Ex Parte Flockhart et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 6, 2013

10673105 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 4
___________ 5
6
Ex parte ANDREW D. FLOCKHART, LARRY J. ROYBAL, 7
and ROBERT C. STEINER 8
___________ 9
10
Appeal 2011-005442 11
Application 10/673,105 12
Technology Center 3600 13
___________ 14
15
16
Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and 17
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. 18
19
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 20
21
22
DECISION ON APPEAL 23
Appeal 2011-005442
Application 10/673,105

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 1

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed September 7, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
October 18, 2010).
Andrew D. Flockhart, Larry J. Roybal, and Robert C. Steiner 2
(Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 3
55-76, 78-88, and 90-100, the only claims pending in the application on 4
appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 5
The Appellants invented a way of using contact centers for servicing 6
work such as contacts, particularly during periods of peak volume. 7
(Specification, 1:11-13). 8
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 9
exemplary claim 55, which is reproduced below [some paragraphing added]. 10
55. A method, comprising: 11
(m) a contact center 6 providing a first queue 38 to service work 12
items, 13
wherein the work items in the first queue 38 are serviced 14
by a first set of resources 14 15
comprising a plurality of members; 16
(n) a processor receiving 17
a first work item 18
and 19
a second work item 20
into the first queue 38; 21
(o) the processor monitoring the first queue 38 for [:] 22
a plurality of wait times associated with enqueued work 23
items in the first queue 38, 24
an occupancy of the first queue 38, 25
a number of available members of the first set of 26
resources 14 to service enqueued work items in the first 27
queue 38, 28
the types of enqueued contacts in the first queue 38, 29
the priorities of enqueued contacts in the first queue 38, 30
Appeal 2011-005442
Application 10/673,105

3
and 1
anticipated workload levels for the members of the first 2
set of resources 14; 3
(p) based on the results of the monitoring step, 4
the processor determining that the first enqueued work 5
item, 6
in the first queue 38, 7
cannot be serviced 8
by the first set of resources 14; 9
(q) based on the results of the monitoring step, 10
the processor determining that the first enqueued work 11
item, 12
in the first queue 38, 13
must be put up for bid 14
to meet 15
a predetermined business policy, 16
objective, 17
or 18
goal 19
for a type of contact 20
corresponding to the first enqueued work 21
item; 22
(r) based on the results of the monitoring step, 23
the processor determining that the second enqueued work 24
item, 25
in the first queue 38, 26
can be serviced by the first set of resources 14 to meet 27
a predetermined business policy, 28
objective, 29
or 30
goal 31
for a type of contact 32
corresponding to the second enqueued work item; 33
(s) the processor determining the times to initiate and complete 34
the bidding process, 35
wherein the time is a function of 36
an estimation of when the predetermined business 37
policy, objective, or goal will be violated 38
in the absence of servicing of the first work item; 39
Appeal 2011-005442
Application 10/673,105

4
(t) the processor requesting a first member and a second 1
member 2
of a second set of resources 100 3
to submit a bid to service the first work item; 4
(u) the processor receiving 5
a first bid from the first member 6
and 7
a second bid from the second member 8
to service the first work item; 9
(v) the processor comparing the first bid and second bid; 10
(w) based on the comparison, 11
the processor selecting the first bid; 12
and 13
(x) the processor assigning the first work item 14
to the first member 15
for servicing. 16
17
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 18
Borissov US 2002/0029213 Al Mar. 7, 2002
Philonenko US 2002/0131399 Al Sep. 19, 2002
Faber US 6,519,570 B1 Feb. 11, 2003
Shaffer US 6,546,087 B2 Apr. 8, 2003
British 19
Telecommunications EP 1 246 097 A1 Oct. 2, 2002 20
21
Joan Morris et al., Sardine: Dynamic Seller Strategies in an Auction 22
Marketplace, EC 'OO, October 17-20, 2000, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 23
(“Official Notice”) 24
25
Brian Spraetz, Out with the new, in with the old: A look at scheduling 26
alternatives, Customer Inter@ction Solutions; p. 48, ProQuest Central, 27
Nov. 2001 28
29
Claims 55-76, 78-88 and 89-100 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 30
second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the 31
invention. 32
Appeal 2011-005442
Application 10/673,105

5
Claims 55, 57-64, 67, 71, 74-76, 90-91, 95, and 98-100 stand rejected 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over British Telecommunications, 2
Philonenko, and Official Notice. 3
Claims 56, 78-80, 83, and 86-88 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 4
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over British Telecommunications, Philonenko, 5
Official Notice, and Shaffer. 6
Claims 65-66, 72-73, 92, and 96-97 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 7
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over British Telecommunications, Philonenko, 8
Official Notice, and Borissov. 9
Claim 68 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 10
over British Telecommunications, Philonenko, Official Notice, and Spraetz. 11
Claims 69, 70, 93, and 94 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 12
unpatentable over British Telecommunications, Philonenko, Official Notice, 13
and Faber. 14
Claims 80, 84, and 85 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 15
unpatentable over British Telecommunications, Philonenko, Official Notice, 16
Shaffer, and Borissov. 17
Claims 81 and 82 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 18
unpatentable over British Telecommunications, Philonenko, Official Notice, 19
Shaffer, and Faber. 20
ISSUES 21
The Appellants do not rebut the finding of lack of antecedent basis in 22
the indefiniteness rejection. The issues of obviousness turn primarily on 23
whether the references describe the limitations in a process whose steps are 24
largely those of conventional service queue disciplines and job bid auctions. 25
Appeal 2011-005442
Application 10/673,105

6
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 1
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 2
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 3
Facts Related to the Prior Art 4
British Telecommunications 5
01. British Telecommunications is directed to a work allocation 6
system, particularly but not exclusively to a market based and 7
preference learning work allocation system. British 8
Telecommunications, para. [0001]. 9
02. Figure 4 follows the allocation of a work item from its 10
generation through to its completion. The work item is generated 11
by a customer 32 or the environment 33 (step s1) and acquired by 12
the work item handler (step s2). The work item handler passes the 13
item to the OSS agent 31 (step s3). The OSS agent 31 prices the 14
work item using a cost function that reflects its business priorities, 15
for example the urgency of the work with respect to penalty 16
clauses, or the value of the customer according to some model 17
(step s4). For example, the OSS agent 31 will price urgent work 18
low, so that it is easier for the mediator agents 28, 29 to buy it. 19
The OSS agent 31 then offers the work item at the determined 20
price to the mediator agents 28, 29 for each of the workgroups 21
(step s5). The mediator agent 28,29 for each workgroup receives 22
the offer (step s6) and uses a cost function that reflects its local 23
business priorities, and the preferences of its workgroup, to 24
determine a price at which it is prepared to bid for the work (step 25
s7). For example, the mediator agent makes a prediction as to 26
Appeal 2011-005442
Application 10/673,105

7
whether it will be able to allocate the work to the workers based 1
on its knowledge of the work item being offered as against the 2
workers' work preferences. The prediction is based on the output 3
from a workgroup classifier algorithm, which will be explained in 4
detail below. At the same time, the mediator agent 28, 29 5
calculates whether the allocation of the work will meet its local 6
business priorities, for example targets for total work time for its 7
workgroup and therefore whether it should make a bid at all (step 8
s8). As a result of the calculation, the mediator agent 28, 29 for 9
the workgroup may decide not to bid for the work (step s8), but 10
instead waits for the next offer on the next available work item 11
(step s6). If the mediator agent 28, 29 decides that its local 12
business priorities will be met, it makes a bid for the work item 13
(step s9). The OSS agent 31 receives bids from all workgroups 14
and determines how many bids it has received for the work item 15
(step s10). If only one mediator agent makes a bid (step s11) that 16
bid is accepted by the OSS agent 31 (step s12). If more than one 17
mediator agent makes a bid (step s11), the OSS agent 31 accepts 18
the bid at the highest price (step s13). For example, the OSS 19
agent 31 provides a work item with a relatively high price P, 20
indicating that the work item is categorized as desirable. The 21
mediator agent 28 for the first workgroup 20 determines that it can 22
allocate the work item to its workers, but its workgroup is 23
relatively busy and cannot do the work urgently. It is therefore 24
prepared to offer P for the work item. The mediator agent 29 for 25
the second workgroup 21 also determines that it can allocate the 26
Appeal 2011-005442
Application 10/673,105

8
work item to its workers, who are not very busy, so that the work 1
item will assist the workgroup in reaching its targets. The second 2
mediator agent 29 is therefore prepared to offer P+ 10 for the 3
work item. In this case, the OSS agent 31 accepts the offer of P+ 4
10 from the second mediator agent 29 and allocates the work item 5
to it. British Telecommunications, para. [0014]. 6
Philonenko 7
03. Philonenko is directed to telephony including multimedia 8
communications with particular application to methods for call 9
priority assignment, distribution, and override for call distributing 10
and routing functions associated with incoming calls from 11
multiple service control points (SCP's) to a communication center. 12
The methods pertain more particularly to assigning priority states 13
to calls based on user input of value contribution. Philonenko, 14
para. [0002]. 15
04. Philonenko uses a routing system for routing communication 16
events comprising at least one data queue for queuing incoming 17
events, at least one interaction mechanism for enabling bi-18
directional communication with authors of events in queue, and a 19
processor for processing events in queue according to routing 20
rules. Philonenko, para.. [0021]. 21
05. In some cases the data queue has at least two levels of priority. 22
Also, processing of queued events may be performed by a CTI 23
processor. Philonenko, para.. [0027]. 24
06. The CTI application monitors switch 21 for incoming calls to a 25
routing or call-distribution point. The status of telephones at 26
Appeal 2011-005442
Application 10/673,105

9
agent stations is also monitored, so the application has access to 1
real-time information as to which logged-in agents are busy on a 2
call and which are not. The application operates to command 3
switch 21 to distribute calls on a FIFO basis to logged-in available 4
agents. Philonenko, para. [0039]. 5
07. An example is shown in FIG. 3. Agent group 71 comprises 6
agents 1-4. Agent 1 is an agent in training and can only accept 7
calls having a priority of [level 5] or less. The rules example 8
illustrated with respect to the active state of agent 1 is indicative 9
of a wide variety of limitations or conditions that can be 10
programmed into the system via a system administrator, or 11
configured by agent supervisor(s). When agent 1 logged-on to the 12
system, his status was made available to reporting software via a 13
database so that no calls above level 5 would be routed to that 14
agent. The active states of agents 1-4 of agent group 71 are shown 15
as reported to routing applications during the instance of 16
placement of call 1. It will be apparent to one with skill in the art 17
that availability status of agents such as agents 1-4 will change in 18
real time as calls are placed. Agent 2 is available, but does not 19
have a particular skill match required by call 1 such as being able 20
to speak Spanish, etc. Agent 4 is reported busy answering E-mails 21
and cannot be interrupted unless a call has a priority level of 9 or 22
above. Agent 4 could receive call 1 except for a fact that agent 3 23
is determined available and is, in fact, the next available agent for 24
call 1. Therefore call 1 is routed to agent 3. Assume call 2 25
requires a Spanish-speaking agent and is now being placed and 26
Appeal 2011-005442
Application 10/673,105

10
that agent 3 is now reported busy with call 1 (last placed call) with 1
the status of agents 1, 2, and 4 being unchanged. In this instance, 2
call 2 (now call 1) would be routed to agent 4. The rules example 3
illustrated with respect to agent 4 is indicative of status reporting 4
capability with regards to multiple sub-states with voice calls 5
being a main state of agent availability. Philonenko para. [0054]-6
[0055]. 7
8
ANALYSIS 9
Claims 55-76, 78-88 and 89-100 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second 10
paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the 11
invention. 12
We are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that Appellants 13
clarified the meaning of the claims. Examiner essentially asked for 14
clarification in the rejection. 15
Appellants did not argue the Examiner’s second basis of rejection of 16
lack of antecedent basis of the types of enqueued contacts, the priorities of 17
enqueued contacts and the times as to independent claims 55, 78, and 90, 18
and therefore the claims depending from them. We therefore summarily 19
affirm the rejection on that basis for lack of argument. 20
21
Claims 55-76, 78-88 and 89-100 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 22
unpatentable over British Telecommunications, Philonenko, and Official 23
Notice, plus other references. 24
Initially we find that only claim 55 is argued and although that claim 25
is lengthy and detailed, most of the detail simply describes known steps in 26
service queue processing and auctions. That is, most of the detail in steps 27
Appeal 2011-005442
Application 10/673,105

