Avaya Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 29, 2021

2020003644 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 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.
14/552,729 11/25/2014 Tony McCormack 414100-US-
NP/AVA115PA
8076
136582 7590 10/29/2021
STEVENS & SHOWALTER, LLP
Box AVAYA Inc.
7019 Corporate Way
Dayton, OH 45459-4238
EXAMINER
POPE, KHARYE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2021 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):
pair_avaya@firsttofile.com
pto@sspatlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TONY MCCORMACK, NEIL O’CONNOR,
MARTIN MCDONNELL, and CIARAN AGNEW
____________

Appeal 2020-003644
Application 14/552,729
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–20, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use “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 2020-003644
Application 14/552,729

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to “manag[ing] resources in an
enterprise and particularly to a system and method for managing allocation
of resources in an enterprise to handle communication sessions.” Spec. ¶ 2.
In particular, the Specification explains the invention environment and
existing prior art problems as follows:
[c]ontact centers are employed by many enterprises to
service, inbound and outbound contacts or customers. A
primary objective of contact center management is ultimately to
maximize contact center performance and profitability. An
ongoing challenge in contact center administration is
monitoring and optimizing contact center efficiency usage of its
available resources . . . .
. . . conventional techniques do not provide information,
such as Predicted Contact Time (PCT), i.e., time required by a
resource of the contact center to complete a communication
session of an incoming contact, to a contact center operator of
the contact center. This information can be useful for the
contact center operator in order to manage time and/or
allocation of the resources within the contact center. However,
conventional techniques lack in providing some specific control
to the contact center operator in selecting resources for
incoming contacts based on the information of how long a
specific resource is expected to take on a given incoming
contact. This may further result in large inefficiencies in long
work time situations. Furthermore, conventional techniques do
not provide capability to prioritize selection of resources based
on the information.
Id. ¶¶ 4, 10.
Appeal 2020-003644
Application 14/552,729

3
To solve the prior art problems discussed above, the invention
provides an improved way of managing resources in a contact center:
Embodiments in accordance with the present invention
provide a computing system for managing a plurality of
resources in an enterprise. The computing system includes a
monitoring module for monitoring one or more attributes of at
least one communication session between at least one customer
and at least one resource of the plurality of resources. The
system further includes a database for storing the one or more
monitored attributes. The system further includes a computing
module for computing a contact time parameter for each of the
at least one resource of the plurality of resources based on the
one or more stored attributes. The system further includes an
agent selection module for selecting at least one resource from
the plurality of resources based on the computed contact time
parameter. The system further includes a routing module for
routing the at least one communication session to the at least
one selected resource.

Id. ¶12. Independent claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A computing system for managing a plurality of resources in a
contact center, the system comprising:
a processor;
a computer-readable medium coupled to the processor, the medium
comprising one or more computer readable instructions, the processor
executing the one of [sic] more computer readable instructions to:
monitor attributes of an incoming communication session at the
contact center from a customer;
store the monitored attributes in a database;
Appeal 2020-003644
Application 14/552,729

4
compute a respective contact time parameter for the each of the
plurality of resources based on the stored monitored attributes,
wherein each respective contact time parameter is a predicted
amount of time a respective one of the plurality of resources will
take to complete the incoming communication session;
select a resource from the plurality of resources based on the
computed contact time parameters; and
route the incoming communication session to a communication
device associated with the selected resource.

References and Rejections2
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–7, 9–15,
17–20
103 Konig (US 2015/0117632 A1, Apr. 30,
2015) and Srinivas (US 2014/0023186 A1,
Jan. 23, 2014)
8, 16 103 Konig, Srinivas, and Mengshoel
(US 2003/0081757 A1, May 1, 2003)

ANALYSIS
Obviousness
We have reviewed and considered Appellant’s arguments, but such
arguments are unpersuasive. To the extent consistent with our analysis
below, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action
from which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer.

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated June
21, 2019 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated Nov. 20, 2019 (“Appeal
Br.”); (3) Examiner’s Answer dated Mar. 12, 2020 (“Ans.”); and (4) Reply
Brief dated Apr. 13, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-003644
Application 14/552,729

5
Further, to the extent Appellant advances new arguments in the Reply
Brief without showing good cause, Appellant has waived such arguments.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2018).

Claim 1
On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting independent
claim 1.
Appellant contends Srinivas does not teach
compute a respective contact time parameter for the each
of the plurality of resources . . ., wherein each respective
contact time parameter is a predicted amount of time a
respective one of the plurality of resources will take to complete
the incoming communication session,
as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 2–4. For the reasons
discussed below, Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error.

I
Appellant argues:
During prosecution, claim 1 was previously amended to
explicitly recite details about the contact time parameter. In
particular, the contact time parameter of claim 1 is a predicted
time a contact center resource will take to complete a particular
communication session; as such, according to claim 1, a
respective contact time parameter for an incoming
communication session is calculated for each of the plurality of
contact center resources.

Appellant respectfully disagrees that Srinivas et al. disclose the
above-noted feature of claim 1. Paragraphs [0023] and [0024]
Appeal 2020-003644
Application 14/552,729

6
of Srinivas et al. describe how a single estimated response time
for handling a call is calculated. In paragraph [0023] Srinivas
et al. explain: “The duration estimator 105 may estimate the
service time of each call received by the call center.”

In contrast, according to claim 1, the respective contact time
parameters that are computed are computed for each of the
plurality of contact center resources to determine a respective
predicted time that each one of the plurality of resources would
take to complete the communication session so that the
communication session can then be routed to one of the
resources. Appellant urges that, in Srinivas et al., the computed
or estimated single response time for a call does not teach or
suggest either:

a) a respective contact time parameter calculated for each
of a plurality of agents; or

b) wherein each respective contact time parameter is a
predicted amount of time each resource will take to complete
the incoming communication session.

Appeal Br. 12–13 (emphases omitted); see also Reply Br. 2–4.
Appellant has not persuaded us of error.
First, because the Examiner relies on the combination of Konig and
Srinivas to teach the disputed limitation, Appellant cannot establish non-
obviousness by attacking Srinivas individually, see In re Merck & Co., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In particular, the Examiner cites Konig’s
Figure 3 and paragraphs 36, 37, 39, 43, 44, and 64; and Srinivas’s
paragraphs 3, 23, and 24 for collectively teaching the disputed limitation,
and further explains why the proposed combination teaches the disputed
Appeal 2020-003644
Application 14/552,729

7
limitation. See Final Act. 3–5; Ans. 9–10. In fact, Appellant acknowledges
“[t]he most pertinent portions of Konig . . . appear to be paragraphs [0036]
and [0037]” (Reply Br. 2), but proceeds to attack Srinivas individually.
Second, Appellant does not persuasively respond to Examiner’s
detailed findings and conclusions. As discussed above, Appellant does not
critique the Examiner’s findings about Konig. Further, while the Examiner
cites three paragraphs from Srinivas and provides additional explanation
about the cited paragraphs (Ans. 9), Appellant focuses on a single sentence
from Srinivas’ paragraph 23 (Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 3), but does not
analyze the remaining portions of Srinivas cited by the Examiner. Nor does
Appellant respond to the Examiner’s explanation of the cited Srinivas
portions. Because Appellant fails to persuasively respond to Examiner’s
findings, Appellant fails to show Examiner error. See In re Baxter Travenol
Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this
court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by
an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”).
In any event, the Examiner’s findings and conclusions are correct.
The Examiner finds—and Appellant does not dispute—Konig teaches
selecting “a resource from the plurality of resources” based on the computed
contact time parameters. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 10 (explaining Konig’s
disclosed agents teach the claimed “plurality of resources”). The
Examiner’s interpretation of the term “resources” is consistent with the
Specification, which explains: “Contact center resources may include,
agents, communication assets (e.g., number of voice trunks, number and
bandwidth of video trunks, etc.), computing resources (e.g., a speed, a queue
length, a storage space, etc.), and so forth.” Spec. ¶ 4. Therefore, Konig
Appeal 2020-003644
Application 14/552,729

8
teaches “the each of the plurality of resources . . . a respective one of the
plurality of resources.”
The Examiner further cites Srinivas’ paragraphs 3, 23, and 24 for
teaching the remaining portion of the disputed limitation: See Final Act. 3–
5; Ans. 9–10. According to Srinivas:
[0023] The duration estimator 105 may estimate the service
time of each call received by the call center. The estimation of
the amount of service time necessary for each individual call
may be completed by any method now known or later
developed in the art . . . . [T]he automated system may provide
a menu prompt to the customer that asks the customer a series
of questions and obtains the nature of the customer’s call based
on the responses to those questions.
[0024] Once the nature of the call is determined, the system may
refer to a statistical database that comprises statistics obtained
from previous calls to obtain an estimation of the amount of
time necessary for the type of call. Examples of such statistics
may include an average amount of time for calls of a similar
nature, average amount of time for calls with a particular
customer, average amount of calls for a particular agent, time
of day and/or other parameters known to those skilled in the art.

Srinivas ¶¶ 23–24 (emphases added).
As indicated above, Srinivas explains statistics, such as an “an
average amount of time for calls of a similar nature, average amount of time
for calls with a particular customer, average amount of calls for a particular
agent” may be determined and used to estimate (or compute) “the amount of
time necessary” for the type of call. Srinivas ¶ 24. As a result, Srinivas
teaches or suggests computing a contact time parameter for a call or agent,
and the claimed “comput[ing] a respective contact time parameter for . . .,
Appeal 2020-003644
Application 14/552,729

9
wherein each respective contact time parameter is a predicted amount of
time . . . will take to complete the incoming communication session” (Claim
1).
Because Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s rationale for
combining the teachings of Konig and Srinivas in a timely manner,
Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in concluding that Konig and
Srinivas collectively teach “compute a respective contact time parameter for
the each of the plurality of resources . . ., wherein each respective contact
time parameter is a predicted amount of time a respective one of the plurality
of resources will take to complete the incoming communication session,” as
required by claim 1.
Cumulatively, Srinivas teaches that a call center includes multiple
agents (see Srinivas ¶ 22), and the call center receives multiple calls (see
Srinivas ¶ 23). As a result, Srinivas itself also teaches or suggests “compute
a respective contact time parameter for the each of the plurality of resources
. . ., wherein each respective contact time parameter is a predicted amount of
time a respective one of the plurality of resources will take to complete the
incoming communication session,” as required by claim 1.

II
In the Reply Brief and for the first time, Appellant belatedly disputes
the Examiner’s rationale for combining the references. See Reply Br. 3–4.
In particular, Appellant argues:
As for the rationale as to why one of ordinary skill would
have found it obvious to select the specific portions of Srinivas
et al. to incorporate into the system of Konig et al., the
Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to combine
Appeal 2020-003644
Application 14/552,729

10
the references “to establish a mechanism to distribute
communications to agents with a proven track record of
efficiently resolving customer issues in an effort to improve
customer satisfaction as well as customer retention.”
. . . .
. . . the statement of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
does not provide “articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning” as to how the calculation of a single estimated
response time for handling a call, that is unrelated to individual
calculations for each of a plurality of agents in Srinivas et al.,
could be used to modify Konig et al. in a way that accomplishes
“distribute communications to agents with a proven track
record of efficiently resolving customer issues.” Appellant
urges that the calculation of a single estimated response time for
a call does not provide the specific motivation to modify the
system of Konig et al. to incorporate or use such a value in the
statistics server or the historical report server of Konig et al.
Appellants respectfully submit that the calculation of a single
estimated response time would accomplish the opposite of the
proposed rationale and actually obscure which agents have a
proven track record of efficiently resolving customer issues.

Reply Br. 3–4 (emphases omitted).
Appellant’s new arguments in the Reply Brief are untimely, as
Appellant has not demonstrated any “good cause” for the belated
presentation. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (“Any argument raised in the
reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to
an argument raised in the examiner's answer, including any designated new
ground of rejection, will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the
present appeal, unless good cause is shown.”); In re Google Tech. Holdings
LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“We interpret the Patent Office to
Appeal 2020-003644
Application 14/552,729

11
be arguing that Google’s failure to raise its lexicography arguments,
inadvertent or not, compels a finding of forfeiture. We agree.”). In
particular, the Examiner has provided the rationale for combining the
references in the Final Action (Final Act. 5), and Appellant does not dispute
that rationale in the Appeal Brief. Further, the Examiner’s Answer does not
modify the previously presented rationale. As a result, Appellant’s new
arguments are untimely and forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); Google
Tech. Holdings, 980 F.3d at 863.
In any event, Appellant’s untimely arguments are unpersuasive.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held “[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Contrary to Appellant’s argument about the “the
specific motivation” (Reply Br. 4), “[i]f the claim extends to what is
obvious, it is invalid under § 103” and “the analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418–19.
The Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with a rational
underpinning as to why one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to
combine the teachings of Konig and Srinivas. See Final Act. 5. In
particular, the Examiner finds:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
modify the system taught by Konig with the teachings of
Srinivas to establish a mechanism to distribute communications
to agent's with a proven track record of efficiently resolving
Appeal 2020-003644
Application 14/552,729

12
customer issues in an effort to improve customer satisfaction as
well as customer retention.

Id. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 424 (“[t]he proper question to have asked was
whether a . . . designer of ordinary skill . . . would have seen a benefit to
upgrading Asano with a [feature from the secondary reference]”).
Appellant does not persuasively show why such reasoning is
incorrect. In particular, Appellant’s argument that Srinivas teaches “the
calculation of a single estimated response time for handling a call, [which] is
unrelated to individual calculations for each of a plurality of agents” (Reply
Br. 4) plainly contradicts Srinivas’ teachings. See Srinivas ¶ 24
(“[e]xamples of such statistics may include . . . average amount of calls for a
particular agent . . . and/or other parameters known to those skilled in the
art”); Srinivas ¶ 22 (explaining the call center has multiple agents).
The Examiner’s findings and conclusion are reasonable because the
skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together
like pieces of a puzzle,” as the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21. Appellant does not
present adequate evidence that the resulting arrangements would have been
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or
“represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550
U.S. at 418–19).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that applying Srinivas’
features in the Konig system would have predictably used prior art elements
according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Appeal 2020-003644
Application 14/552,729

13
To the extent Appellant is arguing Srinivas needs to teach claim
limitations already taught by Konig, that argument is unpersuasive for the
reasons discussed above.
Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1.
In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to
evaluate whether at least independent claims 1, 10, and 18 are directed to
patent ineligible subject matter, such as mental processes that a person can
perform. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“All of claim 3’s method steps can be performed
in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. . . . Such a
method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract
idea and is not patent-eligible under § 101.”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor
Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e continue to
‘treat[ ] analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or
by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes
within the abstract-idea category.’” (citation omitted)).

Claims 2–20
Appellants argues independent claims 10 and 18 are allowable for the
same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. See Appeal Br. 13–
14. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1,
we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 10
and 18.

Appeal 2020-003644
Application 14/552,729

14
We also sustain the obviousness rejections of corresponding
dependent claims 2–9, 11–17, 19, and 20, as Appellant does not advance
separate substantive arguments about those claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9–15,
17–20
103 Konig, Srinivas 1–7, 9–15,
17–20

8, 16 103 Konig, Srinivas,
Mengshoel
8, 16
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)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED