Ex Parte Cohen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 29, 2004

09219995 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 29, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte RICHARD ALLEN COHEN and ROBIN H. ROSTER
____________
Appeal No. 2003-0977
Application No. 09/219,995
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before SMITH, FLEMING, and MACDONALD, Administrative Patent
Judges.
MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1-8, 11-19, and 22-24. Claims 9, 10, 20, and 21 are
objected to as being dependent on rejected claims, but are
indicated as allowable if rewritten in independent form including
all the limitations of the claims from which they depend.
Appeal No. 2003-0977
Application No. 09/219,995
2
Related Issue
We note that the oath lists the second inventor as "Robin H.
Foster" and his residence as "Little Silver" in the state of "New
Jersey." There has been a transcription error on the part of the
Office in transferring this data into the rest of the record
where the inventor and residence are listed as "Robin H. Roster"
of the town of "Foster" in the state of "Massachusetts." The
Examiner is instructed to have these errors corrected
accordingly.
Invention
Appellants' invention relates to methods and apparatus for
implementing a selection process in a call processing system. A
call selection process in a call center is configured to utilize
a continuum of skill levels, in one or more categories, for a
given multi-skill agent. Categories of levels are associated
with skills supported by each agent, with each of the categories
including a level, e.g., a numerical value for each of the
skills. The levels are used in a call selection computation that
determines which of a number of waiting calls should be delivered
to the agent. See Appellants' specification at page 2, lines 18-
24.
Appeal No. 2003-0977
Application No. 09/219,995
1 Appellants filed an appeal brief on June 25, 2002. Appellants
filed a reply brief on November 4, 2002. The Examiner mailed out
an Examiner's Answer on August 27, 2002.
3
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention and is
reproduced as follows:
1. A method of controlling a selection process for
communications in a call center, the method comprising the steps
of:
associating at least one category of levels with a plurality
of skills supported by a given agent in the call center, the
category including a level for each of at least a subset of the
plurality of skills; and
selecting a communication for handling by the agent based at
least in part on a computation involving at least one of the
levels.
References
The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:
Bogart et al. (Bogart) 6,163,607 Dec. 19, 2000
(filed Nov. 3, 1998)
Rejections At Issue
Claims 1-8, 11-19, and 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being anticipated by Bogart.
Throughout our opinion, we make references to the
Appellants' briefs, and to the Examiner's Answer for the
respective details thereof.1
Appeal No. 2003-0977
Application No. 09/219,995
4
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner's rejections and the arguments of the
Appellants and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we
reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8, 11-19, and 22-24
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
I. Whether the Rejection of Claims 1-8, 11-19, and 22-24
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Bogart does not fully meet the invention
as recited in claims 1-8, 11-19, and 22-24. Accordingly, we
reverse.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants argue,
"'category of levels' . . . is not a category of skills" and "the
category of levels is not a 'score'". Rather, "the category of
levels is a category of numerical values or other levels
associated with a plurality of skills." (Appellants' brief, page
Appeal No. 2003-0977
Application No. 09/219,995
5
4, lines 1-5). Appellants then conclude, "the Examiner is
incorrect in stating that the Bogart reference anticipates
associating a category of levels, e.g., numerical values, with a
plurality of skills supported by a given agent." Although we
agree with the initial steps of Appellants' analysis, we do not
find that it is sufficient, standing alone, to reach Appellants'
conclusion. Therefore, our analysis follows below.
Our reviewing court states in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) that "claims must be
interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow." Our
reviewing court further states, "[t]he terms used in the claims
bear a 'heavy presumption' that they mean what they say and have
the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to those words by
persons skilled in the relevant art." Texas Digital Sys. Inc v.
Telegenix Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1817 (Fed.
Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1058 (2003).
Upon our review of Appellants' specification, we fail to
find any definition of the term "category" that is different from
the ordinary meaning. We find the ordinary meaning of the term
"category" is best found in the dictionary. We note that the
definition most suitable for "category" is "a specifically
Appeal No. 2003-0977
Application No. 09/219,995
2 Dictionary.com; WordNet 1.6, copyright 1997 Princeton
University. Copy provided to Appellants.
3 Dictionary.com; WordNet 1.6, copyright 1997 Princeton
University. Copy provided to Appellants.
4 The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, 1982,
page 135. Copy provided to Appellants.
6
defined division in a system of classification; a class."2 We in
turn find the ordinary meaning of the term "class" is best found
in the dictionary. We note that the definition most suitable for
"class" is "a set, collection, group, or configuration containing
members regarded as having certain attributes or traits in
common."3
Further, upon our review of Appellants' specification, we
fail to find any definition of the term "associating" that is
different from the ordinary meaning. We find the ordinary
meaning of the term "associating" is best found in the
dictionary. We note that the definition most suitable for
"associating" is "to bring into company with another; to join in
a relationship."4
Now the question before us is, what does Bogart teach? To
answer this question we find the following facts:
1) Bogart at line 22 of column 5 teaches, "a service profile
400 for skill X for agent Z.'
2) Bogart at lines 23-24 of column 5 teaches, "[a] service
profile is a set of scores for a set of metrics."
Appeal No. 2003-0977
Application No. 09/219,995
7
3) Bogart teaches at figure 4 that an agent may have a
plurality of skills with each skill having a service
profile. See items 500 and 502.
4) Bogart at lines 27-41 of column 6 teaches, retrieving
plural service profiles, combining the score of each service
profile according to a formula, and selecting the best
combined score.
Claim 1 at line 3 recites, "associating at least one
category of levels with a plurality of skills supported by a
given agent." Bogart at 3) above teaches the limitation of a
plurality of skills supported by a given agent. Bogart at 1) and
2) above teaches that each skill has a set of metrics for each
skill. Bogart at 2) above teaches that each metric has a level
(a score). We find that one of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that a metric is an assigned classification of a score.
We also find that one of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that each service profile uses the same set of metrics
although some scores may be zero for a given skill.
Up to this point our analysis shows that Bogart teaches all
aspects of the cited limitation of claim 1, except the act of
"associating" the at least "one category of levels." We find
that Bogart does not teach the act of "associating" the at least
one category of levels as recited in claim 1, i.e., Bogart does
not teach bringing the levels of plural skills together in a
relationship.
Appeal No. 2003-0977
Application No. 09/219,995
8
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we will not
sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have not sustained
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of claims 1-8, 11-19, and 22-
24.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ALLEN R. MACDONALD )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ARM/lbg
Appeal No. 2003-0977
Application No. 09/219,995
9
JOSEPH B. RYAN
RYAN MASON & LEWIS
90 FOREST AVENUE
LOCUST VALLEY, NY 11560