David GEFFEN et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 13, 2021

2021001779 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2021)

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.
12/485,180 06/16/2009 David GEFFEN P-71546-US 2781
49443 7590 10/13/2021
Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP
7 Times Square, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10036
EXAMINER
FEACHER, LORENA R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/13/2021 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):
Arch-USPTO@PearlCohen.com
USPTO@PearlCohen.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID GEFFEN, OFFER HASSIDI, and
YOAV FREIBERGER
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LARRY J. HUME, and
JASON J. CHUNG, 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 1–4 and 6–26. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). This appeal is related to prior Appeal 2018-003442,
mailed January 24, 2020. In that decision, we affirmed the lack of patent
eligible subject matter rejection of claims 1–4 and 6–22.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a) (2020). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nice Ltd.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180

2

We AFFIRM.
REJECTION
Claims 1–4 and 6–26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because
the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly
more.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 101
With respect to claims 1–4 and 6–26, Appellant argues the claims
together and does not set forth separate arguments for patentability of
independent claims 12 and 17, and dependent claims 2–4, 6–11, 13–16, and
18–26. Appeal Br. 6. Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as the
representative claim for the group and address Appellant’s arguments
thereto. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Step 1
Claim 1, as a computer-implemented method (process) claim, recites
one of the enumerated categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. Therefore, the issue before us is whether the claimed invention is
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.

Step 2A(i): Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
The Examiner determined that claim 1 is directed to “in the mind
(Mental Processes).” Final Act. 8. In an attempt to overcome the “mental
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180

3

process” determination, Appellant added the claim language “automatically”
to most of the recited steps of the method.
We evaluate whether claim 1 recites an abstract idea based upon the
Revised Guidance. We conduct our review for abstractness de novo.
The Specification provides context as to what the claimed invention is
directed to. In this case, the Specification discloses:
Customer relationship management (CRM) applications are
targeted to increase customer satisfaction and deal with issues
such as customer experience, customer relationship and process
improvements and operational efficiency at contact centers CRM
applications, however [sic] do not have control over the
interactions themselves. Therefore, there are no management
solutions that use the content of interactions and information
extracted from interactions to improve customer experience and
customer relationship.
Spec. ¶ 3. Appellant’s Abstract further describes the invention as:
a system and method for linking interactions. The method
includes grouping a plurality of customer-agent interactions into
a category upon identifying one or more predetermined common
characteristics in the customer-agent interactions and linking at
least two of said customer-agent interactions to form a chain of
interactions upon identifying a condition that matches a
predetermined rule defining the chain.
Spec. 19 (Abstract).
Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “[a] computer-implemented method
for identifying a breach in one or more key performance indicators (KPIs)
related to customer-agent interactions in an interaction capturing system,”
that includes the steps of:
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180

4

(1) automatically receiving, at a hardware data server, from the
interaction capturing system, a plurality of distinct recorded
customer-agent interactions from a plurality of individual
human agents;
(2) automatically analyzing for a selected customer, by the
hardware data server, the plurality of distinct recorded
customer-agent interactions, the analysis based on data
combined from a voice interaction repository, a screen data
source, and a customer data source;
(3) automatically grouping, by the hardware data server, at least
a portion of the recorded customer-agent interactions into a
category upon identifying one or more predetermined
common characteristics associated with the customer-agent
interactions, the common characteristics based on a content
analysis application, emotion detection, and one or more of:
an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) application, and call
flow information;
(4) automatically linking within said category, by the hardware
data server, at least two of said distinct recorded customer-
agent interactions grouped into said category to form a chain
of linked customer-agent interactions, each customer-agent
interaction linked to a preceding and/or subsequent
customer- agent interaction, upon identifying a condition that
matches a predetermined rule defining the chain, the
predetermined rule being based [on] 2 common phrases
within interactions;
(5) automatically determining, by a hardware application server,
the one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) for the
chain, wherein the key performance indicators comprise one
or more rules which the chain of interactions should comply
with, and wherein one of the key performance indicators
determines a desired time span between a first and a last
interaction in the chain;
(6) automatically evaluating, by the hardware application server,
the chain according to the key performance indicators;

2 The word was deleted in the claim amendment filed February 26, 2020.
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180

5

(7) automatically displaying the chain of linked customer-agent
interactions on a display as graphical icons that are connected
on a two-dimensional graph having a first axis and a second
axis, wherein the first axis is time, and the second axis is
severity of the interaction and wherein each interaction in the
chain of linked customer-agent interactions has a graphical
icon based on its corresponding category;
(8) identifying, by the hardware application server, the breach of
one of the key performance indicators; and
(9) automatically issuing, by the hardware application server, an
alert upon identifying the breach.
(Claims App.; emphases and numbering added.)
We further note that the limitations regarding automatically displaying
a chain of linked customer-agent interactions corresponds to the graph in
Appellant’s Figure 3F. See Appeal Br. 3.
We also determine that claim 1 recites a mental process that may also
be performed by pen and paper. This type of activity, i.e., receiving,
analyzing, grouping, linking, determining, and evaluating as recited in each
of limitations (1) through (6), for example, includes longstanding conduct
that existed well before the advent of computers and the Internet, and could
be carried out by a human with pen and paper. See CyberSource Corp. v.
Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“That purely
mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer,
was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson
[409 U.S. 63 (1972)].”).3

3 Our reviewing court recognizes that “[a]n abstract idea can generally be
described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016). That need not and, in this case does
not, “impact the patentability analysis.” Id. at 1241. Further, “[t]he Board’s
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180

6

Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard,4 we conclude
limitations (1) through (6) and (8) recite steps that would ordinarily occur
when customer-agent interactions are analyzed from an interaction capturing
system (which is not specifically claimed) to the extent of the broad claim
language. (See Final Act. 3–4.)5 For example, receiving data is an operation
that generally occurs in every mental process. Further, the steps (2)–(6) and
(8) perform mere analysis of the existing “data” (customer-agent
interactions) from various sources, whether initiated person-to-person, on
paper, or using a computer.
Although independent claim 1 requires the recited steps to be
“computer-implemented,” this generic computer implementation of a mental

slight revision of its abstract idea analysis does not impact the patentability
analysis.” Id. Moreover, merely combining several abstract ideas does not
render the combination any less abstract. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo
Co., Ltd., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea
(math) to another abstract idea . . . does not render the claim non-abstract.”);
see also FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining the pending claims were directed to a
combination of abstract ideas).
4 During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation when reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under this standard,
we interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
5 We also note that the language of independent claim 1 merely analyzes
previously acquired or existing data which is stored.
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180

7

process is insufficient to take the invention out of the realm of abstract ideas.
“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by
a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v.
Benson.” CyberSource Corp., 654 F.3d at 1375. If a method can be
performed by human thought alone, or by a human using pen and paper, it is
merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under § 101. See id. at
1372–73; see also Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306,
1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Courts have examined claims that required the use
of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention
could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.”); Alice Corp.
v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223 (2014) (“Stating an abstract idea while
adding the words ‘apply it with a computer’” is insufficient to confer
eligibility.).
Moreover, “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental
process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C.
v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir.
2012); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[R]elying on a computer to perform routine tasks more
quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention,
the claimed invention is performed “automatically,” but provides no specific
limitation of how that “automatically” is performed, beyond merely reciting
“automatically.” The Specification states “exemplary system 100 may
provide the infrastructure for automatic analysis and creation of links
between different customer-agent interactions to enable delivery of
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180

8

automatic alerts (notifications) upon occurrence of triggering events related
to the linked customer interactions.” Spec. ¶ 15 (emphasis added); see also
Spec. ¶¶ 37 (“the method may include automatically linking at least two of
the customer-agent interactions,”); 44 (“Embodiments of the invention may
include evaluation of an action by analysis and investigation of interaction
chains and breached indication automatically or by a user or a system
administrator”) (emphases added.).)
Moreover, the claim is drafted using alternative language of “one or
more,” “at least a portion,” and “at least two.” As a result, only two limited
interactions are required within the scope of claim 1 to be analyzed,
grouped, and linked, which is well within the ability of the human mind,
contrary to Appellant’s argument. Appeal Br. 9. Moreover, even if such
automation was required, the “‘mere automation of manual processes using
generic computers’ . . . ‘does not constitute a patentable improvement in
computer technology,’” Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378,
1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs.,
859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Appellant argues that the claims are distinguishable from the claims in
Trading Techs. at least because the claimed trading screen in Trading Techs.
“simply takes the prior art trading screen of Figure 2 and adds P&L values
along the axis...” thus, providing no inventive concept, and Appellant’s
invention provides an inventive concept as described in further detail.
Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant further argues that the claimed invention is similar to SiRF
Technology that includes a specific machine that play a significant part in
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180

9

permitting the claimed method to be performed, point to the claims not being
entirely performable in the human mind.6 Appeal Br. 9. Appellant contends
the interaction capturing system of the claimed invention plays a significant
part in permitting the claimed method to be performed as it provides the
plurality of distinct recorded customer-agent interactions which form the
basis for chain of linked customer agent interactions and are analyzed
according to the key performance indicators. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant
analogizes to SiRF Technology that the distinct recorded customer-agent
interactions can only exist with respect to a particular type of computing
system, namely the interaction capturing system, just like the distances or
estimated distances between satellites and a GPS receiver can only exist with
respect to a particular type of computer, namely the GPS receiver. Appeal
Br. 9. Appellant further contends the interaction capturing system also
limits the ability of the method to be performed in the mind of human, and
the claimed invention is not directed toward a mental process. Appeal
Br. 10.
Although Appellant argues the “interaction capturing system” plays a
significant part, the “interaction capturing system” is not part of the
computer-implemented method of independent claim 1 which merely
“automatically receiv[es], at a hardware data server, from the interaction
capturing system,” and “automatically analyz[es] . . . based on data
combined from.” We further find the interaction capturing system is not the
computing system, but the system that previously recorded the inputs used

6 See SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir.
2010).
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180

10

later in the process. As a result, Appellant’s reliance thereupon is
unavailing.
Appellant argues:
Further, a human would not go through the steps of
independent claim 1 to detect and manage potentially unsatisfied
customers. Rather, a human would simply listen to or read a
customer-agent interaction, and determine if there is a potentially
unsatisfied customer based on the empathy. Empathy is not a
mathematical algorithm or an ordered set of steps. Rather, a
human’s use of empathy to determine dissatisfaction in a
customer-agent interaction is a subjective determination which
varies slightly from person to person based on that person’s life
experiences. Further, a human’s use of empathy to detect
dissatisfaction is an almost instantaneous feeling, not a series of
numbered steps.
A human would not use statistical analysis of the time or
common phrase linking of multiple interactions as it is done in
claim 1 (“linking . . . interactions . . . based on a period of time
between interactions or common phrases within interactions”)
due to its typical complex mathematical nature because a human
can intuitively pick up dissatisfaction based on tone and content
of speech. A human solving the problem solved by the invention
of claim 1 would not use the specific series of operations as
shown in claim 1 at least because a human would have to for
example, in one embodiment, map common phrases, e.g., using
text clustering. The human mind does not perform such tasks
efficiently, and thus a human would be forced to achieve the
result differently. See Specification as filed (at paragraphs
[0029]; and [0051]-[0054]).
Appeal Br. 10–11.
We note the arguments to the mathematical algorithm and an ordered
set of steps or series of numbered steps are not expressly recited in the
language of independent claim 1 and the claim was amended to remove the
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180

11

limitation regarding “on a period of time between interactions or.”7
Additionally, “statistical analysis” and “text clustering” are also not recited
in the language of independent claim 1.8
Appellant argues in the Reply Brief:
Separately, the claims are not directed to a mental process
as a human would not implement the method of the claims in
their mind. For example, a human would not form a chain of
linked customer-agent interactions that are based on recorded
customer-agent interactions, upon identifying a condition that
matches a predetermined rule defining the chain, or determine a
key performance indicator for the chain, where the key
performance indication comprises one or more rules and where
one or more of the key performance indicators determines a
desired time span between a first and last interaction in the chain,
as these are elements that are performable due to the nature of a
computing device (e.g., ability to create and/or store data
structures, perform operations/computations on those data
structures quickly and efficiently, evaluate the data to make
determinations) in an efficient timely manner to realize when
there is a breach and issue an alert. A human simply would not
perform the claimed invention as a mental process.
Reply Br. 2–3.
We disagree with Appellant and find that “elements that are
performable due to the nature of a computing device (e.g., ability to create
and/or store data structures, perform operations/computations on those data
structures quickly and efficiently, evaluate the data to make determinations)
in an efficient timely manner to realize when there is a breach and issue an

7 Claim amendment, dated February 26, 2020.
8 We further observe that statistical analysis and text clustering are not
identified in the Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter in the Appeal
Brief, and a word search of the Specification does not identify these terms.
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180

12

alert” are not supported by the language of representative independent
claim 1 and therefore do not evidence that the process claim is not a mental
process because the arguments go beyond the scope of the claimed
invention.
Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed
process only requires display of data which is insignificant extra-solution
activity.
Thus, under Step 2A(i), we agree with the Examiner that
claim 1’s method for linking customer-agent interactions is a mental
process that may also be performed by pen and paper. We conclude
claim 1, as a whole, under our Revised Guidance, recites a judicial
exception of linking customer-agent interactions, i.e., a mental process,
and thus is an abstract idea.
Because claim 1 considered as a whole recites an abstract idea,
as identified above (i.e., last step “9” — “automatically issuing, by the
hardware application server, an alert upon identifying the breach”), as
does remaining independent claims 12 and 17, we conclude all claims
1–4 and 6–26 recite an abstract idea, as identified above, under Step 2A,
Prong One. Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two, in which
we apply the guidance set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d) (9th ed. Rev.
10.2019, rev. June 2020).
Step 2A(ii): Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, as we
conclude above, we proceed to the “practical application” Step 2A(ii) in
which we determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180

13

a practical application of that exception by: (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.
We find each of the limitations of claim 1 recite abstract ideas as
identified in Step 2A(i), supra, and none of the additional limitations “by the
hardware application server,” “from the interaction capturing system,” and
limitations (7) and (9) (displaying, issuing) integrate the judicial exception
of linking customer-agent interactions into a practical application as
determined under one or more of the MPEP sections cited above.
Appellant’s Specification identifies (see Spec. ¶¶ 26 (“Operations of
the method may be implemented by, for example, data server 110 and
application server 120 of Fig. 1, and/or by other suitable units, devices,
and/or systems”); 61 (“Embodiments of the invention may include
components such as, but not limited to, a plurality of central processing units
(CPU) or any other suitable multi-purpose or specific processors or
controllers”) (emphases added)) that the claim as a whole merely uses
instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively,
merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Appellant argues “the claimed invention improves the computer
interactions capturing system technological field by, for example,
automatically analyzing customer-agent interactions to automatically
determine the type of customer-agent interaction, to automatically detect
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180

14

potentially unsatisfied customers. See e.g., specification at para. [0015]-
[0016], [0036]-[0037], [0040]-[0041], [0056], and [0059].” Appeal Br. 11.
We find the identified paragraphs by Appellant merely further detail
the specific steps in greater exemplary or alternative details not found or
supported in the language of independent claim 1. As a result, Appellant’s
arguments in reliance on these paragraphs does not evidence a practical
application of the claimed invention.
Appellant argues:
[I]n claim 1, for example, the process produces a practical, real-
world result: a computer issuing an alert identifying a breach of
a key performance indicator during for a chain of interactions.
The claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a
practical application because they apply, rely on, and use any
judicial exception in a manner that imposes a “meaningful limit”
on the judicial exception.
Appeal Br. 11; see generally Reply Br 2–3. Appellant argues the claims are
not merely an expression of a complex algorithm but a specific use of the
algorithm, when other limitations are viewed in combination. Appeal
Br. 11–12.
We disagree with Appellant and find that independent claim 1 does
not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea and does not apply, rely,
or use the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a “meaningful limit” on the
abstract idea.
Appellant contends independent claim 1 is separately patentable
because, as presently pending, has been amended to include the claimed
“automatically displaying the displaying the chain of linked customer-agent
interactions on a display as graphical icons that are connected on a two
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180

15

dimensional graph having a first axis and a second axis, wherein the first
axis is time, and the second axis is severity of the interaction and wherein
each interaction in the chain of linked customer-agent interactions has a
graphical icon based on its corresponding category;” in addition to issuing
the alert, which provides a further practical application to the invention.
Appeal Br. 12.
We disagree with Appellant that the step of automatically displaying
the chain of linked customer-agent interactions and a two-dimensional graph
further provides a practical application of the invention because Appellant
has not identified what is the practical application of the mere output of the
result and how it applies the abstract idea to make the graph a practical
application. We find the graph is merely an insignificant extra-solution
activity, and Appellant has not identified how the graph practically applies
the abstract idea. The Specification identifies variations in output of the
display that the user may optionally define:
As shown in Fig. 3F, each interaction may be displayed
with a different mark or color 330-335 to reflect its relevant
group defined in box 336, for example, category, agent name, or
CRM ticket number. In addition the user may define a selected
customer in customer viewer 341. The interaction chains are
marked, as presented by balloon 337 and are placed in a
customer/severity/time screen 338 along a time line 339. The
linked interaction may be placed vertically based on their
severity score as determined by the KPI’s. For example,
interactions chain 340 includes four interactions from the same
customer, all interactions performed within seven days while
three of them included dispute and therefore are placed high in
the severity axis 342.
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180

16

Spec. ¶ 56. We further note that representative independent claim 1 does not
include the specific details that the portions of the Specification identified by
Appellant, and does not evidence a practical application of the abstract idea,
as claimed. Additionally, Appellant’s reliance upon the steps of
“identifying, by the hardware application server, the breach of one of the key
performance indicators; and automatically issuing, by the hardware
application server, an alert upon identifying the breach” do not necessarily
automate the identification of a breach so as to “pull[] customer issues to the
end user,” (Spec. ¶ 59), and Appellant has deleted the aspect of “over time”
language from the claimed invention. The Specification further discloses:
Measuring and managing customer interactions based on
interaction chains according to embodiments of the present
invention may have several advantages, for example, customer
experience level may be automatically measured and alerted . . .
based on the relevant call type and chain KPI, thus pushing rather
than pulling customer issues to the end user. This may aid in
addressing in a more proactive and efficient fashion customer
satisfaction and experience related topics. In addition a snapshot
of customer experience over time may be available in a graphic
mode so that gaining understanding of the customer’s level of
satisfaction with the service he is being provided by the
organization is straight forward and further it may be possible to
identify via customer chain length process which are taking
longer than others and correct them if necessary.
Spec. ¶ 59. We note that the level of detail to provide “a snapshot of
customer experience over time” and “gaining [an] understanding of [a]
customer’s level of satisfaction” is not found in the broad language of
independent claim 1 to support Appellant’s general argument for a practical
application of the abstract idea. Therefore, we do not agree with Appellant
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180

17

that the scope of independent claim 1 corresponds to the arguments.
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.”).
Therefore, we conclude the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical
application, and thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Although we agree with Appellant that the displaying step contains a
two-dimensional graph which may be as limited as shown in Figure 3F, we
are limited to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim invention as
recited in independent claim 1 which may include only two or three
interactions which is the claim language
automatically displaying the chain of linked customer-agent
interactions on a display as graphical icons that are connected on
a two dimensional graph having a first axis and a second axis,
wherein the first axis is time, and the second axis is severity of
the interaction and wherein each interaction in the chain of linked
customer-agent interactions has a graphical icon based on its
corresponding category.
Here, we note that the claim limitation is a mere presentation of extra-
solution activity data and our reviewing court has routinely found that mere
presentation of output data is insufficient. Here, Appellant has not identified
any functionality in the Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter of these
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180

18

“icons” beyond their data value.9 See Spec. “paragraph [0056]; Fig. 3F.”
Appeal Br. 3.
Furthermore, claim 1 amounts to merely automating the abstract idea.
“Automation” or any increase in processing speed in the claimed method (as
compared to without using computers) comes from the capabilities of the
generic computer components, and not the recited process itself. See
FairWarning IP, 839 F.3d at 1095 (citing Bancorp Servs., 687 F.3d at 1278
(“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more
efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of
the claimed subject matter.”)); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie
Indemnity Co., 711 F. App’x 1012, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished)
(“Though the claims purport to accelerate the process of finding errant files
and to reduce error, we have held that speed and accuracy increases
stemming from the ordinary capabilities of a general-purpose computer ‘do[
] not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.’”).
Thus, on this record, Appellant has not shown under the guidance of
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure section 2106.05(a) (“Improvements
to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical
Field”) or section 2106.05(e) (“Other Meaningful Limitations”). Nor does
Appellant advance any arguments in the Brief(s) that are directed to the
Bilski (v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)] machine-or-transformation test,
which would only be applicable to the method (process) claims on appeal.

9 We further note that Appellant has not shown written description support
for “icon” in the Specification and a word search does not find the term in
the originally filed Specification for this amended claim language.
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180

19

See MPEP §§ 2106.05(b) (Particular Machine) and 2106.05(c) (Particular
Transformation).
Step 2B – “Inventive Concept” or “Significantly More”
If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, as we
conclude above, we proceed to the “inventive concept” step. For Step 2B we
must “look with more specificity at what the claim elements add, in order to
determine ‘whether they identify an “inventive concept” in the application of
the ineligible subject matter’ to which the claim is directed.” Affinity Labs
of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(quoting Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed.
Cir. 2016).
In applying step two of the Alice analysis, our reviewing court guides
that we must “determine whether the claims do significantly more than
simply describe [the] abstract method” and thus, transform the abstract idea
into patentable subject matter. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d
709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We look to see whether there are any “additional
features” in the claims that constitute an “inventive concept,” thereby
rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an
abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221. Those “additional features” must be
more than “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79 (2012).
Limitations referenced in Alice that are not enough to qualify as
“significantly more” when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as
non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: adding the words “apply it” (or an
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180

20

equivalent) with an abstract idea;10 mere instructions to implement an
abstract idea on a computer;11 or requiring no more than a generic computer
to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities previously known to the industry.12
The Examiner finds that the additional elements of the “hardware
application server” and “interaction capturing system” are considered
generic computer components performing generic computer functions that
amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea. Final
Act. 3–4, 10; Ans. 6, 10.
Appellant appears to interweave the step 2A, Prong 2 and step 2B
considerations in their arguments under the heading of Step 2B. Appeal Br.
13–15. Appellant submits that the interaction capturing system is not a
generic computer component as described above, but provides no specific
support for the contention. Appeal Br. 13. Additionally, Appellant argues
the Federal Circuit has held that an “inventive concept” may be found where
“generic components operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an
improvement in computer functionality” Amdocs Ltd. v. Openet Telecom,
Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300–01 (Fed. Cir. 2016); or if “the ordered
combination of claim limitations . . . transform[s] the abstract idea . . . into a
particular practical application of that abstract idea.” BASCOM Glob.

10 Id. at 221–23.
11 Id. at 221, e.g., simply implementing a mathematical principle on a
physical machine, namely a computer (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 84–85).
12 Id. at 225, e.g., using a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances,
and issue automated instructions.
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180

21

Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir.
2012). Appeal Br. 13.
Appellant further argues, “[s]imilar to the claims in BASCOM, the
particular arrangement of elements in independent claim 1 is a technical
improvement over prior art ways of managing and displaying data relating to
customer-agent interactions, and, thus, claim 1 improves existing technology
related to this functionality.” Appeal Br. 14.
Appellant also argues:
[S]imilar to the claims in Amdocs, independent claim 1 entails an
unconventional technological solution (a hardware data server
analyzing data combined form a voice interaction repository, a
screen data source, and a customer data source, and utilizing
content analysis application, emotion detection, and one or more
of: an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) application, and call
flow information) to a technological problem (how to
automatically group and link interactions into chains,
automatically determine rules which chains of interactions
should comply with, automatically identifying a breach of these
automatically determined rules, and automatically issuing an
alert upon identifying the breach). Accordingly, Appellant
submits that the claimed invention amounts to significantly
more.
Appeal Br. 14.
We disagree with Appellant, and find that the interaction capturing
system is not detailed in the language of representative independent claim 1,
and the Specification similarly provides only a high-level description of this
system which does not evidence that it is more than a mere audio data
acquisition system which data therefrom is used in the steps of the method of
representative independent claim 1. Additionally, the ordered steps of the
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180

22

claimed method under the broadest reasonable interpretation may be limited
to a few customer-agent interactions which perform generic computer
functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities
previously known to the industry.
Consequently, we cannot agree with Appellant that the interaction
capturing system operates in an unconventional manner to achieve an
improvement in the computer functionality or that it is an ordered
combination of limitations which transform the abstract idea into a particular
practical application of the abstract idea.
As discussed above, we find these arguments to be unpersuasive.
The Examiner determined that claim 1 lacks an inventive concept.
Final Act. 11. In connection with this determination, the Examiner found
the additional elements recited in claim 1 are “conventional computer
functionality.” Final Act. 11, 12.
We agree. As discussed above, the additional elements include the
steps of “generating” and “displaying” and determining a trigger for
changing the display of the visual image of the timeline “automatically” and
the graphical user interface itself. The written description describes the
recited graphical user interface and the step of generating and displaying it
in a manner that makes clear that these additional elements are conventional.
See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 45–46, 74, Fig. 6. And the way the written description
describes the automatically determining step indicates that this step involves
conventional computer implementation. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 86–90; see also
Bancorp Servs., 687 F.3d at 1278 (“The computer required by some of
Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180

23

performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose
meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”) (Emphasis added);
Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716 (determining that “[a]dding routine additional
steps such as updating an activity log . . . does not transform an otherwise
abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.”); Hybritech Inc. v.
Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“[A]
patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art.”);
USPTO, Memorandum on Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to
Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision
(Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) at 3 (Apr. 19, 2018), available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ memo-berkheimer-
20180419.pdf (explaining that a specification that describes additional
elements “in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are
sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the
particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” can
show that the elements are well understood, routine, and conventional).
Considered individually or in combination, these additional elements
do not provide the necessary inventive concept. Claim 1 simply uses these
well-understood, routine, and conventional computer elements to implement
the recited abstract idea, which is not enough to provide an inventive
concept. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (“[W]holly generic computer
implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that
provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting
effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (second and third
alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)); Customedia Techs.,
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180

24

LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(explaining that “the invocation of ‘already-available computers that are not
themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance . . . amounts to a recitation of
what is well-understood, routine, and conventional’” and determining that
invoking a conventional component “is insufficient to supply the required
inventive concept” (quoting SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161,
1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018))).
In Appellant’s Reply Brief, Appellant argues the Examiner erred in
finding “the customer agent interactions into categories can reasonably be
performed in the human mind . . . as the steps require evaluation and
judgement of data.” Reply Br. 1 (citing Ans. 4). Appellant argues the
hardware server requires analysis that is based on data that is obtained from
a voice interaction repository, a screen data source and a customer data
source,” and this is the exact type of limitation that the USPTO itself has
articulated renders a claim incapable of being directed to a mental process.
Reply Br. 1. Appellant further argues the action by the processor cannot be
practically applied in the mind because “independent claim 1 requires
automatically that the hardware server base its analysis on a data combined
from a voice interaction repository screen data source and a customer data
source where the data in a voice interaction repository, screen data source
and a customer data source is accessed by the hardware server. Reply Br. 1.
Appellant also argues “the claim is not practically performed in the human
mind at least because it requires a hardware server automatically accessing
computer memory of a voice interaction repository, screen data source and a
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180

25

customer data source,” and “the invention cannot fall within the mental
process category.” Reply Br. 1–2 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 17–24 and Fig. 1).
We note the language of representative independent claim 1 does not
recite separate step of “automatically accessing computer memory” but
merely “analyzing . . . by the hardware data server data.” Therefore, we do
not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive.
Appellant further argues the Examiner’s reliance upon the previous
Board affirmance of the claims as a mental process is in error because the
prior decision was for “different claims” and the “claims on appeal in the
instant application are not the same claims.” Reply Br. 2. We note the
extent of Appellant’s amendments to make the claims different was to add
“automatically” to most of the method steps and further detail the “display”
step to define a two-dimensional graph with icons.
With regard to step 2A, Prong 2 (practical application), Appellant
argues the Examiner is wrong in alleging that “analyzing customer-agent
interactions by an interactions capturing system is not considered a
technological field,” and that the “Board recognized ‘analyzing customer
agent interactions’” is a technical field during the prior oral hearing. Reply
Br. 2. We disagree with Appellant’s statement and find the Board merely
repeated Appellant’s oral argument in an attempt to clarify the arguments as
they relate to the analysis under the 2019 Revised Guidance. Prior Appeal
Tr. 11–13.
Appellant further argues “the claims are not directed to a mental
process as a human would not implement the method of the claims in their
mind.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant further argues that a human would not form
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180

26

a chain of linked customer-agent interactions and repeats the language of the
“automatically linking” and the “automatically determining” steps where
these are elements that are performable due to the nature of a computing
device (e.g., ability to create and/or store data structures, perform
operations/computations on those data structures quickly and efficiently,
evaluate the data to make determinations) in an efficient timely manner to
realize when there is a breach and issue an alert. Reply Br. 3. Appellant
also contends that a human simply would not perform the claimed invention
as a mental process. Reply Br. 3.
As discussed above, we find steps of the claimed method under the
broadest reasonable interpretation may be limited to a few customer-agent
interactions which perform generic computer functions that are well-
understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the
industry. We further disagree with Appellant and find that Appellant does
not provide substantive support for the argument where the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claim merely requires a few customer-agent
interactions and limited data in the voice interaction repository, screen data
source and customer data source where the common characteristics are
based upon a content analysis application, a motion detection, and one or
more of interactive voice response (IVR) application and call flow
information (emphasis added).
We further note the claim merely recites “a plurality,” “a selected
customer,” “one or more” two times. As a result, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim is broader than Appellant’s generalized arguments
implies in the practical application. Although a commercial implementation
Appeal 2021-001779
Application 12/485,180

27

of the disclosed invention for a large number of customers, customer agents
and stored interactions may be beyond the practical application limit, we are
limited to the claimed invention which does not encompass the full disclosed
scope of the possible implementations, but is limited to a customer and
plural interactions and review of some data from data sources.
Consequently, we find Appellant’s generalized arguments does not
show error in the Examiner’s rejection based upon a lack of patent eligible
subject matter based upon the process in the human mind or with paper and
pencil where Appellant’s arguments are unsupported by the language of
representative independent claim 1.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner’s patent eligibility rejection.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–26 101 Eligibility 1–4, 6–26
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)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED