NICE-SYSTEMS LTD

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2022

2021000047 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2022)

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. 14/936,702 11/10/2015 Omer ABRAMOVICI 4257/141.2 7571 67305 7590 03/02/2022 SOROKER AGMON NORDMAN ADVOCATES AND PATENT ATTORNEYS 8 Hahoshlim Street P.O. Box 12425 HERZLIYA, 4672408 ISRAEL EXAMINER CHEN, ZHI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2196 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2022 PAPER 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. 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 DAVID GEFFEN _______________ Appeal 2021-000047 Application 14/936,702 Technology Center 2100 _______________ Before LARRY J. HUME, BETH Z. SHAW, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 4-9, 13-17, and 19-23. Appellant has canceled claims 2, 3, 10- 12, and 18. See Appeal Br. 19-23. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies NICE-SYSTEMS LTD. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000047 Application 14/936,702 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to “analyzing and automating work-flow.” Spec. 1:5-6. More specifically, Appellant describes intercepting events on a user interface, acquiring data related to the events, and analyzing the data using pattern recognition techniques to identify inefficient operations. Spec. 2:2-7. A summary of the identified inefficient operations and procedures for improving efficiency of operations may be presented to the user. Spec. 2:7-12. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics: 1. A computerized method for simplifying data handling from a plurality of sources via a Real Time Integration (RTI) mechanism in a framework of a user-interface, the method comprising: operating a server, said server performing the following: receiving data of UI data-handling operations, of one or more applications from one or more client computers via a communication network, wherein each one of the client computers is running a monitoring code that intercepts UI data-handling operations of one or more applications to achieve a task, wherein said monitoring code acquires the data of the UI data- handling operations to achieve the task from said one or more applications; automatically analyzing the data of the UI data-handling operations of one or more applications to achieve the task based on a pattern recognition algorithm, wherein the pattern recognition algorithm is an algorithm directed to find statistically significant operational patterns; identifying inefficient UI data-handling operations in said analyzed UI data-handling operations of one or more applications to achieve the task based on preconfigured inefficiencies, Appeal 2021-000047 Application 14/936,702 3 wherein the inefficient UI data-handling operations in said analyzed UI data-handling operations of one or more applications comprise unnecessary repetitions of operations for achieving the task; and generating a script and providing said scrip[t] to one or more client computers for incorporation in a procedure of the RTI mechanism and applicable thereto, wherein said script is optimizing the identified inefficient UI data-handling operations on the client computer, by eliminating in real time at least a portion of the identified inefficient UI data- handling. The Examiner’s Rejections 1. Claims 1, 4-9, 15-17, and 19-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zak et al. (US 2006/0141990 A1; June 29, 2006) (“Zak”); Won (US 2017/0102870 A1; Apr.13, 2017); Li (US 2015/0312398 A1; Oct. 29, 2015); and Velusamy (US 2009/0119575 A1; May 7, 2009). Final Act. 3-15. 2. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zak, Won, Li, Velusamy, and Morikawa et al. (US 2013/0325761 A1; Dec. 5, 2013) (“Morikawa”). Final Act. 15-16. 3. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zak, Won, Li, Velusamy, and Pawar (US 2003/0028513 A1; Feb. 6, 2003). Final Act. 16-17. Appeal 2021-000047 Application 14/936,702 4 ANALYSIS2 In rejecting claim 1, inter alia, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Zak, Won, Li, and Velusamy. See Final Act. 3-10. In particular, the Examiner finds Zak teaches most of the limitations recited in claim 1, but relies on Won to teach the claimed RTI mechanism to simplify data handling between applications. See Final Act. 3-8 (citing Zak ¶¶ 3, 8- 11, 13-18; Won ¶ 53, Fig. 4D). In addition, the Examiner relies on Li to teach a system of performing pattern recognition using a system architecture comprising separate servers and computing devices. See Final Act. 8-9 (citing Li ¶¶ 59, 64-66, Fig. 4). The Examiner relies on Velusamy to teach the generation of an auto-task (e.g., auto-completion) in a script format. See Final Act. 9-10 (citing Velusamy ¶¶ 13, 17, 32). Appellant argues that Zak fails to teach identifying pre-configured inefficiencies according to patterns, which are subsequently evaluated. Appeal Br. 7-8; see also Reply Br. 3-4. More particularly, Appellant asserts Zak is focused on one application only and fails to teach an implementation of an RTI mechanism to allow for a data exchange between two different applications. Appeal Br. 8, 10; see also Reply Br. 2, 16. Additionally, Appellant argues Zak is operating at the user level, rather than handling the events of the user interface itself, which operates on the operating system level. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant also argues: Zak does not collect an agent on-screen actions/hot spots: copy, paste, mouse clicks, key strokes, application navigation, alt+tab 2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed April 2, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed September 30, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed August 5, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action, mailed February 20, 2020 (“Final Act.”), from which this Appeal is taken. Appeal 2021-000047 Application 14/936,702 5 and application state to be stored in a database and recognize patterns in the agents. Zak doesn’t create scripts for an RTI mechanism for the whole operations of multiple applications to achieve a task since Zak is focused on text entry only. Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 5. As an initial matter, to the extent that Appellant relies on elements in the Specification, but not recited in claim 1, such arguments are unpersuasive of Examiner error. “‘[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what each claim defines is patentable. . . . [T]he name of the game is the claim. . . .”’ In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich, Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of Claims--American Perspectives, 21 Int’l Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. 497, 499 (1990)). We disagree with Appellant that Zak fails to teach identifying pre- configured inefficiencies using pattern recognition techniques. Zak describes analyzing user input “to identify repetitive patterns of user input.” Zak ¶ 3; see also Zak ¶¶ 10-11. Zak teaches repetitive patterns are stored in a recognized input pattern database and that if the repetitive pattern is matched to a recognized pattern, the user may be prompted with data to complete the on-going data input process. Zak ¶ 3; see also Zak ¶ 14. Zak describes that the disclosed approach may reduce the need for a user to repeat the same or similar inputs to accomplish a task. Zak ¶ 18. Thus, we agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 5-7) that Zak teaches, inter alia, identifying inefficient UI data-handling operations in said analyzed UI data- handling operations of one or more applications to achieve the task based on preconfigured inefficiencies, as recited in claim 1. Appeal 2021-000047 Application 14/936,702 6 Appellant’s argument that Zak fails to teach a method for simplifying data handling from a plurality of sources via a Real Time Integration mechanism is not persuasive of error because it is not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. See, e.g., Final Act. 6-8. As discussed above, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Zak and Won to teach the recited RTI mechanism. See Ans. 9 (“Won is cited to cure missing features related to RTI mechanism from Zak,” emphasis omitted). Regarding Won, Appellant argues that Won fails to teach analyzing data of the UI data-handling operations to achieve a task based on a pattern recognition algorithm or identifying inefficient UI data-handling operations. Appeal Br. 12-13. Additionally, Appellant argues that Won describes automatically opening another application in which to insert text. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant asserts that such operation is contrary to the operation of Appellant’s invention, which describes entering data when the other application is already opened. Appeal Br. 13-14; see also Reply Br. 8-9. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of Examiner error because, as discussed above, they are not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. The Examiner relies on Zak, not Won to teach the limitations identified by Appellant. Moreover, Appellant’s argument attempting to distinguish Won based on whether a second application is already open is unpersuasive of error at least because it is not commensurate in scope with claim 1. See Ans. 18-19 (noting claim language does not recite that the other application is already opened). Moreover, the claim language does not preclude the operation described in Won. Rather, claim 1 recites that the receiving, intercepting, analyzing, and identifying of data is performed on one or more applications. Appeal 2021-000047 Application 14/936,702 7 Regarding Li, Appellant asserts Li does not disclose a method of performing a pattern recognition algorithm and that “Li fails to generate scripts to automate the user-interface actions instead of the user.” Appeal Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 9. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of Examiner error because, as discussed above, they are not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. The Examiner relies on Velusamy, not Li, to teach the generation of scripts. See Final Act. 9-10. As discussed above, Li is relied on to teach a system of performing pattern recognition using a system architecture comprising separate servers and computing devices. See Final Act. 8-9 (citing Li ¶¶ 59, 64-66, Fig. 4). Further, contrary to Appellant’s assertions, Li description of receiving and recognizing recorded gestures or patterns on a mobile device to control a plurality of devices teaches a method of performing a pattern recognition algorithm. Regarding Velusamy, Appellant asserts “Velusamy contains possible auto-complete options, e.g. list of efficiencies, unlike the present disclosure which upon a comparison to a list of inefficiencies generates a script that is optimizing the identified inefficient UI data-handling operations on the client computer, by eliminating in real time at least a portion of the identified inefficient UI data-handling.” Appeal Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 12-13. In addition, Appellant argues that a disclosed example in Velusamy suggests Velusamy’s generated script retrieves data from a database (i.e., profile metadata) rather than retrieving data from another desktop application. Appeal Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 12-13. We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of Examiner error. As discussed above, the Examiner’s rejection relies on the combined Appeal 2021-000047 Application 14/936,702 8 teachings of Zak, Won, Li, and Velusamy. The Examiner provides a comprehensive response, explaining: The combination system utilizes client-server architecture discussed at [0065] from Li to implement the smart mobile App 145 of Zak as a separate server to analyze and detect repetitive patterns on collected user’s operations performed on device 100 of Zak, and then smart mobile App 145 of Zak as a separate server to generate and provide auto-tasks to device 100 for optimizing some identified repetitive user’s operations based on the found patterns). By comparing such feature to the claim language, the difference is whether the computing device performed auto-tasks from the combination of Zak, Won and Li can be generated and provided in a script format. Reference Velusamy is cited to cure such missing feature. Similar to Zak and Won, the auto-task performed by the computing device of Velusamy is also automatically performing data entry or certain repetitive manual operations like data entry. The auto-task is generated and provided as a script format (see [0032]; “generated scripts allow for efficient automation of repetitive tasks, such as data entry and autocompletion functions”). Ans. 17-18. We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Appellant also asserts, without further explanation, that Zak, Won, Li, and Velusamy are non-analogous art and that the Examiner failed to provide a motivation for the proposed combination. Appeal Br. 16. We disagree. As an initial matter, it is well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is not evidence); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Appeal 2021-000047 Application 14/936,702 9 Cir. 2011) (explaining that 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 requires applicants to articulate substantive arguments). The correct inquiry for whether a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention is if (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). For a reference to be “reasonably pertinent” to the problem, it “logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). We agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 25) that each of the references relate to using a computing device to perform auto-tasks to complete certain manually performed repetitive interactions, similar to the problem addressed by Appellant. In addition, as the Examiner explains, Zak, Won, and Li are also from a similar field of endeavor-i.e., using pattern recognition technology to identify certain repetitive user action-as the claimed invention. Ans. 24-25. Appellant does not respond to these findings (see generally Reply Br.), and consequently, we are not persuaded of error in them. In addition, contrary to Appellant’s conclusory assertion, the Examiner has set forth articulated reasoning with rational underpinning in support of the proposed combination of Won with Zak, Li to the combination of Zak and Won, and Velusamy to the proposed combination of Zak, Won, and Li. See Final Act. 7-10; see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, Appeal 2021-000047 Application 14/936,702 10 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 19, which recites limitations commensurate in scope to those of independent claim 1 and which was not argued separately with particularity. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). In addition, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4-9, 13-17, and 20-23, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom and were not argued separately with particularity. See Appeal Br. 17; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4-9, 13-17, and 19-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4-9, 15- 17, 19-23 103 Zak, Won, Li, Velusamy 1, 4-9, 15- 17, 19-23 13 103 Zak, Won, Li, Velusamy, Morikawa 13 14 103 Zak, Won, Li, Velusamy, Pawar 14 Overall Outcome 1, 4-9, 13- 17, 19-23 Appeal 2021-000047 Application 14/936,702 11 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