11
(m)-(r) are those in generalized service queues, with the additional details of 1
applying business policies for the queue servicing policy. Most of the detail 2
in steps (s)-(x) are steps in generalized job bid auctions, with the additional 3
details of the auction being for work assignments on queued items. 4
We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that various claim 5
limitations are not described by the references applied. We adopt the 6
Examiner’s findings of facts and analysis from Answer 5-40 and 42-46, 7
except for the response to argument 1 at Ans. 42 which relates to the 8
indefiniteness rejection, and reach similar legal conclusions. In particular, 9
we agree with the Examiner that most of the Appellants’ arguments either 10
conflate the art that is applied or argue limitations not in the claims as 11
detailed by the Examiner at Ans. 42-46. 12
There is one argument that does correctly identify the reference the 13
Examiner used, that being that Philonenko fails to describe limitation (o) of 14
monitoring 6 different items. App. Br. 11. Aside from the simple fact that 15
again these 6 items are among the standard criteria employed in queuing 16
disciplines, the Examiner showed that the six are described, either explicitly 17
or implicitly in Philonenko. 18
Philonenko does teach all the elements that the processor 19
monitors in ¶ 0039: "[t]he CTI application monitors switch 21 20
for incoming calls to a routing or call distribution point. The 21
status of telephones at agent stations is also monitored" (e.g., a 22
number of available members), "so the application has access to 23
real-time information as to which logged-in agents are busy on 24
a call and which are not" (e.g., an occupancy of a selected 25
queue, a number of available members), ¶ 0055 which teaches a 26
type of enqueued contact e.g., call 2 requires a Spanish-27
speaking agent, ¶ 0111 which teaches that "[t]his concept may 28
be practiced to help load balance busy agents without losing 29
clients due to long waiting periods (e.g., a plurality of wait 30
Appeal 2011-005442
Application 10/673,105

12
times of selected enqueued work items) and see also figures 3 1
and 4 which illustrates the priorities of enqueued contacts 2
"priority assignment" and anticipated work load levels "Calls 3
Waiting Queue", see also Abstract: "one data queue for queuing 4
incoming events". 5
6
Ans. 42-43. 7
As to the arguments that certain steps require determination to perform 8
the step prior to performance, we find that any data processing driven 9
process necessarily requires a determination to perform every step prior to 10
execution, if only by the instruction processor. 11
12
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 13
The rejection of claims 55-76, 78-88 and 89-100 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 14
second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the 15
invention is proper. 16
The rejection of claims 55, 57-64, 67, 71, 74-76, 90-91, 95, and 98-100 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over British Telecommunications, 18
Philonenko, and Official Notice is proper. 19
The rejection of claims 56, 78-80, 83, and 86-88 under 35 U.S.C. 20
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over British Telecommunications, Philonenko, 21
Official Notice, and Shaffer is proper. 22
The rejection of claims 65-66, 72-73, 92, and 96-97 under 35 U.S.C. 23
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over British Telecommunications, Philonenko, 24
Official Notice, and Borissov is proper. 25
The rejection of claim 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 26
British Telecommunications, Philonenko, Official Notice, and Spraetz is 27
proper. 28
Appeal 2011-005442
Application 10/673,105

13
The rejection of claims 69, 70, 93, and 94 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 1
unpatentable over British Telecommunications, Philonenko, Official Notice, 2
and Faber is proper. 3
The rejection of claims 80, 84, and 85 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 4
unpatentable over British Telecommunications, Philonenko, Official Notice, 5
Shaffer, and Borissov is proper. 6
The rejection of claims 81 and 82 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 7
unpatentable over British Telecommunications, Philonenko, Official Notice, 8
Shaffer, and Faber is proper. 9
10
DECISION 11
The rejection of claims 55-76, 78-88, and 90-100 is affirmed. 12
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this 13
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 14
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). 15
16
AFFIRMED 17
18
19
Klh 20