Avaya Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 20, 2021

2020002265 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 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.
14/573,820 12/17/2014 David Skiba 4366-693 5007
48500 7590 10/20/2021
SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200
DENVER, CO 80202
EXAMINER
POPE, KHARYE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/20/2021 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 DAVID SKIBA, VALENTINE C. MATULA, and
GEORGE ERHART
________________

Appeal 2020-002265
Application 14/573,820
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before DAVID M. KOHUT, BETH Z. SHAW, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1‒20.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Avaya Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002265
Application 14/573,820

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to methods for managing agent burnout
in contact centers. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject
matter and reads as follows:
1. A system, comprising:
a memory operable to store accessible data and
instructions;
a network interface that interconnects the server to
network components via a communication network; and
a processor performing:
accessing, via the network interface, an endpoint
of an agent;
receiving from the endpoint, an interaction
between the agent and a customer from a plurality of
customers utilizing the endpoint and selecting a first
action of the agent from the interaction and, at a later
time, a second action of the agent; and
upon determining the first action alone does not
indicate burnout and the second action alone does not
indicate burnout, and further determining whether the
combination of the first action and the second action
indicates a trend of actions associated with burnout, and
in response to the trend of actions, automatically
modifying a work assignment of the agent, wherein the
modification is a burnout mitigation modification.

The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1‒3, 5, 6, 8‒14, and 16‒20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Ripa (US 2014/0140497 A1; May 22, 2014) and
Pakhchanyan (US 2015/0206090 A1; July 23, 2015). Final Act. 2‒10.
Appeal 2020-002265
Application 14/573,820

3

Claims 4, 7, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ripa, Pakhchanyan, and Keren (US 2007/0206764 A1;
Sept. 6, 2007). Final Act. 10‒11.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because Ripa
and Pakhchanyan teach fatigue detection, but do not teach detecting agent
“burnout,” as claimed. Appeal Br. 5‒6; Reply Br. 1‒3. Appellant argues an
ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that “burnout” is a special type of
stress and that fatigue may be a consequence of burnout, but they are not the
equivalent. Appeal Br. 6‒7.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. Claim 1 recites
“determining whether the combination of the first action and the second
action indicates a trend of actions associated with burnout.” Thus, claim 1
does not require a trend of actions that directly indicates burnout, but instead
a trend of actions associated with burnout. As Appellant acknowledges (see
id.), fatigue is associated with burnout and, therefore, Ripa and
Pakhchanyan’s teachings regarding detecting agent fatigue teach, or at least
suggest, determining whether the actions indicate a trend associated with
burnout.
Furthermore, Appellant’s Specification equates detecting “fatigue”
and “burnout.” For example, the Specification discloses “[i]ncorporating
current and predictive fatigue/burnout levels can help in the planning and
monitoring of staff.” Spec. ¶ 18. The Specification also discloses “[a]gents
who work[] additional hours and continu[e] to perform well, and without
burnout indicators, may continue to receive additional hours, normal work
items, etc. Those agents who show signs of fatigue may have hours reduced
Appeal 2020-002265
Application 14/573,820

4

and/or receive less stressful or more interesting work items.” Id. Thus, the
Specification uses fatigue and burnout interchangeably. Accordingly,
Appellant’s argument that Ripa and Pakhchanyan’s teachings regarding
fatigue do not teach or suggest the recited limitations are unpersuasive.
Appellant also argues that Ripa does not teach or suggest determining
whether a combination of actions indicates a trend associated with an
emotion, such as burnout. Appeal Br. 8‒9; Reply Br. 3‒5. In particular,
Appellant argues Ripa fails to teach any determination of an action or
actions that, when taken alone, are absent of an indication of burnout, but
when combined indicate burnout. Reply Br. 4.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Ripa teaches determining that a trend of actions
associated with burnout has occurred. Ans. 16 (citing Ripa ¶¶ 74, 81).
Indeed, Ripa teaches calculating an emotion score of an agent once per
second. Ripa ¶ 108. Ripa teaches assigning various gradations of color
corresponding to the increasing frequencies at which calculated emotion
scores equal or exceed the emotion score threshold value. Id. In other words,
Ripa teaches calculating how frequently an agent’s actions indicate an
emotion such as fatigue or burnout. Taken alone, Ripa teaches that these
actions do not rise to the level necessary to trigger an alert to a supervisor.
However, Ripa teaches that if the frequency rises above a certain threshold,
an alert is sent to a supervisor. Id. Thus, we disagree with Appellant that
Ripa fails to teach determining that a trend of actions associated with an
emotion has occurred.
For these reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1. We
also sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 12 and 17,
Appeal 2020-002265
Application 14/573,820

5

which Appellant argues are patentable for the same reasons. See Appeal
Br. 9. We also sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2‒11,
13‒16, and 18‒20, for which Appellant relies on the same arguments. See id.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1‒3, 5, 6, 8‒
14, 16‒20
103 Ripa, Pakhchanyan 1‒3, 5, 6,
8‒14, 16‒
20

4, 7, 15 103 Ripa, Pakhchanyan,
Keren
4, 7, 15
Overall
Outcome
1‒20

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