Ex Parte Flockhart et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 7, 2016

12882970 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/882,970 09/15/2010
48500 7590 07111/2016
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.
4366-568 3926
EXAMINER
MAUNG, THOMAS H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2656
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/11/2016 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
Appeal2015-000496
Application 12/882,970
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-19, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. 1 Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon
rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent
form. (Final Act. 2.) Claim 20 is allowed. (Id.) We have jurisdiction over
the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 In the Appeal Brief, Appellants identify Avaya Inc. as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal2015-000496
Application 12/882,970
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to a queueless contact center.
(Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method, comprising:
determining that an element in a contact center has become
available for assignment;
determining a search criteria associated with processing
requirements or capabilities of the element;
scanning a bitmap for the search criteria to identify
counter-elements in the contact center that are qualified to be
assigned to the element, wherein the counter-elements being
scanned comprise assigned counter-elements and unassigned
counter-elements; and
based on the scanning, determining a set of counter-
elements that are qualified to be assigned to the element.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-8 and 10-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Werth et al. (US 2010/0138270 Al, pub.
June 3, 2010) ("Werth") and Inamdar (US 2006/0093124 Al, pub. May 4,
2006). (Final Act. 3-11.)
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issues: 2
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 13, 2014) ("App. Br.");
2
Appeal2015-000496
Application 12/882,970
Issue One: Whether the combination of Werth and Inamdar teaches or
suggests the independent claim 1 limitation, "wherein the counter-elements
being scanned comprise assigned counter-elements and unassigned counter-
elements," and the similar limitations recited in independent claims 10 and
18. (App. Br. 6-8.)
Issue Two: Whether the combination of Werth and Inamdar teaches or
suggests the claim 5 limitation, "wherein every resource in the contact center
is represented in the resource pool and resource bitmap." (App. Br. 8-10.)
Issue Three: Whether the combination of Werth and Inamdar teaches
or suggests the claim 6 limitation, "wherein a qualification of a resource is
analyzed in prior to analyzing an availability of a resource, and wherein
unqualified resources are not analyzed for availability." (App. Br. 10-11.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants'
arguments, we adopt as our own ( 1) the pertinent findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 3-11) and (2) the corresponding reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 11-
18). We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner
and emphasize the following.
the Reply Brief (filed Oct. 6, 2014) ("Reply Br."); the Final Office Action
(mailed Oct. 3, 2013) ("Final Act."); and the Examiner's Answer (mailed
Aug. 6, 2014) ("Ans.") for the respective details.
3
Appeal2015-000496
Application 12/882,970
Issue One
In rejecting the independent claims, the Examiner relies on the
disclosure in Werth of providing technical support resources in which a
centralized service receives work requests and assigns them to a work queue
based in part on availability and capabilities of technicians. (Final Act. 3--4;
Werth Abstract, i-fi-f 14, 41, 45--46.) The Examiner also relies on the
disclosure in Inamdar of a multimedia call center that uses a bitmap
indicating eligible agents. (Final Act. 4--5; Inamdar Abstract, i-fi-f 17, 18, 39,
40.)
Appellants argue neither Werth nor Inamdar teaches or suggests
scanning both assigned and unassigned resources (i.e., "counter-elements.")
(App. Br. 6-8.) However, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding
Werth teaches this limitation, given, for example, the disclosure in Werth:
"The [system] tracks real-time which technicians are available and which
technicians are currently performing a service .... [T]he capabilities 210 of
a remote technician may include ... availability . . . . [The system] matches
the service level attributes 205 with the capabilities 210 of the technicians
115." (Werth i-fi-141, 45, 46; see Ans. 12, 13.)
In reply, Appellants argue, inter alia:
[T]racking information does not show or suggest scanning and
identifying items because tracking is an action that is distinct
from scanning and identifying specified items in a certain set.
(Rep. Br. 3.) This argument could have been raised in the opening brief and
is therefore untimely. Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI
2010); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). In any event, we are not persuaded by
this argument.
4
Appeal2015-000496
Application 12/882,970
Issue Two
Appellants argue Werth and Inamdar do not teach or suggest "every
resource in the contact center is represented in the resource pool and
resource bitmap," based on the same argument raised for the independent
claims-neither reference discloses scanning assigned resources. (App. Br.
8-10.) This argument is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
(Ans. 15.)
Issue Three
With respect to claim 6, in addition to repeating the arguments with
respect to the independent claims, which are not persuasive, Appellants
argue Werth does not teach or suggest that qualification of a resource is
analyzed prior to analyzing availability. (App. Br. 10-11.) However, we are
not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding Werth teaches or suggests this
limitation, given the disclosure in Werth, "if a suited technician satisfying
the essential capability is not available, the work request 201 is put on hold
till a suited technician becomes available." (Werth i-f 56; see Ans. 17-18.)
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the obviousness rejection
of claims 1, 5, 6, 10, and 18 over Werth and Inamdar. We also sustain the
obviousness rejections of claims 2--4, 7, 8, 11-17, and 19 over Werth and
Inamdar, which rejections are not argued separately with particularity.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-8 and 10-19.
5
Appeal2015-000496
Application 12/882,970
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6