NICE-SYSTEMS LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 3, 2020

14623775 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/623,775 02/17/2015 David GEFFEN P-78693-US 4641
49443 7590 08/03/2020
Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP
1500 Broadway
12th Floor
New York, NY 10036
EXAMINER
CRANDALL, RICHARD W.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2020 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, ESHAY LIVNE, OMER ABRAMOVICH, and
EYAL ESHEL
____________

Appeal 2018-008820
Application 14/623,7751
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Non–Final rejection of claims 1–9 and 21. An oral hearing was
held July 1, 2020. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nice Ltd. Appeal
Br. 1.

Appeal 2018-008820
Application 14/623,775

2

THE INVENTION
Appellant states its “invention relate[s] to the field of automated
capture of data for example during an oral conversation or interaction
between two or more parties.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A computer system for automatically generating and playing an
audio file of an agreement between two or more parties, the system
comprising one or more processors configured to:

capture data via a real time client running on a computer that monitors
an interaction between the two or more parties, the captured data relating to
the agreement in successive capture operations, each capture operation
executed in response to a detected event, wherein the real time client
captures data from video display screen elements of one party of the two or
more parties facing the application of the computer, one or more
webservices of the computer, or any combination thereof and wherein the
captured data comprises at least one piece of information that is specific to at
least one of the parties;

insert, via the real time client, the captured data into a template,
wherein the template comprises text;

use the template with the inserted captured data to prepare a
continuous text of the agreement;

transmit, from the real time client operating on the computer, the
continuous text of the agreement via an API to a TTS server;

generate, via the TTS server, an audio file from the continuous text;

Appeal 2018-008820
Application 14/623,775

3

transmit the audio file from the TTS server, via the API to the real
time client operating on the computer;

presenting a screen pop-up to the display of the computer, wherein the
screen popup includes an indication to play the audio file;

upon receipt of the indication to play the audio file, play to at least
one of the parties the audio file, wherein the audio file represents the
agreement as indicated by the template with the inserted captured data; and

receiving a keypad confirmation of the audio file being played and the
one party of the two or more parties accepting the terms of the agreement.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Berry US 4,429,372 Jan. 31, 1984
Donahue US 2002/0095311 A1 July 18, 2002
Fleizach US 2009/0254345 A1 Oct. 8, 2009
Angel US 2011/0287748 A1 Nov. 24, 2011
Haggerty US 8,537,983 B1 Sept. 17, 2013
Barnes US 9,462,238 B1 Oct. 4, 2016
The following rejections are before us for review.2
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–9, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Donahue, Barnes, Haggerty, and Angel.

2 The Examiner withdraws the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
and 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). (Answer 3).
Appeal 2018-008820
Application 14/623,775

4

Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Donahue, Barnes, Haggerty, Angel, and Berry.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Donahue, Barnes, Haggerty, Angel, and Fleizach.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Barnes discloses:

On-screen activities conducted at the monitored
workstation 135 can be viewed (or “monitored”) by the
supervisor 25 on the screen of the monitoring workstation 140
either in real time (i.e., as the activities are actually occurring),
and/or the on-screen activities conducted at the monitored
workstation 135 can be recorded by the monitor server 145 to a
call records database 150 and “played back” at the monitoring
workstation 140 at a later time.
Col. 2, ll. 23–30.

2. Barnes discloses:

The software on the agent workstation 135 can intercept
workstation data, by “hooking” or “scraping.” Hooking
operates by capturing operating system graphics primitives
relevant to actual screen display, and either returns selected
screen portions (referred to as “changed regions”) which have
changed since the last data poll. The changed regions are
displayable at a remote location in real time or can be recorded
for display at a remote location at a later time.
Col. 2, l. 65–col. 3, l. 6.

Appeal 2018-008820
Application 14/623,775

5

3. Barnes discloses:

At 510, it is determined if a stop condition exists, and if
so, the capture of the image/video is stopped. For example, a
conversation with a caller may have ended or a random
sampling time ended, etc. At 512, the captured image/video
data may be recorded and augmented with metadata for later
retrieval. At 514, the process ends.

Col. 6, ll. 64– col. 7, l. 2.

4. Barnes discloses:

However, it should be recognized that the entire screen or
portions of the screen could be sent over the network using
either the ‘hooking’ or ‘scraping’ techniques, or the primitive
graphics commands themselves, or any other technique
operable communicate the agent’s activities for recording may
be sent in accordance with the present disclosure.

Col. 3, ll. 19–25.

5. The Examiner found “Donahue teaches capture data relating to the
agreement in successive capture operations, each capture operation executed
in response to a detected event, in paragraphs [0123]-[0125] and Fig. 13
. . . .” (Non-Final Act. 17) (emphasis omitted).

6. Donahue discloses, “the parties answer questions presented on web pages
according to a computer-implemented transaction sequence, such that the
parties can quickly identify areas of agreement and resolve areas of
disagreement in an efficient manner.” (¶ 65.)
Appeal 2018-008820
Application 14/623,775

6

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION

Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, recites,
insert, via the real time client, the captured data into a template,
wherein the template comprises text;
use the template with the inserted captured data to prepare a
continuous text of the agreement;
transmit, from the real time client operating on the computer, the
continuous text of the agreement via an API to a TTS server.

The Examiner found concerning this limitation,

Barnes teaches data is captured via a real time client
running on a computer that monitors an interaction between the
two or more parties and the real time client captures data in
col 2 ln 23-29 where software monitors in “real time” the
agent’s workstation and in col 2 ln 64 - col 3 ln 6 where
changes in the screen are hooked or scraped “at a remote
location in real time” (thus video display screen elements).
Barnes then teaches data insertion via a real time client in col 6
ln 64 - col 7 ln 2 where after the recording is stopped it is
‘augmented’ with metadata for later retrieval. Finally, Barnes
teaches transmit, via a real time client operating on the
computer in col 3 ln 19-25 where hooking and scraping results
are sent over a network the hooking and scraping performed by
what is taught as the real time client.

(Non–Final Act. 19).

Appeal 2018-008820
Application 14/623,775

7

Appellant argues in reply,

Barnes does not cure the deficiency. Barnes describes
that on-screen activities conducted at the agent’s work station
can be recorded by the monitor server to a call records database
and played back at the monitoring workstation at a later time.
See Barnes, col. 2, lines 22 - 39. Recording the screen of an
agent for playback, as is done in Barnes, is not the same thing
as capturing data via a real time client running on a computer
that monitors an interaction between two parties, as required by
Appellant’s claim 1, at least because a recording of the screen is
not equivalent to the captured data of Appellant’s claim 1. The
captured data of Appellant’s claim 1 is captured from video
display element, not an entire recording of the screen as is done
in Barnes. In addition, the captured data of Appellant’s claim 1
is inserted into a template and used to prepare a continuous text
of the agreement. A video recording of the screen, as is done in
Barnes, cannot be inserted into a template and used to prepare a
continuous text. Accordingly, Barnes does not satisfy this
element.

Appeal Br. 12.

We agree with Appellant. According to Barnes, the content which is
processed, is image video data. (FF. 1–4). Barnes discloses various ways of
managing the video data, e.g., capturing and processing image data. Id.
Any mention of real time operations occurs in two instances: 1) changed
regions of the images “are displayable at a remote location in real time”
(FF. 2), and 2) “[o]n-screen activities conducted at the monitored
workstation 135 can be viewed (or “monitored”) by the supervisor 25 on the
screen of the monitoring workstation 140 … in real time.” (FF. 1). The
Appeal 2018-008820
Application 14/623,775

8

preferred way in which the image data are processed is through an intercept
process known as “hooking” or “scraping.” (FF. 3–4). “Hooking operates
by capturing operating system graphics primitives relevant to actual screen
display, and either returns selected screen portions (referred to as ‘changed
regions’) which have changed since the last data poll.” (FF. 2).
The Examiner found “[i]t would have been obvious to one [of]
ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention
to modify the computerized contracting teaching of Donahue with the real
time monitoring teaching of Barnes . . . .” (Non–Final Act. 19, see also (FF.
5)). But, Donahue employs a questionnaire based process in which “the
parties answer questions presented on web pages according to a computer-
implemented transaction sequence, such that the parties can quickly identify
areas of agreement and resolve areas of disagreement in an efficient
manner.” (FF. 6).
It is not apparent and the Examiner has not explained how capturing
image data using a “hooking” or “scraping” technique, as disclosed by
Barnes, would result in the captured image data being used in the
computerized contracting text-based system of Donahue which uses an
answer based questionnaire format. The questionnaire format of Donahue is
a text-based process and is not one driven by graphics.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Because claims 2–9 and 21 depend from claim 1,
and because we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1, the rejection of the
Appeal 2018-008820
Application 14/623,775

9

dependent claims likewise cannot be sustained. We note that the additional
references to Berry and Fleizach, respectively applied in the rejections of
claims 2 and 5, do not remedy the deficiency noted above in the proposed
combination of Donahue with Barnes.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 1–9 and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

SUMMARY DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–9 and 21 is reversed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 6–9,
21 103
Donahue, Barnes,
Haggerty, Angel
1, 3, 4, 6–
9, 21
2 103 Donahue, Barnes, Haggerty, Angel, Berry 2
5 103
Donahue, Barnes,
Haggerty, Angel,
Fleizach
5
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 4, 6–
9, 21

REVERSED