NICE LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 6, 2020

2020001544 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 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.
15/274,267 09/23/2016 Omer ABRAMOVICI P-80200-US1 8486
49443 7590 11/06/2020
Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP
1500 Broadway
12th Floor
New York, NY 10036
EXAMINER
MINOR, AYANNA YVETTE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/06/2020 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 OMER ABRAMOVICI, IFTACH SMITH, and
CHARLES WILLIAM GULLEDGE

Appeal 2020-001544
Application 15/274,267
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5–9, 11–13, and 15–21. An Oral
Hearing was held on October 8, 2020. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as NICE
LTD. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001544
Application 15/274,267

2
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A system for analyzing performance data comprising:
- a work force management server operating one or more
processors and outputting data to a work force management
database comprising a memory to store performance data;
- a real-time server providing information collected about
individual workers to the work force management server, at
least some of the information produced by processor-executed
applications operating on agent workstations;
- a voice of customer server providing customer
satisfaction data to the work force management server;
- a service layer executing one or more processors to
receive a request for a schedule, and place the request in a
queue; and
- a scheduler operating one or more data processors
configured to:
- retrieve the request from the queue;
- receive from the work force management
database performance data relating to the performance of
one or more individual workers;
- analyze the performance data to identify one or
more workers as a leader, wherein a leader is a worker
whose presence in a group of the individual workers
results in an improvement in overall performance of said
group, a worker being a leader if an aggregate value of
one or more performance indicators for a criterion over
workers in a pool during time periods when the worker
was present, minus an aggregate value of the one or more
performance indicators for the criterion over workers in
the pool during time periods when the worker was not
present, is greater than a threshold; and
- based on the identification of one or more
workers as a leader automatically create a schedule of
work periods based on one or more skills attributed to
one or more workers, such that for each schedule work
Appeal 2020-001544
Application 15/274,267

3
period, a leader is included in the work period with the
aim of increasing performance of workers assigned to the
work period.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Grasso et al.
(“Grasso” herein)
US 2013/0142322 A1 June 6, 2013
Umamaheswaran et al.
(“Umamaheswaran”
herein)
US 8,566,133 B2 Oct. 22, 2013
te Booij et al.
(“Booij” herein)
US 2018/0034966 A1 Feb. 1, 2018

REJECTIONS
I. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
II. Claims 1, 2, 5–9, 11–13, and 15–20 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Booij and Grasso.
III. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Booij, Grasso, and Umamaheswaran.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis.
Appeal 2020-001544
Application 15/274,267

4
ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness
The Appellant states that rejection of claim 20, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b), “is not being appealed.” Appeal Br. 4. Accordingly, we
summarily sustain the rejection of claim 20, under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Obviousness
In part, independent claim 1 recites a technique for determining
whether a “worker” is a “leader,” by differentiating “an aggregate value of
one or more performance indicators for a criterion over workers in a pool
during time periods when the worker was present” and “an aggregate value
of the one or more performance indicators for the criterion over workers in
the pool during time periods when the worker was not present.”
The Examiner (Final Act. 11–12) finds that Booij teaches the
measurement of performance metrics for groups of workers, based upon
various factors, including “the composition of a team,” which “can affect the
performance, stress levels, and happiness of its members, and the
performance of the team as a whole” (Booij ¶ 59). Further, according to
Booij, “[d]isruptive agents or neighbors can significantly hurt the
productivity of nearby agents, while expert agents can often boost the
productivity of their neighbors.” Id. In addition, “the compositions of the
resource groups themselves (e.g., the agents and other resources assigned to
a resource group), can have an impact on overall contact center
performance.” Id.; see also id. ¶ 83 (“[T]he performance of the agent . . .
may be worse due to . . . factors such as . . . the team composition, or a very
localized problem (e.g., an unpleasant neighbor).”)
Appeal 2020-001544
Application 15/274,267

5
However, the Examiner acknowledges that Booij does not teach claim
1’s limitations that recite comparing the performance of the claimed
“workers in the pool,” when a particular “worker” was present and when that
particular “worker” was absent. Final Act. 11. The Examiner relies upon
Grasso for these features. Id. at 11–12 (citing Grasso ¶¶ 39, 90, 99, 102);
see also Ans. 5–8.
But, as the Appellant argues (see Appeal Br. 6–8, 10–11; Reply Br. 4–
5), Grasso’s disclosure of the effect of an individual’s impact, with regard to
the performance of others, describes such phenomena as one-on-one
interactions — rather than the claimed effect on a group (the recited
“workers in the pool”). For example, according to Grasso, “an agent with
strong topic expertise tutors another agent with initially weaker expertise on
that topic,” whereby “[i]f the second agent shows significantly increased
expertise over time, this provides evidence that the first agent did a good
tutoring job.” Grasso ¶ 90. See also id. ¶ 102 (“[I]t can be useful to
organize pairs of complementary agents in such a way that the stronger
agent tutors and informs the weaker one.”)
In addition to the absence of any identified disclosure, in Grasso, of
any consideration of the relationship between an individual and the group
(i.e., the claimed “workers in the pool”) — both with and without the
individual in question — Grasso’s “helping agent” (id. ¶ 90), “tutoring
agent” (id. ¶ 99), or agents possessing “a strong level of expertise” (id.
¶ 102), are pre-identified. Thus, Grasso contradicts the operation of the
claimed subject matter, whereby quantitative analysis reveals the “worker”
to be “leader.” By contrast, the Specification explains that a “leader” would
not necessarily be manifest, prior to such analysis:
Appeal 2020-001544
Application 15/274,267

6
A leader need not be an individual whose own
performance is exceptional. According to some embodiments
of the invention, provided that the presence of one individual
has an effect on the performance on the other individuals then
that one individual may be identified as a leader. The
individual may not have been identified as a leader in the
traditional sense and it may not be outwardly apparent that he
or she has any effect on team performance.
Spec. 2, ll. 9–14.
In view of the foregoing, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of
independent claim 1. The same analysis applies to independent claims 11
and 19, which include limitations substantially identical to those discussed
above.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1,
11, and 19, and respective dependent claims 2, 5–9, 12, 13, 15–18, 20, and
21, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
20 112(b) Indefiniteness 20
1, 2, 5–9,
11–13,
15–20
103 Booij, Grasso 1, 2, 5–9,
11–13,
15–20
21 103 Booij, Grasso,
Umamaheswaran
21
Overall
Outcome
20 1, 2, 5–9,
11–13,
15–19, 21

Appeal 2020-001544
Application 15/274,267

7
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART