Ex Parte Flockhart et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 16, 201612882977 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/882,977 09/15/2010 48500 7590 06/20/2016 SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. 1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200 DENVER, CO 80202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Andrew D. Flockhart 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. 4366-569 3935 EXAMINER MAUNG, THOMAS H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2656 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/20/2016 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): cjacquet@sheridanross.com pair_Avaya@firsttofile.com edocket@sheridanross.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDREW D. FLOCKHART and ROBERT C. STEINER Appeal2014-009764 Application 12/882,977 Technology Center 2600 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and JOHN D. HAMANN Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 22. Final Act. 1. We affirm. INVENTION The invention is directed to a contact center. See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reproduced below: 1. A method, comprising: determining that a work item in a contact center has become available for assignment to a resource in a resource pool, wherein the resource pool comprises assigned resources and unassigned resources; Appeal2014-009764 Application 12/882,977 determining an attribute combination associated with processing requirements of the work item; generating a resource data structure that indicates whether each resource in the resource pool in the contact center comprises the ability to fulfill the attribute combination associated with processing requirements of the work item; scanning the resource data structure; and based on the scanning, determining a set of qualified resources which are eligible to be assigned to the work item. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 21under35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Werth (US 2010/0138270 Al, published June 3, 2010). Final Act. 3---6. 1 The Examiner rejected claims 2 through 7, 9, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Werth and Inamdar (US 2006/0093124 Al, published May 4, 2006). Final Act. 6-10. The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Werth, Inamdar, and Lam (US 7,689,630 Bl, issued Mar. 30, 2010). Final Act. 11. The Examiner rejected claims 10, 11, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Werth and Conway (US 2008/0260122 Al, published Oct. 23, 2008). Final Act. 11-15. 1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated May 5, 2014, the Reply Brief dated September 15, 2014, the Final Office Action mailed September 27, 2013 ("Final Act."), and the Examiner's Answer mailed on July 14, 2014. 2 Appeal2014-009764 Application 12/882,977 The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Werth, Conway, and Lam. Final Act. 15. The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Werth, Conway, and Inamdar. Final Act. 16-17. The Examiner rejected claims 17 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Werth and Schoeneberger (US 7,382,773 B2, issued June 3, 2008). Final Act. 17-20. The Examiner rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Werth, Schoeneberger, and Conway. Final Act. 20-22. The Examiner rejected claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Werth, Schoeneberger, Conway, and Lam. Final Act. 22- 23. ISSUES Appellants' arguments directed to the Examiner's anticipation rejection on pages 7 through 9 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2 through 7 of the Reply Brief, present us with the following issues: 1) Did the Examiner err in finding Werth discloses a resource pool having assigned and unassigned resources? 2) Did the Examiner err in finding Werth discloses generating a resource data structure indicating whether each resource has the ability to fulfill attributes associated with processing requirements of the work item? 3) Did the Examiner err in finding Werth discloses scanning the resource data structure? 3 Appeal2014-009764 Application 12/882,977 4) Did the Examiner err in finding Werth discloses determining a set of qualified resources which are eligible to be assigned to the work item? ANALYSIS Anticipation Rejection Appellants' argument directed to the first issue asserts that Werth is silent regarding a resource pool that includes assigned resources and unassigned resources. App. Br. 7. Appellants' reasoning focuses on Werth's use of queues and states: Assigning resources using queues fails to disclose a resource pool having assigned and unassigned resources because when a work item is assigned to a resource from a queue (assuming arguendo that the claimed resources may be equated to resources in a contact center), the assigned resource is removed from the queue and is no longer considered with the resources needing assignment that are still in the queue. App. Br. 7. The Examiner, in response to Appellants' arguments, finds that Werth discloses considering both assigned and unassigned resources because Werth teaches matching a technician's capabilities to the needs of the job and Werth tracks whether the technicians are available. Answer 23-27 (citing paras. 41 and 45 to show both assigned and unassigned technicians are considered). We have reviewed the Examiner's findings and the disclosures of Werth cited by the Examiner and concur with the Examiner. We note the Examiner appears to be relying on the group of technicians as the pool of assigned and unassigned resources. See Werth Abstract and Claim 1. As such Appellants' arguments directed to the queues of jobs is misplaced. 4 Appeal2014-009764 Application 12/882,977 Appellants' arguments directed to the second through fourth issue are premised upon the assertion that Werth does not consider a pool of assigned and unassigned resources. Accordingly, the arguments directed to these issues have similarly not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's anticipation rejection and we sustain the Rejection. Obviousness Rejections Appellants' arguments directed to claims 2 through 7, 9, and 22 assert that the obviousness rejection is in error for the same reasons as discussed with respect to the rejection of claim 1, and that the teachings of the additional reference used in the rejection do not make up for the deficiency in the anticipation rejection. Ans. 10. Appellants present similar arguments directed to claims 8, and 10 through 20, on pages 11 through 18 of the Appeal Brief. As discussed above, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the anticipation rejection; accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the obviousness rejection for the same reasons. Appellants additionally cite several limitations of claims 2 through 7, 9 and 22 and assert that the limitations are not taught by the references. App. Br. 11. Appellants provide similar statements directed to claims 8, and 10 through 20. Such statements are not separate arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) ("A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim."); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the 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 elements were not found in the 5 Appeal2014-009764 Application 12/882,977 prior art."). Thus, we are not presented with additional issues with respect to claims 2 through 20, and 22 and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims for the same reasons as claim 1. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 22. 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation