Appellant’s arguments in the Reply Brief indeed rely
on the Revised Guidance. While recognizing the Examiner’s conclusions in
the Final Action, our analysis is based on the Revised Guidance. Patent
eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a question of law that is reviewable de
novo. See Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618

7
human switchboard operators would enable a communication session by
manually switching network connections in order to establish a connection
between telephone lines. Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds that simply
enabling a communication session between a customer and an agent based
upon a customer conversational attribute is an abstract idea because there is
a lack of specificity in the derivation of the customer conversational
attribute, and the routing of messages to the selected agent does not
constitute significantly more than the abstract idea. Ans. 5–6.
The Examiner finds that the claims are not directed to “an
improvement to computer technology.” Final Act. 7.
The Examiner analogizes the recited claim limitations to the TLI and
Mortgage Grader cases, where the abstract idea of deriving a conversational
attribute and selecting an agent based on the derived conversational attribute
claims with an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless
directed to an abstract idea.3 Ans. 3–6.
The Examiner finds that the “additional elements” and computer
functions of the communication network and processor to be well-
understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely
generic manner. Final Act. 6. The Examiner also concludes the claims,
when considered individually and in ordered combination, are directed to
ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 4.

3 In re TLI Commc’ns LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Mortg.
Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Serv. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed.
Cir. 2016).

Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618

8
Appellant’s Arguments
Appellant argues that “the specification and claims at-issue, and as a
whole, do describe a new system” because the claim recites “enabling, by
the processor, a communication session between the selected agent and the
customer and routing the message to the selected agent.”4 Appeal Br. 5–6.
In distinguishing the TLI and Mortgage Grader cases, Appellant
contends that “claims here are entirely based on a problem arising from the
advent of communication networks. Namely, a communication over a
network is to be established, and it is this advent of networking technology
where the problem to be solved lies.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant further
argues that
[t]he claims plainly recite limitations beyond the ability of an
unaided human. Claim 1, for example, recites in part,
“receiving, via a network interface of a contact center, a
message from a customer [. . .] enabling, by the processor, a
communication session between the selected agent and the
customer and routing the message to the selected agent.” A
human, alone or with pencil and paper, has no such ability.
Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 2–5.

4 The Specification discloses:
Embodiments . . . enable an automated system to analyze the
customer’s comments/questions and identify the customer as a
technical expert. Specifically, the customer uses terms like
POP3 and IMAP which indicate an understanding of e-mail
protocols that should label this as a technically savvy customer.
It is likely that this customer should be routed to a higher level
tier of support where the expectation is that the user is capable of
talking in more technical terms.
Spec. ¶ 10.
Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618

9
Appellant also argues that the Examiner does not present a prima facie
case of subject matter ineligibility in the rejection. Appeal Br. 6; Reply
Br. 2.

c. Discussion
With respect to independent claims 1, 9, and 13, Appellant does not
set forth separate arguments for patentability. As a result, we select
independent claim 1 as the representative claim and address Appellant’s
arguments thereto. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Independent claims 9 and
13 will fall with independent claim 1. Arguments which Appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and
are deemed to be waived.5 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(iv).

i. Step 2A, Prong 1
For Step 2A, Prong 1, of the Revised Guidance, we find that the
emphasized portions of claim 1, reproduced above, recite elements that fall
within the abstract idea grouping of mental processes. The Revised
Guidance requires us to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial
exception (e.g., an abstract idea). According to the Revised Guidance, to
determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea, we must identify
limitations that fall within one or more of the designated subject matter
groupings of abstract ideas. According to the October 2019 Patent

5 We note that independent claim 9 is drafted in “means plus function”
format, but Appellant did not argue this claim separately and provides the
same general correlation to the Specification as independent claim 1.
Appeal Br. 2–3 (Summary of Claim Subject Matter). Therefore, any
arguments thereto are waived.
Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618

10
Eligibility Guidance Update produced by the USPTO, “a claim recites a
judicial exception when the judicial exception is ‘set forth’ or ‘described’ in
the claim.” See October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf (“October Update”). The
Revised Guidance lists mental processes as one such grouping and
characterizes mental processes as including, inter alia, “concepts performed
in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).”
84 Fed. Reg. at 52. We find that the elements of independent claim 1
describe this judicial exception.
We note that the Appellant has not identified that the Specification
specifically defines “enabling a communication session.” See generally
Appeal Br. 5–14; Reply Br. 1–8.
We further note that the express language of representative
independent claim 1 does not recite “automatic” and merely recites
“enabling, by the processor, a communication session between the selected
agent and the customer and routing the message to the selected agent.”6

6 The Specification discloses:
[E]nable an automated system to analyze the customer’s
comments/questions and identify the customer as a technical
expert. Specifically, the customer uses terms like POP3 and
IMAP which indicate an understanding of e-mail protocols that
should label this as a technically savvy customer. It is likely that
this customer should be routed to a higher level tier of support
where the expectation is that the user is capable of talking in
more technical terms.
Spec. ¶ 10
Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618

11
Arguments must be commensurate in scope with the actual claim
language. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982); see In re Hiniker
Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[The] proffered facts . . . are not
commensurate with the claim scope and are therefore unpersuasive.”).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant addresses the Revised Guidance and
responds to the Examiner’s conclusion that independent claim 1 recites an
abstract idea of a mental process and does not address math or certain
methods of organizing human behavior. Reply Br. 2. Appellant further
contends that the Revised Guidance Footnote 14 states “If a claim, under its
broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for
the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental
processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the
mind.” Reply Br. 2.
Appellant contends that the Examiner proffers a hypothetical
association with past human operated switchboards to illustrate the mental
processes involved and such an example merely illustrates that the prior art
can utilize humans for routing calls, if one ignores the technology that
allowed the call to be received, alerted, and presented to an operator and
how the electrical connections are made in order to present the call to the
desired party’s telephone, and is not germane to a rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. Reply Br. 3.
We note that claim 1 does not recite specific technology by a step of
presenting of the message to an operator or how the electrical connections
are made in order to present the call to the desired party’s telephone.
Consequently, Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the
Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618

12
express claim language and is not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness.
Appellant also contends the Examiner mischaracterizes what is
claimed and the mischaracterization portrays a usage or “gist” of what is
claimed rather than what is actually recited in the claim by omitting the
processing and communication hardware, and the interactions therebetween.
Reply Br. 4.
Again, Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the
express language of independent claim 1 and is not persuasive of error.
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s switchboard example would
require substantial hardware infrastructure, without which a human would be
unable to do more than occupy a chair and that no unaided human can
practically receive a message from a device via a network interface. Reply
Br. 5. Appellant further argues that “[t]he claims plainly recite limitations
beyond the ability of an unaided human . . . [and a] human, alone or with
pencil and paper, has no such ability.” Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 2–
5.
We disagree with Appellant and note that under the broadest
reasonable interpretation of claim 1, the claim does not set forth specific
details of the user device, the communication network, or the processor. We
find the Examiner’s switchboard example may be as broad as the operator
receiving a message on paper (because the claimed message is recorded),
making a decision to route the message to a specific agent based upon the
content or way the message is stated, and forwarding the copy of the
message (on the paper) to the specific agent for addressing/responding to the
Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618

13
message which would enable a communication session and route the
message to the selected agent.
Appellant has not identified that the Specification specifically defines
the act of routing, and Appellant has not identified that the Specification
specifically describes or defines “routing.” 7 Specifically, we find that the
emphasized portions of claim 1 set forth the basic mental steps a human
would take when evaluating the abstract idea in the human mind. We find
that the limitations of claim 1 recite the steps of a mental process.
Although we acknowledge that claim 1 specifies a network interface
and a processor, these additional device elements do not further define or

7 The Specification discloses:
[I]mmediate routing, such as when a particular customer attribute
is detected in a message, which has not yet been processed, as
well as future routings. For example, a particular message
exchange with an agent exchange may reveal a particular
customer attribute. However, rerouting the contact to another
agent may not be an option or may not be a desired business
practice. As a result, future messages from the customer may be
routed according to embodiments described herein.
Spec. ¶ 28. The Specification also discloses “the specific cut-off point of
what is, or is not, a strong enough indicator to justify a routing decision
being made on such a factor, is a matter of implementation choice.” Spec.
¶¶ 31; 36 “routing decision”; 38 “Routing engine 206 then routes the
message to one of agents 206 in accord with the determined customer
conversational attribute as well as other attributes that have been determined
for the customer 202” (emphasis added); 41 “[r]outing engine 206 may make
routing decisions based on a number of attributes, including availability of
agents 208 to process a message.”

Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618

14
otherwise limit these additional device elements to any particular thing or
environment. Thus, we find claim 1 recites elements that fall within the
abstract idea grouping of mental processes.

ii. Step 2A, Prong 2
For Step 2A, Prong 2, of the Revised Guidance, we find that claim 1,
as a whole, does not integrate the recited mental process into a practical
application of the abstract idea. The Revised Guidance states that “[a] claim
that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful
limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting
effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 53.
The Revised Guidance further states that integration should be evaluated by
“[i]dentifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim
beyond the judicial exception(s)” and, based on certain considerations,
“evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.”
84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. The Revised Guidance identifies considerations such
as whether additional elements yield an improvement to a particular
technology or a computer itself, correspond to the implementation of the
judicial exception with a particular machine, and/or apply the judicial
exception in some way beyond simply linking the judicial exception to a
particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
Here, as discussed above, claim 1 incorporates additional device
elements. The additional elements recited in claim 1 beyond the recited
Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618

15
abstract idea, are “a network interface of a contact center,” “a device utilized
by a customer,” “a processor,” and “a communication session.”
For the practical application analysis, Appellant contends that no
express consideration of the claim as a whole has been provided in rendering
the rejection. Reply Br. 5. Appellant contends that the Examiner must (a)
identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim
beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional
elements individually and in combination to determine whether they
integrate the exception into a practical application. Reply Br. 6. Under step
“a,” Appellant submits that at least one, or even each, claimed limitation is
an additional element that goes beyond a judicial exception, and under step
“b,” the combination of elements also results in an integration into a
practical application. Reply Br. 6.
We disagree with Appellant and find that the nominal recitation “via a
network interface of a contact center,” “from a device utilized by a
customer,” “by a processor,” and “a communication session” individually
and in combination do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical
application. Moreover, Appellant’s argument that “the communications
improved by the claimed invention which enable, among other things, the
technical field to be enhanced with automated means to route a
communication to an appropriate resource” is not commensurate in scope
with the express language of independent claim 1 because the claim does not
necessarily improve the communication or the communication network, and
the claim is not recited as an “automated” “means” to route a
communication to an appropriate resource. The claim merely recites
“enabling, by the processor, a communication session between the selected
Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618

16
agent and the customer and routing the message to the selected agent.” See
Summary of Claim Subject Matter, Appeal Br. 2–3; Spec. ¶¶ 5–7 and 48.
Additionally, the Specification indicates the native vs. non-native speakers
determination may be used for a “routing decision” based on native
language.8

8 The Specification discloses: “Native vs. non-native speakers: A non-
native/non-fluent speaker tends to drop words and have a lower vocabulary
level for his or her non-native language. This lack of language vocabulary
and aptitude might be used to route to an appropriate agent or to an agent
that speaks his or her native language, if detected.” Spec. ¶ 7. The
Specification further discloses:
“As a result, future contact using that particular word may be
slightly weighted as a female. Other words with a higher
distinction, say 87% male/13% female, may cause the gender
indicator be highly weighted towards male and routed
accordingly. The specific cut-off point of what is, or is not, a
strong enough indicator to justify a routing decision being made
on such a factor, is a matter of implementation choice. “
Spec. 31 (emphasis added). The Specification also discloses “a customer
conversational attribute for which a routing decision may be based. Routing
engine 206 then routes the message to one of agents 206 in accord with the
determined customer conversational attribute as well as other attributes that
have been determined for the customer 202.” Spec. ¶ 38 (emphasis added).

The Specification discloses:
Routing engine 206 may make routing decisions based on a
number of attributes, including availability of agents 208 to
process a message. In one embodiment, routing engine 206
utilizes the customer category to route the message to the best
qualified agent 208. As one example, if customer 202 provided
message 204 which indicated a certain customer category (e.g.,
age, gender, expertise, nationality, language fluency, formality,
Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618

17
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed steps of
“enabling” and “routing” are merely “decisions” in the enabling and routing,
but not the further use of the communication network as specifically limited
in the receiving step.9
However, we find that these additional device-type elements do not
integrate the mental process of claim 1 into a practical application. For
instance, we do not find that these additional device-type elements yield an
improvement in the functioning of a computer itself or to the particular
technology of the claimed generic “method,” neither do we find that these
additional device-type elements are any particular machine that is necessary
to implement the judicial exception or transform something to a different
state. Additionally, we do not find that these additional device-type
elements apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way to any particular
technological environment of the claimed generic “method.” Based on the
cited record in this appeal, we find the preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s finding for Step 2B of the Alice two-step
framework that these additional device-type elements, as claimed,

etc.), a specific agent 208A-208n may be selected based on
familiarity and/or similarity with such a customer category.
Spec. ¶ 41 (emphasis added).
9 Claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, as
understood by those of ordinary skill in the art and taking into account
whatever enlightenment may be had from the Specification. In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “In the patentability context, claims
are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretations . . . limitations are
not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988
F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).
Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618

18
correspond at most to a generic computing structure. See Final Act. 6; see
also Ans. 3, 5.
In addition, we determine that claim 1 recites insignificant pre-
solution activity (“receiving. . . a message”) and insignificant post-solution
activity (“enabling a communication session . . . and routing . . .”). See
Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241–42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(addressing insignificant post-solution activity); OIP Techs., Inc. v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (addressing
insignificant pre-solution activity). The recited insignificant extra-solution
activity does not help integrate the recited mental process into a practical
application of the abstract idea and because the received message may be
stored data and enabling may merely be giving authorization and handing a
note to an agent. We further find that the claimed invention merely includes
insignificant extra-solution activity which does not result in a “practical
application.” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 585–86 (1978) (“In essence,
the method consists of three steps: an initial step which merely measures the
present value of the process variable (e.g., the temperature); an intermediate
step which uses an algorithm to calculate an updated alarm-limit value; and
a final step in which the actual alarm limit is adjusted to the updated value.
The only difference between the conventional methods of changing alarm
limits and that described in respondent’s application rests in the second
step—the mathematical algorithm or formula.”). Moreover, Appellant’s
arguments fail because the arguments are not commensurate with the scope
of claim 1.
Thus, we conclude that claim 1, as a whole, does not integrate the
recited mental process into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618

19
Therefore, based on our analysis under the Revised Guidance, we
agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Specifically, we find that claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of a mental
process. As a result, we focus our attention on Step 2B of the Alice two-step
framework.

iii. Step 2B
For Step 2B, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
claim 1 recites significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Step 2B of the
Alice two-step framework requires us to determine whether any element, or
combination of elements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim
amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Alice, 573 U.S.
at 221. As discussed in the previous section, we agree with the Examiner’s
conclusion that the additional device elements, when considered individually
and in an ordered combination, correspond to nothing more than a generic
computing structure used to implement the mental process. In other words,
these components, as claimed, are well-understood, routine, and
conventional and “behave exactly as expected according to their ordinary
use.” See TLI, 823 F.3d at 615. As discussed in the previous section,
Appellant’s Specification describes the computing environment in which the
invention is performed. See Spec. ¶¶ 38, 52, 55.10 “Network interface” is

10 The Specification discloses:
Upon receiving the message 204, analysis engine 110 determines
which semantic attributes 106 are present in message 204 and
indicative of a customer conversational attribute for which a
routing decision may be based. Routing engine 206 then routes
the message to one of agents 206 in accord with the determined
Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618

20

customer conversational attribute as well as other attributes that
have been determined for the customer 202.
Spec. ¶ 38. The Specification also discloses:
It should be appreciated that in alternate embodiments, the
methods may be performed in a different order than that
described. It should also be appreciated that the methods
described above may be performed by hardware components or
may be embodied in sequences of machine-executable
instructions, which may be used to cause a machine, such as a
general purpose or special-purpose processor (GPU or CPU) or
logic circuits programmed with the instructions to perform the
methods (FPGA). These machine-executable instructions may
be stored on one or more machine readable mediums, such as
CD-ROMs or other type of optical disks, floppy diskettes,
ROMs, RAMs, EPROMs, EEPROMs, magnetic or optical cards,
flash memory, or other types of machine-readable mediums
suitable for storing electronic instructions. Alternatively, the
methods may be performed by a combination of hardware and
software.
Spec. ¶ 52 (emphasis added). The Specification further discloses:
Furthermore, embodiments may be implemented by hardware,
software, firmware, middleware, microcode, hardware
description languages, or any combination thereof. When
implemented in software, firmware, middleware or microcode,
the program code or code segments to perform the necessary
tasks may be stored in a machine readable medium such as
storage medium. A processor(s) may perform the necessary
tasks. A code segment may represent a procedure, a function, a
subprogram, a program, a routine, a subroutine, a module, a
software package, a class, or any combination of instructions,
data structures, or program statements. A code segment may be
coupled to another code segment or a hardware circuit by passing
and/or receiving information, data, arguments, parameters, or
memory contents. Information, arguments, parameters, data, etc.
Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618

21
not specifically described in the Specification and the Summary of the
Claimed Subject Matter section merely identifies Figure 4’s flowchart.
Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of network interface
encompasses any interface, including generic ones, to a communication
network.
Appellant’s Specification also gives no indication that such a
computing environment is anything other than a well-understood, routine,
and conventional computing environment. Thus, implementing the abstract
idea with these generic computer components “fail[s] to transform that
abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221.
As a result, Appellant’s Specification is drafted at a high level and
does not indicate that the computer, processor, or communication network
interface is more than well-known, routine, and conventional hardware to
perform the claimed method. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that
claim 1 does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to well-known, routine, and conventional hardware, the
Examiner finds that the recited “processor” and “network interface”
components that are included in the current claims merely provide a generic
environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, and that none of recited
steps refer to a specific machine by reciting structural limitations of any

may be passed, forwarded, or transmitted via any suitable means
including memory sharing, message passing, token passing,
network transmission, etc.
Spec. ¶ 55 (emphasis added).

Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618

22
apparatus or to any specific operations that would cause a machine to be the
mechanism to perform these steps. Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 3, 5.
Because Appellant’s representative claim 1, and grouped claims 2–20,
are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract concept and do not recite an
“inventive concept” under the second step of the Alice analysis, we sustain
the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of claims 1–20.

35 U.S.C. § 103
With respect to independent claims 1, 9, and 13, Appellant argues the
claims together. Appeal Br. 16. Based on Appellant’s arguments and our
discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we select independent claim 1
as the representative claim for the group and will address Appellant’s
arguments presented in both the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017). Arguments which Appellant could have
made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived.11 See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant sets forth separate arguments for patentability of dependent
claims 2, 3, 4 (with claims 5, 7, 9), 6, and 8. Appeal Br. 17. We address
those claims separately below.

Claim 1
Appellant argues that “[t]he art of record may recite deriving a
meaning of a message (see, Bangalore) or selecting an agent (see, Kim), the

11 We note that independent claim 9 is drafted in “means plus function”
format, but Appellant does not set forth separate arguments for patentability
of independent claim 9. Arguments to the “means” limitations are waived.
Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618

23
art does not teach or suggest obtaining a customer conversational attribute of
the customer for use in selecting and connecting to a particular agent.”
Reply Br. 8 (in step 2B of the patent eligibility argument). Appellant also
argues “conversation attribute fails to teach a customer’s conversational
attribute. As Bangalore teaches in ¶ 0072, a customer may require more
information, instruction, apology or other response. What does this tell us
about a customer’s conversational attributes?” Reply Br. 8. Appellant
argues “[i]n Bangalore, it is the message’s meaning that is determined and
responded to and not a customer’s conversational attribute.” Reply Br. 8–9.
We note that Appellant has not identified a specific definition in the
Specification of “customer conversational attribute.” See Appeal Br. 2
(Summary of Claimed Subject Matter “Fig. 4, ref 412; ¶¶ 0005-0007, 0033,
0042, 0046);” see also Spec. ¶¶ 33, 38. We disagree with Appellant’s
argument and find the argument unpersuasive of error.
We further find that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of
the claimed “conversational attribute of a customer,” the meaning of the
conversation or the language with which the message is spoken would be a
conversational attribute of a customer. As a result, the teachings and
suggestions of the Bangalore reference regarding the meaning of the
conversation teaches or suggests a conversational attribute of the specific
customer regarding the specific issue.
Moreover, Bangalore’s paragraph 71 discloses discloses “[t]he parsed
clauses in 50 are preferably also analyzed to define word structure and
relationships, such as predicates and arguments. The clauses are parsed into
predicates and arguments using a natural language parser that extracts the
verb (which serves as the predicate) and the arguments of the verb.” Thus,
Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618

