GEFFEN, David et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 24, 2020

12485180 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 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.
12/485,180 06/16/2009 David GEFFEN P-71546-US 2781
49443 7590 01/24/2020
Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP
1500 Broadway
12th Floor
New York, NY 10036
EXAMINER
FEACHER, LORENA R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/24/2020 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):
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 2018-003442
Application 12/485,180
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant,1 appeal from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4 and 6–22. (Non-Final Act. 1.) We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicants” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as NICE
LTD. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2018-003442
Application 12/485,180

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method and system for linking customer-
agent interactions. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
claimed subject matter:
l. 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,
the method comprising:
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;
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;
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;
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 a
period of time between interactions or common phrases within
interactions;
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
Appeal 2018-003442
Application 12/485,180

3
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;
evaluating, by the hardware application server, the chain
according to the key performance indicators;
displaying the interactions that were linked as a chain on a
display showing linked interactions by time;
identifying, by the hardware application server, the breach
of one of the key performance indicators; and
issuing, by the hardware application server, an alert upon
identifying the breach.
REJECTION
Claims 1–4 and 6–22 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.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 101
With respect to claims 1–4 and 6–22, 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, 8–16, and
18–22. (Appeal Br. 33.) 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).
Appellant further filed a Supplemental Appeal Brief on November 11,
2019 addressing the January 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019
Updated Revised Guidance.
Appeal 2018-003442
Application 12/485,180

4
Step 1
Claim 1, as a 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 it 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 “recognized
concepts of related to comparing data” which is a mental process. (Non-
Final Act. 5.)
We conclude claim 1 does not recite the judicial exceptions of either
natural phenomena or laws of nature. 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 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 (emphasis added). 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
Appeal 2018-003442
Application 12/485,180

5
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:
(1) 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) 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) 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) 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
Appeal 2018-003442
Application 12/485,180

6
predetermined rule being based on a period of time between
interactions or common phrases within interactions;
(5) 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) evaluating, by the hardware application server, the chain
according to the key performance indicators;
(7) displaying the interactions that were linked as a chain on a
display showing linked interactions by time;
(8) identifying, by the hardware application server, the breach of
one of the key performance indicators; and
(9) issuing, by the hardware application server, an alert upon
identifying the breach.
(Claims App.; emphasis added.)
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)].”).2

2 Our reviewing court recognizes that “[a]n abstract idea can generally be
described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
Appeal 2018-003442
Application 12/485,180

7
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard,3 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 claimed] to the extent that of the broader claim
language. (See Final Act. 5.)4 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 “data” (customer-agent interactions) from
various sources, whether initiated person-to-person, on paper, or using a
computer.

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
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).
3 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).
4 We also note that the language of independent claim 1 merely analyzes
previously acquired data which is stored.
Appeal 2018-003442
Application 12/485,180

8
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention,
the claimed invention is not performed “automatically,” and provides no
express limitation thereto where 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
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, the claimed
invention does not in fact “automatically” perform the steps and only two
limited interactions are required within the scope of claim 1 to be analyzed,
grouped, and linked, contrary to Appellant’s arguments. 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).
We address Appellant’s arguments under Step 2B and Step 2A(ii),
infra.
Appeal 2018-003442
Application 12/485,180

9
Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim
starts an updating process that 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.
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
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 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
Appeal 2018-003442
Application 12/485,180

10
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.
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 machine-or-transformation test, which would only be applicable to the
method (process) claims on appeal. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(b) (Particular
Machine) and 2106.05(c) (Particular Transformation).
At the oral hearing Appellant’s representative stated:
You’re analyzing all of this data and it’s based on data . . .
it’s combined from a voice interaction repository, screen data
source, and a customer data source.
So, I think that this particular step is something that, in all
practicality, is not something that a human would do. I mean,
this is, you know, looking at data from these three distinct
sources[.]
(Tr. 4:25–5:5.) Appellant’s representative further stated:
You know, as a practical matter if you look at the steps of this
claim, I mean, it’s not just reduced to the terms of analyzing,
grouping, linking, determining. I mean, each claim element has
four to five sentences after those words that require very specific
things are performed.
Appeal 2018-003442
Application 12/485,180

