Ex Parte Adar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 20, 2017

10509373 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2017)

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. 10/509,373 10/24/2005 Roy Adar 4257/61 3982 67305 7590 03/20/2017 SOROKER AGMON NORDMAN ADVOCATES AND PATENT ATTORNEYS 8 Hahoshlim Street P.O. Box 12425 HERZLIYA, 4672408 ISRAEL EXAMINER ARAQUE JR, GERARDO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3689 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/20/2017 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 ROY ADAR, SHAI SHERMISTER, and MOTTI NISANI ___________ Appeal 2014–009695 Application 10/509,373 Technology Center 3600 ___________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, BRADLEY B. BAYAT, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Roy Adar, Shai Shermister, and Motti Nisani (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1, 7, 9, 13, 15, 19, 25, 28–31, 33, 39, 44, 45, 47, 51, and 55–60, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed June 29, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed September 14, 2014), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 11, 2014), and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed February 6, 2014). Appeal 2014-009695 Application 10/509,373 2 The Appellants invented a way “to assist in the proper resolution of dispute situations, in dispute settlement and in the general identification of misconduct.” Specification para. 14. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some paragraphing added). 1. An apparatus for detecting misconduct related to a transaction associated with an organization, the apparatus comprising one or more computers or processors for executing software components, the software components comprising: [1] a capturing component for capturing an interaction containing audio, wherein the interaction constitutes communication with the organization; [2] a transaction receiving component for receiving a transaction, wherein the transaction constitutes a financial deal with at least one financial institution separate from the organization and the interaction; [3] an association component to associate the interaction with the transaction based on determining the interaction as previously leading to the transaction and further creating and setting, based on data provided by a party to the transaction, a unique identifier to the interaction in data of the transaction which is duplicated in data of the transaction, and linking data of the interaction with data of the transaction using the unique identifier that is consequently common to the interaction and the transaction; [4] an at least one recording and logging component for storing the interaction, and the transaction in an organization database; Appeal 2014-009695 Application 10/509,373 3 [5] a retrieval component for retrieving the interaction and the transaction from the organization database; [6] an audio content analysis component for performing audio content analysis on the interaction and detecting a predetermined word or sentence mentioned in the interaction; a transaction analysis component for analyzing the transaction and detecting a suspicious transaction; and [7] a business analysis component for identifying misconduct associated with the organization, based on the predetermined word or sentence and the suspicious transaction, wherein said capturing component is programmed to capture information from devices selected from the group consisting of: a telephone, a fax, an e-mail server, an analog video camera, a digital video camera, an analog audio microphone, and a digital audio microphone. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Pattison US 5,946,375 Aug. 31, 1999 Freedman WO 03/009175 A1 Jan. 30, 2003 Claims 33, 39, 44, 45, 47, 51, 56, 58, and 60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non–statutory subject matter. Claims 1, 9, 13, 15, 19, 28–31, 33, 39, 44, 45, 47, 51, and 55–60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Freedman. Claims 7 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Freedman and Pattison. Appeal 2014-009695 Application 10/509,373 4 ISSUES The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether Freedman describes obtaining transaction information separately from each of the transaction itself and a conversation analysis device and linking them. FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Facts Related to the Prior Art - Freedman 01. Freedman is directed to capturing and analyzing customer interactions including customer and business experience, intelligence and content. Freedman 2:6–9. 02. Freedman describes capturing and analyzing customer interactions using interaction information units, interaction meta-data information associated with each of the interaction information units, a rule based analysis engine component for receiving the interaction information, and an adaptive database. The rule based analysis engine component receives interaction meta-data information. The interaction can be a telephone conversation, audio, video, voice over IP, data packets, screen events, e-mails, chat messages, text, surveys' results, quality management forms results, collaborative browsing results or sessions, e-mail messages or any coded data. The meta-data information is information related to the interaction information and passed over a media; each interaction has associated meta- Appeal 2014-009695 Application 10/509,373 5 data. The adaptive database can be a customer relationship management database, or a computer telephony integration information database or a knowledge database or other databases in the organization or outside the organization. The rule based analysis engine component may be conditionally activated based on a predetermined rule or event. The results of the analysis made by the rule based analysis engine are provided to and update the adaptive database. The results of the analysis made by the rule based analysis engine provide the user with selective operations based on the results of the analysis. The rule based analysis engine receives from an adaptive database predetermined rules used for analysis. The results of the analysis made by the rule based analysis engine update or create rules used by the rule based analysis engine. The interaction capture and storage component is also comprised of a computing device designed to log, capture, and store information. The interaction capture and storage component also provides the rule based analysis engine at least two interactions and at least one interaction meta-data associated with each of the at least two interactions stored in the interaction capture and storage component or stored in an adaptive database. The interaction capture and storage component also comprise an administrative database utilized for the setting up, initialization and operational follow up of the apparatus. The interaction capture and storage component can trigger recording of an interaction or a portion thereof in response to a predetermined event or rule. It is also comprised of an administrative database Appeal 2014-009695 Application 10/509,373 6 that operates according to rules base on the content of the interaction. Freedman 6:5–7:20. ANALYSIS Claims 33, 39, 44, 45, 47, 51, 56, 58, and 60 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non–statutory subject matter We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the claims are directed to more than an abstract idea. Reply Br. 4. The Examiner finds the claims directed to a call center. Ans. 2. The claims on their face are directed to detecting misconduct. This is done by technological components of analog to digital voice conversion and automated content analysis of the digitized voice. This is substantially more than simply claiming a call center activity. Claims 1, 9, 13, 15, 19, 28–31, 33, 39, 44, 45, 47, 51, and 55–60 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Freedman We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Freedman is silent on associating an interaction with a transaction, and particularly based on determining the interaction as leading to the transaction. Further, Freedman explicitly refers to transaction during the interaction rather than an interaction leading to the transaction, as on page 50 lines 10-13 "transaction information pertaining to a transaction made during the interaction". Regarding page 23 lines 18-20 "CTI is utilized in association with other transactional information such as CRM data as inputs to the real-time or the off-line analysis process" Appellant contends that it has nothing to do with association of an interaction with a transaction. App. Br. 9. The Examiner cites several portions of Freedman (Final Act. 7) describing transactional data, all of which describe transactional data found Appeal 2014-009695 Application 10/509,373 7 in a conversation and none of which comes from data created by the corresponding transaction per se. Both independent claims recite obtaining transaction information separately from each of the transaction itself and a conversation analysis device and linking them. Claims 7 and 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Freedman and Pattison These claims depend from the independent claims. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 33, 39, 44, 45, 47, 51, 56, 58, and 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non–statutory subject matter is improper. The rejection of claims 1, 9, 13, 15, 19, 28–31, 33, 39, 44, 45, 47, 51, and 55–60 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Freedman is improper. The rejection of claims 7 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Freedman and Pattison is improper. Appeal 2014-009695 Application 10/509,373 8 DECISION The rejections of claims 1, 7, 9, 13, 15, 19, 25, 28–31, 33, 39, 44, 45, 47, 51, and 55–60 are reversed. REVERSED