24
the record supports the Examiner’s finding that the determination of the
structure and relationship of information from the syntactic analysis provides
a basic customer conversational attribute of the customer communication
and their communication style which goes beyond mere content and intent.
Additionally, “[e]ach semantic tag preferably summarizes or captures
the writer’s (i.e., the customer’s or the agent’s) intent and provides
categories with which the clauses 50 can be grouped, sorted, searched and
analyzed in how the customer conveys information.” Bangalore ¶ 72. We
find that the “personal details/narratives” tag described in paragraph 72 to be
a “conversational attribute of a customer.” We also note that the customer
conversational attribute,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is
broad enough to read on a selection of a preferred language. Spec. ¶¶ 3
(Background), 37.
As a result, we find Appellant’s argument that the Bangalore
reference teaches determining solely conversation rather than a “customer
conversational attribute” to be unpersuasive of error in the Examiner’s
factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of representative claim 1 and
we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claims 9
and 13 not separately argued with particularity.

Dependent claims
With respect to dependent claims 2, 3, 4 (5, 7, and 19), and 6, we find
Appellant’s arguments rely upon the underlying argument that the Bangalore
reference does not teach the claimed “customer attribute.” Appeal Br. 17–
19. We found this argument to be unpersuasive with respect to independent
claim 1. As a result, we find the same argument to be unpersuasive of error
Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618

25
for these dependent claims, and we sustain the obviousness rejections for the
same reasons.
With respect to dependent claim 8, Appellant argues that the claim
requires “analyzing the agent’s reply,” but the Bangalore reference does not
analyze the selected agent’s reply. Appeal Br. 19–20. We disagree with
Appellant and find that the Examiner relied upon the Dietrich reference to
teach and suggest the required analyzing and notifying step. Final Act. 20;
Ans. 8.
We further agree with the Examiner that the Bangalore reference
teaches and suggests use with previous responses by agents and review of
the agent’s responses. See Bangalore ¶¶ 7, 9, 72, 84. The Bangalore
reference discloses:
Preferably, the preliminary response message is generated with
little or no customer agent involvement. In other words,
preferably the preliminary response message is generated
exclusively through an automated process. In step 320, the
preliminary response message is preferably forwarded to a
customer agent for review and/or editing . . . due to the nature of
certain messages and the desire for improved readability and
understanding of the responses, it can be beneficial to have the
message reviewed by an agent before being sent to the customer.
Bangalore ¶ 84. Bangalore further discloses “[e]ach semantic tag preferably
summarizes or captures the writer’s (i.e., the customer’s or the agent’s)
intent and provides categories with which the clauses 50 can be grouped,
sorted, searched and analyzed.” Bangalore ¶ 72 (emphasis added).
Therefore, the Bangalore reference teaches and fairly suggests a similar
analysis on the agent’s response as with the customer’s initial
communication. Additionally, the Examiner has relied upon the Dedrick
Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618

26
reference to teach or suggest the notifying step. Appellant has not responded
to this portion of the Examiner’s rejection. Consequently, we find
Appellant’s argument to be unpersuasive of error in the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness of dependent claim 8.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s patent eligibility and obviousness rejections are
affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 101 Eligibility 1–20
1, 2, 9, 11–
14, 16–18,
20
103 Kim, Bangalore 1, 2, 9, 11–
14, 16–18,
20

3, 10 103 Kim, Bangalore,
Seah
3, 10
4, 5, 7, 19 103 Kim, Bangalore,
Bodin
4, 5, 7, 19
6 103 Kim, Bangalore,
Mezo
6
8, 15 103 Kim, Bangalore,
Dedrick
8, 15
Overall
Outcome
1–20

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).
Appeal 2019-003051
Application 14/080,618

27
AFFIRMED