11
And I would argument [sic, argue] that these things can’t be done
in the human mind. And that the inquiring needs to end with
Step 2A.
(Tr, 6:25–7:5.) Appellant’s representative argued:
If you look at the linking steps, the linking steps requires that
(inaudible) with the distinct recorded customer agent interactions
group into the categories [sic, category] to form a chain of linked
customer agent interactions.
Each [sic, at least two] customer agent interaction linked to a
proceeding and or subsequent customer agent interactions upon
identifying a condition that matches a predetermined rule
defining the chain. The predetermined rule is based on a period
of time between interactions or common phrases within the
interactions.
So, what happens is the user goes into this system and they say,
I would like to see all of the interactions associated with this
particular topic. Or, all of the interactions associated with this
particular agent. I mean, if you look at the [user] interface that
shown (phonetic) in the specification.
(Tr. 7:12–23.) We note that the user interface is not claimed in independent
claim 1. Appellant’s representative also argued:
I mean, if you look at the rest of this claim language, the grouping
— let’s just use that as an example — there’s a common
characteristic. The common characteristic is based on a content
analysis application, a motion detection, and one or more of an
IVR response application and call flow information.
So, I think it would be practically impossible for a human to look
at the grouping in a linking step -- and I’m just looking at those
two in isolation.
We can keep going in this claim -- and say, okay, I’m going to
remember, I’m going to select some recorded interaction
information, and I’m going to group that into a category based
on a predetermined characteristic, and I’m going to figure out
what that characteristic is based on a content analysis application,
Appeal 2018-003442
Application 12/485,180

12
and a motion detection, and either IVR response application or
call flow information.
Then after I do all of that in my mind, then I’m going to link it
with other distinct recorded customer agent interactions that
meets the same category to form a chain of linked customer agent
interactions.
And, not even going on with the rest of that claim limitation, then
in the next step I’m going to determine a key performance
indicator for this chain that I’ve created. I mean, this is one of
the advantages of the invention. This is impractical for a human
to do.

I mean, if you look at the specification and what it is that was
described, one of the difficulties is, for example, if a customer
has called a call center three times, or four times, or five times
about a dispute over a particular week, without having the agent
intervene and put all of the interaction information for each one
of those phone calls into the system, there’d be no way to track
this at a management level.
And so that same caller is going to call back and continue the
(inaudible). And so, this really gets to the crux of the invention.
That the invention is doing something a human is not capable of
doing.
(Tr. 9:5–25.)
I mean, that’s one outcome, if that’s what’s specified via the
GUI.
I mean, there could be a different scenario where you say, if the
customer has called five times in one week, that’s a violation of
a key performance indicator. And that’s actually a poor example
in the context of this entire conversation.
But, the reason why it has the flexibility of inputting key
performance indicators, and grouping by different categories, is
that each organization is going to have a different set of criteria
that they want to analyze.
Appeal 2018-003442
Application 12/485,180

13
(Tr. 10:22–11:5.) Again, we note that the user interface is not claimed in
independent claim 1. Therefore, we do not agree with Appellant’s
representative that the scope of independent claim 1 corresponds to the
arguments set forth in the oral hearing. 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.
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 Texas, 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 Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S.
208 (2014) 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
Appeal 2018-003442
Application 12/485,180

14
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
equivalent) with an abstract idea;5 mere instructions to implement an
abstract idea on a computer;6 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.7
Evaluating representative claim 1 under step 2 of the Alice analysis,
we conclude it lacks an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea of
transferring funds into a patent-eligible application of that abstract idea.
The patent eligibility inquiry may contain underlying issues of fact.
Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314 1325
(Fed. Cir. 2016). In particular, “[t]he question of whether a claim element or
combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to a
skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact.” Berkheimer v. HP
Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

5 Id. at 221–23.
6 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).
7 Id. at 225, e.g., using a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances,
and issue automated instructions.
Appeal 2018-003442
Application 12/485,180

15
As evidence of the conventional nature of the recited “hardware data
server” in method claim 1; in system claim 12; and in the article claim 17,
the Specification discloses: the server may be “any other suitable multi-
purpose or specific processors.” Spec. ¶ 61.
Thus, because the Specification describes the additional elements in
general terms, without describing the particulars, we conclude the claim
limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional
computer components and techniques, particularly in light of Appellant’s
Specification, as quoted above.8
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, based upon our
precedential guidance, provides additional considerations with respect to
analysis of the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the
claimed computer-related components.
Another consideration when determining whether a claim
recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the
additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words
“apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions
to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to transform a
judicial exception into a patent-eligible application, the
additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more
than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the
words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. __, 134 S.
Ct. 2347, 2357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting
Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S.
66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that
amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract

8 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).
Appeal 2018-003442
Application 12/485,180

16
idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea
eligible. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358, 110 USPQ2d at 1983.
See also 134 S. Ct. at 2389, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning
against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
In Alice Corp., the claim recited the concept of
intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.
The Court found that the recitation of the computer in the claim
amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a
generic computer. 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
The Supreme Court also discussed this concept in an earlier case,
Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676
(1972), where the claim recited a process for converting binary-
coded decimal (BCD) numerals into pure binary numbers. The
Court found that the claimed process had no substantial practical
application except in connection with a computer. Benson, 409
U.S. at 71-72, 175 USPQ at 676. The claim simply stated a
judicial exception (e.g., law of nature or abstract idea) while
effectively adding words that “apply it” in a computer. Id.
MPEP § 2106.05(f) (“Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception”).
With respect to the Step 2B analysis, we conclude, similar to Alice, the
recitation of a method for identifying a breach in one or more key
performance indicators related to customer-agent interactions that includes a
“hardware data server” (claim 1) as argued by Appellant, and similarly for
claims 12 and 17, is simply not enough to transform the patent-ineligible
abstract idea here into a patent-eligible invention under Step 2B. See Alice,
573 U.S. at 221 (2014) (“[C]laims, which merely require generic computer
implementation, fail to transform [an] abstract idea into a patent-eligible
invention.”).
We conclude the claims fail the Step 2B analysis because claim 1, in
essence, merely recites various computer-based elements along with no
Appeal 2018-003442
Application 12/485,180

17
more than mere instructions to implement the identified abstract idea using
the computer-based elements.
Therefore, because the claims fail under both the Step 2A and Step 2B
analyses, we sustain the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of independent claim 1
and independent claims 12 and 17, and grouped claims 2–4, 6–11, 13–16,
and 18–22, not argued separately, and which fall therewith. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant provides an array of arguments regarding patent- eligibility
to which we respond below. (Appeal Br. 6–33.)
Appellant’ contends that the claims are directed to a computer-
automated analysis of customer-agent interactions which is performed
differently than prior manual methods and that “[t]he claims require a
specific, structured graphical user interface paired with a prescribed narrow
functionality directly related to the graphical user interface’s structure.
(Appeal Br. 6.)
We find Appellant’s argument unavailing because Appellant does not
cite to the Specification to support this argument, and does not identify any
express claim language to support Appellant’s contention. As noted above,
the Specification identifies that the method “may” have automatic steps, but
they are not required and the data is recited as “distinct recorded customer-
agent interactions” where data acquisition is not part of the claimed method.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the Specification, limitations
from the Specification are not read into the claims. (Appeal Br. 4–5.) See In
re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, Appellant’s
arguments are not commensurate in scope with the express claim language
Appeal 2018-003442
Application 12/485,180

18
and are unpersuasive of error in the Examiner’s finding of a lack of patent
eligible subject matter of independent claim 1.
Appellant further contends the claimed computer-automated process
is not carried out by that humans in the same way. (Appeal Br. 9.)
Appellant also contends that claim l is directed to an improvement in the
technology for communication and interaction capturing systems by
automatically analyzing customer-agent interactions to automatically
determine the type of customer-agent interaction, and to automatically detect
potentially unsatisfied customers, and the claimed method is not performed
in the same way as prior manual methods. (Appeal Br. 9–10.)
Again, we note that the language of independent claim 1 does not
support Appellant’s arguments concerning the automatic nature.
Appellant argues claim 1 allows a computer to automatically link
customer-agent interactions into chains, automatically identify a breach of a
rule which the chain of interactions should comply with, and automatically
issue an alert upon identifying the breach where the automatic identification
and alerting based on that identification go beyond merely organizing,
classifying and storing information because identifying and alerting actually
utilizes the information to create new information or a real-world effect,
such as the alert, rather than merely moving the information around.
(Appeal Br. 11.)
Again, we find Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope
with the express claim language and therefore is unpersuasive of error. We
find Appellant’s arguments are based on the Specification rather than the
express claim language under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Appeal 2018-003442
Application 12/485,180

19
Appellant also argues that “a processor capable of automatic analysis
of customer-agent interactions to detect and manage potentially unsatisfied
customers did not exist prior to the present invention, and has no
conventional or generic analog.” (Appeal Br. 11.)
We find Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with
the express language of independent claim 1, and Appellant has not
identified what corresponding language supports Appellant’s contention.
Therefore, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s
conclusion of a lack of patent eligible subject matter.
Appellant contends that:
Rather, conventional manual techniques required a user to
subjectively group customer-agent interactions, and identify
potentially unsatisfied customers. Those convention manual
techniques do not use the grouping and linking operations as
claimed.
A human would not perform the 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: a
human would do it differently.
(Appeal Br. 12.) Appellant argues “the claims do not involve a
mathematical concept” (Supp. Appeal Br. 2), but also contends, “due to its
typical complex mathematical nature: a human would do it differently”
(Appeal Br. 12.) Appellant is inconsistent in their arguments and therefore
unpersuasive. Appellant contends the claims require a specific structured
graphical user interface paired with a prescribed functionality directly
related to the graphical user interface’s structure, but Appellant does not
identify a graphical user interface in the claimed invention. (Appeal Br. 12–
Appeal 2018-003442
Application 12/485,180

20
25.) Therefore, Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the
claimed invention and is unpersuasive. Appellant also argues that the claims
contain additional elements which transform the nature of the claim into a
patent eligible application under Alice step 2, but Appellant does not
specifically identify any additional limitations beyond the “hardware data
server” which we determined above to be insufficient. (Appeal Br. 25–28.)
Appellant further argues 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 l improves existing technology related to this functionality.
(Appeal Br. 27.) Appellant also argues:
[c]onventional methods of managing customer-agent
interactions do not utilize 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
automate managing customer-agent interactions.
(Appeal Br. 28.) Appellant further contends the Examiner has not set forth a
prima facie case of a lack of patent eligible subject matter, and the Examiner
has oversimplified the claims by failing to discuss each of the claimed
limitations. (Appeal Br. 28–29.) Appellant further contends the Examiner’s
analysis of the claimed invention does not address the character of the
claims as a whole, and does not take into account other limitations. (Appeal
Br. 29–32.)
We disagree with Appellant and find Appellant’s arguments merely
repeat the language of the claim without presenting substantive arguments as
Appeal 2018-003442
Application 12/485,180

21
to why the claimed limitations make the claimed invention patent-eligible
subject matter.
Appellant addresses the Revised Guidance and the OCT. 2019
UPDATED REVISED GUIDANCE. (Supp. Appeal Br. 2.)
We note Appellant’s arguments directed to the Revised Guidance do
not substantively address the October 2019 Updated Revised Guidance. We
further note that Appellant does not set forth a good reason for the delay in
presenting arguments addressing the January 2019 Revised Guidance, but
we have considered Appellant’s arguments.
Appellant contends the claimed procedures are not “mental steps.”
Appellant argues:
[The] claims on appeal could not as a practical matter be
performed in the human mind, at least because the statistical
analysis of time or common phrase linking as required in claim
1 would not be performed by a human due to its typical complex
mathematical nature. Practically speaking, a human would likely
do it different in their mind.
(Supp. Appeal Br. 3.) We note Appellant speculates that a human would
likely do the method differently, but does not specifically address the
language of independent claim 1. We note independent claim 1 requires
processing with an unstated number of data entries which may be as little as
two, and linking of as few as two customer-agent interactions.
Consequently, Appellant’s argument does not address the invention that is
recited in the language of independent claim 1. Therefore, Appellant’s
argument is not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s conclusion of lack of
patent eligible subject matter.
Appellant argues “the process produces a practical, real-world result:
a computer issuing an alert identifying a breach of a key performance
Appeal 2018-003442
Application 12/485,180

22
indicator during for a chain of interactions.” (Supp. Appeal Br. 4.)
Appellant further argues 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. Jan. 2019 Revised Guidance at 14. 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. (Supp. Appeal Br. 4.)
As discussed above, we find these arguments to be unpersuasive.
DECISION
The Examiner’s patent eligibility rejection is affirmed.
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, we affirm the Examiner’s decision. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–22 101 Patent eligibility 1–4, 6–22
FINALITY AND RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED