Ex Parte Bourke et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 10, 2016

12725127 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121725, 127 03/16/2010
75158 7590 02/12/2016
Verint Systems, Inc,
Meunier Carlin & Curfman, LLC
999 Peachtree Street NE
Suite 1300
Atlanta, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Bourke
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10171-376US2 8605
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, MINH CHAU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2459
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/12/2016 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):
laaronson@mcciplaw.com
KCarroll@mcciplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL BOURKE, JASON FAMA, and GAL JOSEFSBERG
Appeal2014-000228
Application 12/725, 127
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LARRY J. HUME, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1 through 20.
We affirm.
INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to a method for allocating
contact center resources among geographically distributed sub-centers of an
enterprise comprising a processing system. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative
of the invention and reproduced below:
Appeal2014-000228
Application 12/725, 127
1. A method of allocating contact center resources among
geographically distributed sub-centers of an enterprise, the
method comprising:
in an instruction execution system, creating a distributed
campaign for the enterprise, wherein the distributed campaign
includes two or more of the geographically distributed sub-
centers, and wherein each of the two or more geographically
distributed sub-centers includes at least one of the contact center
resources;
in the instruction execution system, creating a workload
forecast of evens for the distributed campaign, wherein, in
creating the workload forecast, the two or more geographically
distributed sub-centers are treated as being co-located in a virtual
contact center;
in the instruction execution system, executing a discrete
event-based simulation utilizing the virtual contact center to
allocate the events to the contact center resources, wherein, in
executing the discrete event-based simulation the contact center
resources are treated as being co-located in the virtual contact
center: and
in the instruction execution system, determining
recommended allocations of the contact center resources among
the two or more geographically distributed sub-centers based on
a relative distribution of the events allocated to the contact center
resources at each of the two or more geographically distributed
sub-centers.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1through20 based upon non-
statutory obviousness double patenting over claims 1 through 20 of US
Patent 7,734,783. Answer 5---6. 1
1 Throughout this Opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 27,
2013) ("Appeal Br."), Reply Brief (filed Sept 18, 2013) ("Reply Br.), and
the Examiner's Answer (mailed July 18, 2013) ("Ans.").
2
Appeal2014-000228
Application 12/725, 127
The Examiner has rejected claims l through 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( e) as anticipated by Whitman (US 7,406,171 B2; iss. July 29, 2008).
Answer 7-12.
ANALYSIS
Appellants' arguments, in the Briefs, do not address the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1 through 20 based upon double patenting and thus, have
not identified an error in the rejection for us to review. Accordingly, we pro
forma sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 20 based upon obviousness-
type double patenting.
With respect to the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1
through 20, Appellants' arguments present several issues for us to consider.
App Br. 6-8. The dispositive issue presented by these arguments is: Did the
Examiner err in finding Whitman discloses performing a discrete event-
based simulation utilizing a virtual contact center to allocate events to the
contact center resources, as recited in independent claims 1, 11, and 20?
In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner finds Whitman
teaches a force management system which determines tours (shifts or time
spans agents are scheduled to work), based upon desired agent occupancy,
historical information and forecast call statistics. Answer 13-14 (citing
Whitman, col. 7, line 51 through col. 8, line 67). While we concur with the
Examiner's findings that Whitman teaches determining agent tours based
upon forecast historical information, as Appellants argue, the Examiner has
not shown Whitman discloses performing a simulation as recited in each of
independent claims 1, 11 and 20.
3
Appeal2014-000228
Application 12/725, 127
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 20 under
non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting
We do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1
through 20.
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1through20. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
4