Avaya Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 21, 2021

2020002312 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2021)

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.
14/290,657 05/29/2014 Robert C. Steiner 4366-667 4052
48500 7590 07/21/2021
SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200
DENVER, CO 80202
EXAMINER
BARTLETT, WILLIAM P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/21/2021 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):
cjacquet@sheridanross.com
edocket@sheridanross.com
pair_Avaya@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT C. STEINER and WEN-HUA JU
___________

Appeal 2020-002312
Application 14/290,657
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, ERIC B. CHEN, and
GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2020-002312
Application 14/290,657

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7–14, and 16–20. Claims 6 and 15
have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a graph database for use in connection with
a contact center. (Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method for managing a contact center, the
method comprising:
defining, by a contact center system, a model of the
contact center, the model of the contact center comprising a
plurality of data elements of a graph database, the graph
database storing the plurality of data elements without a fixed
schema, the plurality of data elements including a first node, a
second node, and at least one edge object between the first node
and second node, the at least one edge object having one or
more properties defining at least one relationship between the
first node and the second node, wherein the first node
represents at least one of a work item of the contact center or a
contact of the contact center and the second node represents at
least one of a resource of the contact center, an entity of the
contact center, or an event of the contact center, and wherein
the first node and the second node are connected to one another
via the at least one relationship;

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 Avaya,
Inc. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2020-002312
Application 14/290,657

3
generating, by the contact center system, one or more
reports including at least one performance statistic of the
contact center based on the first node, the second node, and the
at least one relationship between the first node and the second
node; and
if the at least one performance statistic included in the
one or more reports is above a predetermined threshold, then
performing one or more corrective actions based on the at least
one performance statistic included in the one or more reports.

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Khouri et al. US 2015/0201078 A1 July 16, 2015
Riahi et al. US 2014/0270108 A1 Sept. 18, 2014
Reddy US 2013/0212131 A1 Aug. 15, 2013
Li et al. US 2010/0274637 A1 Oct. 28, 2010
Olson US 2009/0193050 A1 July 30, 2009
Baird et al. US 2009/0003549 A1 Jan. 1, 2009
Haft et al. US 2006/0129580 A1 June 15, 2006
Schoeneberger et al. US 2004/0141508 A1 July 22, 2004

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 8, 10, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Khouri, Olson, and Li.
Claims 2 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Khouri, Olson, Li, and Reddy.
Claims 3 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Khouri, Olson, Li, Reddy, and Haft.
Claims 4, 5, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Khouri, Olson, Li, and Riahi.
Claims 7 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Khouri, Olson, Li, and Baird.
Appeal 2020-002312
Application 14/290,657

4
Claims 9 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Khouri and Schoeneberger.2
The rejection of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been
withdrawn by the Examiner. (Ans. 3.)

OPINION
§ 103 Rejection— Khouri, Olson, and Li
Claims 1, 10, 17, 19, and 20
First, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 6;
see also Reply Br. 2) that the combination of over Khouri, Olson, and Li
would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
limitation “the graph database storing the plurality of data elements without
a fixed schema.”
The Examiner found that the social graph of Khouri, which can also
have a more complex structure (e.g., three dimensional social graphs),
corresponds to the limitation “the graph database storing the plurality of data
elements without a fixed schema.” (Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 4.) We agree
with the Examiner’s findings.
Khouri “relates to the utilization of social graphs and routing of work
to people within a particular business or enterprise.” (¶ 1.) Khouri explains
that a “social graph can be generated or updated for the customer . . . based
upon the social information obtained or collected for recent social activities
at social information sources 50 as well as previous social information

2 Appellant does not present any arguments with respect to the rejections of
dependent claims 2–5, 7, 9, 11–14, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Thus,
any such arguments are deemed to be waived.
Appeal 2020-002312
Application 14/290,657

5
and/or a previous social graph associated with the customer.” (¶ 33.)
Moreover, Khouri explains that “social graphs are simplified for purposes of
illustration of the techniques described herein, and that the techniques
described herein can be implemented utilizing social graphs that are more
complex in structure (e.g., three dimensional social graphs and other social
graphs with many more links between nodes . . . ).” (¶ 41.) Thus, Khouri
does not store one “fixed schema” of the graph database, but changes the
implementation of the graph, for example, by increasing the links between
the nodes, depending on the complexity needed for the specific social graph.
Appellant argues that “[t]he social graphs disclosed in Khouri have a
fixed schema, the central node is the person represented in the social graph,
and the nodes directly connected have greater weight than the nodes that are
indirectly connected.” (Appeal Br. 6.) Similarly, Appellant argues “the
fixed schema is that the central node represents the person (e.g., the client or
the call agent” and “the distance from the central node indicates the
relevance (e.g., priority) of the node (e.g., activity) to the person.” (Reply
Br. 2.) However, while it may be true that the graph in Khouri has a central
node that connects with other nodes, as discussed previously, Khouri does
not require storing one fixed schema of this configuration, but rather teaches
alternative social graphs more complex in structure. (¶ 41.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Khouri,
Olson, and Li would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “the graph database storing the plurality of data
elements without a fixed schema.”
Second, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 7)
that the combination of Khouri, Olson, and Li would not have rendered
Appeal 2020-002312
Application 14/290,657

6
obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “the first node
represents at least one of a work item of the contact center or a contact of the
contact center and the second node represents at least one of a resource of
the contact center, an entity of the contact center, or an event of the contact
center.”
The Examiner found that the social graphs for clients and agents, as
illustrated in Figure 6–9 of Khouri, correspond to the limitation “the first
node represents at least one of a work item of the contact center or a contact
of the contact center and the second node represents at least one of a
resource of the contact center, an entity of the contact center, or an event of
the contact center.” (Final Act. 5–7; see also Ans. 4.) We agree with the
Examiner’s findings.
As discussed previously, Khouri “relates to the utilization of social
graphs and routing of work to people within a particular business or
enterprise.” (¶ 1.) Figure 6 of Khouri illustrates a social graph obtained for
“Client A,” obtained from social information sources 50. (¶ 41.) Similarly,
Figures 7–9 of Khouri illustrate a social graph obtained for “Call Agents 1–
3.” (Id.) Khouri explains that “[a] comparison of the social graph of Client
A . . . with the social graphs of each of the Call Agents 1–3 . . . is conducted
by the [call center routing engine] CCRE 10 . . . to determine which call
agent may be the best social match with Client A based upon similarities
between social graphs.” (¶ 42.) Because Khouri explains that all nodes
from the social graphs, as illustrated in Figures 6–9, are used to determine
the best social match between “Client A” and “Call Agents 1–3” by
CCRE 10 for the routing of work within a business or enterprise, Khouri
teaches the limitation “the first node represents at least one of a work item of
Appeal 2020-002312
Application 14/290,657

7
the contact center or a contact of the contact center and the second node
represents at least one of a resource of the contact center, an entity of the
contact center, or an event of the contact center.”
Appellant argues that “the nodes in the Khouri reference describe
topics/social activities and people, which is not equivalent the first node
representing at least one of a work item of the contact center or a contact of
the contact center and the second node represents at least one of a resource
of the contact center, an entity of the contact center, or an event of the
contact center, as required in the independent claims.” (Appeal Br. 7.)
However, because all nodes from Figures 6–9 are used to determine the best
social match between “Client A” and “Call Agents 1–3” by CCRE 10 for the
routing of work within a business or enterprise, all such nodes “represent[] at
least one of a work item of the contact center.”
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Khouri,
Olson, and Li would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “the first node represents at least one of a work item
of the contact center or a contact of the contact center and the second node
represents at least one of a resource of the contact center, an entity of the
contact center, or an event of the contact center.”
Third, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 7)
that the combination of Khouri, Olson, and Li would not have rendered
obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “at least one
edge object between the first node and second node, the at least one edge
object having one or more properties defining at least one relationship
between the first node and the second node.”
Appeal 2020-002312
Application 14/290,657

8
The Examiner found that the distance between the nodes to the central
node corresponds to the limitation “at least one edge object between the first
node and second node, the at least one edge object having one or more
properties defining at least one relationship between the first node and the
second node.” (Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 5.) We agree with the
Examiner’s findings.
As discussed previously, Khouri explains that “[a] comparison of the
social graph of Client A . . . with the social graphs of each of the Call
Agents 1–3 . . . is conducted by the CCRE 10 . . . to determine which call
agent may be the best social match with Client A based upon similarities
between social graphs.” (¶ 42.) Moreover, Khouri explains “a comparison
can be made between nodes including distances of the nodes from a central
node of the social graph of the customer and nodes including distances of the
nodes from a central node of the social graph for each enterprise agent” (id.)
and “nodes linked directly with the central node are prioritized with greater
social relevance to the person in relation to nodes further distanced” (¶ 34).
Because Khouri explains that directly linked nodes and the distance between
the nodes are used to determine priority, the link between them represents a
“relationship,” Khouri teaches the limitation “at least one edge object
between the first node and second node, the at least one edge object having
one or more properties defining at least one relationship between the first
node and the second node.”
Appellant argues that “[a]lthough it could be argued that all nodes
have a relationship with the central node, the edges in the social graph
disclosed in Khouri have no properties and connected nodes may have no
relationship to each other” and “there is no discernible relationship between
Appeal 2020-002312
Application 14/290,657

9
the indirectly connected nodes.” (Appeal Br. 7.) However, as discussed
previously, Khouri explains that directly linked nodes and distance between
nodes are used to determine priority, and accordingly, Khouri teaches the
limitation “the at least one edge object having one or more properties
defining at least one relationship between the first node and the second
node.” Moreover, Appellant’s arguments are not commeasure in scope with
claim 1, because the claim does not require a relationship between indirectly
connected nodes.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Khouri,
Olson, and Li would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “at least one edge object between the first node and
second node, the at least one edge object having one or more properties
defining at least one relationship between the first node and the second
node.”
Last, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 8–9)
that the Examiner improperly combined Khouri, Olson, and Li.
The Examiner found that performance reporting module 238 of Li,
which analyzes information and provides the results to contact center
administrators, corresponds to the limitation “if the at least one performance
statistic included in the one or more reports is above a predetermined
threshold, then performing one or more corrective actions based on the at
least one performance statistic included in the one or more reports.” (Final
Act. 9–10.) The Examiner concluded that “since the references are within
similar fields of invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would be
motivated to combine . . . Li with Khouri in order to confer the benefit of the
Appeal 2020-002312
Application 14/290,657

10
reporting advantages as in . . . prediction capabilities as in [0026] of Li.”
(Ans. 8.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions.
Li relates “to contact center monitoring and control.” (¶ 1.) Li
explains that “the invention can predict based on real time and/or near real
time operational data when the threshold will be met or exceeded” and “the
invention can simplify the task of contact center operators in [Service Level
Agreements] SLA compliance and provide recommended actions to
administrators and supervisors well in advance of an SLA violation.” (¶ 26.)
Li further explains that “performance reporting module 238 receives contact
center operational information (such as from historical reporting model 275),
analyzes the information, and provides the results to contact center
administrators.” (¶ 61.) In one example, Li explains that if a SLA target
may be missed or violated, resources can be reallocated, including
reassignment of agents, diversion of traffic, or calling back staff. (¶ 25.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
incorporating performance reporting module 238 of Li with the call contact
center of Khouri, would improve Khouri by providing to the ability to
analyze call center information in real time and allocate call center
resources. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f
a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
beyond his or her skill.”). Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8) that
modifying Khouri to include the performance reporting module 238 of Li
would have been obvious.
Appeal 2020-002312
Application 14/290,657

11
Appellant argues that “there is no motivation to combine the
references in the manner suggested in the Office Action” and “[t]he use of
the present application as a ‘road map’ for selecting and combining prior art
disclosures is wholly improper.” (Appeal Br. 8.) As discussed previously,
the combination of Khouri and Li is based on the improvement of a similar
device in the same way as in the prior art. Appellant has not presented
adequate evidence to support the argument that the Examiner used “the
present application as a ‘road map’ for selecting and combining prior art
disclosures.” Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually
supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139–40
(Fed. Cir. 1996).
Appellant further argues that “[p]rior to the present application, it
would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine
elements of Khouri . . . and Li, as the references are not directed at the same
goal.” (Appeal Br. 9.) In particular, Appellant argues that “Khouri is
directed towards matching customers and agents based on social activities
and common acquaintances” and “Li is directed towards threshold
prediction.” (Id.) To the extent Appellant is arguing that Khouri and Li are
non-analogous art, the “Background” section in Appellant’s Specification
acknowledges that “[c]ontact centers originally developed as an analogy to a
customer service line.” (Spec. ¶ 2.) Moreover, Khouri explains that “in call
contact centers, it can be important in certain scenarios to match an
incoming call associated with a customer or client with an appropriate call
agent.” (¶ 3.) Similarly, Li explains that “[c]ontact centers are employed by
many enterprises to service inbound and outbound contacts from
customers.” (¶ 2.) Accordingly, because Appellant’s Specification, Khouri,
Appeal 2020-002312
Application 14/290,657

12
and Li are all from the same field of endeavor—matching of customers with
the appropriate caller agents at contact centers—Khouri and Li are
analogous art. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004.)
Therefore, the Examiner has properly combined Khouri, Olson, and Li
to reject independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Independent claims 10 and 19 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellant has not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
We sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 19, as well as dependent claims 17
and 20 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.

Claim 8
Although Appellant nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claim 8 separately (Appeal Br. 10), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim are
separately patentable. Instead, Appellant argues that “[t]he nodes
representing social information attributes [of Khouri] is not equivalent to an
attribute set that defines one or more characteristics, qualities, processing
requirements, or features of the work item, contact, entity, or event
represented by the node.” (Id.) Accordingly, Appellant has not presented
any substantive arguments with respect to this claim. See In re Lovin, 652
F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]he Board reasonably interpreted Rule
41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
Appeal 2020-002312
Application 14/290,657

13
elements were not found in the prior art.”). We are not persuaded by these
arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, from which
claim 8 depends. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–5, 7–14, and 16–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.

DECISION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 8, 10, 17,
19, 20
103 Khouri, Olson, Li 1, 8, 10, 17,
19, 20

2, 11 103 Khouri, Olson, Li,
Reddy
2, 11
3, 12 103 Khouri, Olson, Li,
Reddy, Haft
3, 12
4, 5, 13, 14 103 Khouri, Olson, Li,
Riahi
4, 5, 13, 14
7, 16 103 Khouri, Olson, Li,
Baird
7, 16
9, 18 103 Khouri,
Schoeneberger
9, 18
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7–14,
16–20

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).

Appeal 2020-002312
Application 14/290,657

14
AFFIRMED