Ex Parte Hymes et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 15, 2011

10633250 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 15, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte CHARLES HYMES, JUSTIN BROUGHTON,
KEVIN McPARTLAN, and CHANDRA PISUPATI
____________________

Appeal 2009-011177
Application 10/633,250
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-011177
Application 10/633,250

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-
part.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphases on
disputed portions of the claim added, reads as follows:

1. A graphical user interface displayed on an agent desktop
in a contact center, comprising:

a task bar, wherein the task bar includes one or more
icons for identifying managed applications;

a managed application display area that displays a
managed application responsive to the icon identifying the
managed application being selected wherein the icon is selected
according to a step in an automated workflow that guides an
agent's handling of a contact, and

wherein a predetermined set of rules determines the size,
placement and visibility of the at least one managed application
in the managed application display area when the icon is
selected according to the step of the automated workflow.

Appeal 2009-011177
Application 10/633,250

3
Examiner’s Rejections1
The Examiner rejected claims 1-29 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Subramaniam (US
2007/0118504 A1) and Bartz (US 7,080,327 B1).
Examiner’s Findings
The Examiner relies upon Subramaniam as teaching a graphical user
interface (GUI), system, and method for managing a visual space or GUI,
including a task bar with icons identifying managed applications, and a
managed application display area for selecting an icon according to a step in
an automated workflow that guides an agent (see, e.g., claim 1). Ans. 3-4.
The Examiner relies upon Bartz as teaching a managed application
display area that displays a managed application responsive to an icon
identifying the managed application being selected, and the icon being
selected according to a step in an automated workflow (Ans. 5). The
Examiner then determines that it would have been obvious to modify
Subramaniam’s GUI method and system with Bartz’s method of helping a
user guide through a series of tasks in an orderly manner while facilitating
movement between tasks (Ans. 5 (citing Bartz, col. 2, ll. 33-35)). The
Examiner determines that the combination would yield a GUI presenting
workflow automation to provide a guided view to the user in order to

1 Appellants have presented only nominal arguments in the Appeal Brief as
to the rejection of (i) claims 2, 5, and 7 (see App. Br. 9-13), (ii) claims 9, 12,
and 13 (see App. Br. 16-18), (iii) claims 15 and 18-20 (see App. Br. 20-22),
(iv) claims 22-25 (see App. Br. 25), and (v) claims 27-29 (see App. Br. 27),
all of which are rejected under § 103(a). In view of the foregoing, our
discussion is limited to Appellants’ arguments as to the rejection of claims 1,
3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 21, and 26 under § 103(a).
Appeal 2009-011177
Application 10/633,250

4
accomplish desired tasks and to ensure work is handled in an efficient and
proper manner while enforcing business processes and policies (Ans. 5
(citing Subramaniam, ¶ [0015]; Bartz, col. 2, ll. 33-35 and 43-46)).
Appellants’ Contentions
(A) Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-
29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Subramaniam and Bartz for numerous reasons, including:
(1) Bartz fails to disclose software for managing a plurality of
applications, or a system for selecting graphical elements (i.e., icons) or
performing tasks according to a step in an automated workflow, and instead
discloses a software application for assisting a user with microcontroller
design using graphic elements 410 and 420 to suggest an order or hierarchy
for performing tasks (Reply Br. 2-3);
(2) according to the express disclosure of Bartz, icons are not
automatically selected, and are instead selected by a user of the application
(Reply Br. 3);
(3) in Bartz, the graphic elements are rendered in the GUI in locations
corresponding to a logical order for performing tasks (Reply Br. 3 (citing
Bartz, col. 9, ll. 15-17, 40-41, and 54-55));
(4) Bartz does not select icons in a GUI according to an automatic
workflow, and instead graphical elements (i.e., icons) corresponding to tasks
are selected by a user (Reply Br. 4); and
(5) the combination of Subramaniam and Bartz is improper because
one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to combine
the two references based on their divergent subject matter (Reply Br. 11-12).
Appeal 2009-011177
Application 10/633,250

5
(B) Appellants also contend (App. Br. 6-27; Reply Br. 4-11) that the
Examiner erred in rejecting individual claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17,
21, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Subramaniam and Bartz for numerous reasons specific to
those individual claims, including:
With Regard to Claim 1
(1) Neither Subramaniam nor Bartz discloses selecting an icon
according to a step in an automated workflow, as recited in claim 1 (App.
Br. 6);
(2) Figure 26 and paragraph [0082] of Subramaniam describe
interfaces for accessing application capabilities and server programs in a
system that execute workflow and enforce business rules, but the server
programs do not select an icon in a GUI according to a step of an automated
workflow, as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 6-7);
(3) Bartz discloses a system in which tasks are performed when a user
selects an icon in response to the suggestion for an icon and corresponding
task made by an application, and not according to a step in an automated
workflow, as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 5);
(4) Bartz fails to disclose task icons that are automatically performed
according to a step in an automatic workflow procedure (App. Br. 7; Reply
Br. 5);
(5) Subramaniam (¶¶ [0072], [0072], and [0082]) and Bartz (cols. 2,
4, 7, 8; Fig. 4A) each fail to disclose a predetermined set of rules for
determining the size, placement, and visibility of an application, as recited in
claim 1 (App. Br. 8); and
Appeal 2009-011177
Application 10/633,250

6
(6) the combination of Subramaniam and Bartz fails to teach or
suggest selecting an icon according to a step in an automated workflow, as
recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4).
With Regard to Claims 8 and 14
Independent claims 8 and 14 contain similar limitations to
independent claim 1 (one of the icons is selected according to a
corresponding step of an automated workflow), and Appellants make similar
arguments with regard to claims 8 and 14 as to claim 1 based on the
automated workflow recitations (see App. Br. 13-16 and 18-20). For the
sake of brevity, we will not address Appellants’ contentions as to claims 8
and 14 herein.
With Regard to Claims 3, 10, and 16
(7) Bartz fails to disclose a quick start bar including one or more icons
for identifying non-managed applications, because elements 410 and 420,
and/or graphical elements A, B, and C (Fig. 4A) do not include icons that
identify non-managed applications, as recited in claims 3, 10, and 16 (App.
Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 10-11).
With Regard to Claims 4, 11, and 17
(8) Subramaniam’s Figures 19 and 25-27 and paragraphs [0009] and
[0162] fail to disclose “a contact center control panel presenting current
contact information” in a GUI, as recited in claim 4 (App. Br. 11-12, 17-18,
and 22). Appellants assert that while Figure 19 shows a Search Category
display name 1910, and filter search specifications 1915 and 1920 used for
searching, the figure does not show a contact center control panel having
Appeal 2009-011177
Application 10/633,250

7
current contact information, as set forth in claims 4, 11, and 17 (id.).
Similarly, Appellants assert that Subramaniam’s Figure 26 showing a Basic
Search Applet, Basic Search View, and Search Selection Applet, as
described in paragraph [0162], also fails to disclose “displaying a contact
center control panel presenting current contact information,” as recited in
claim 11 and 17 (App. Br. 18 and 22).
With Regard to Claim 6
(9) Bartz fails to disclose concurrently displaying more than one
managed application, as recited in claim 6 (App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 7).
Appellants assert that the tasks in Bartz that are associated with graphical
elements A, B, and C are not managed applications (Reply Br. 7).
With Regard to Claim 21
(10) Neither Subramaniam nor Bartz discloses presenting information
indicating a type of call placed by the current contact to the contact center,
or selecting one or more icons according to (i) a corresponding step of an
automated workflow, and (ii) the type of call indicated by the contact center
control panel, as recited in claims 21-25 (App. Br. 23-25; Reply Br. 9-10).
Specifically, Appellants contend that paragraph [0009] and Figures 26 and
27 of Subramaniam fail to disclose or suggest basing the selection of icon(s)
on the type of call, and therefore the combination of references fails to teach
or suggest the limitations recited in claim 21 (of basing icon selection on the
type of call) (id.).
Appeal 2009-011177
Application 10/633,250

8
With Regard to Claim 26
(11) Neither Subramaniam nor Bartz discloses automatically opening
applications depending upon the media type of a call, as recited in claim 26
(App. Br. 23-25; Reply Br. 9-10). Specifically, Appellants contend that
paragraphs [0008], [0009], [0014], and [0082] and Figures 1 and 2 of
Subramaniam fail to disclose or suggest automatically opening one or more
applications on a desktop based on a call media type (id.).
Issues on Appeal
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-29 as being obvious over
Subramaniam and Bartz because the combination of Subramaniam and Bartz
fails to teach or suggest the limitations of claims 1-20 and 26-29 at issue?
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 21-25 because the
combination of Subramaniam and Bartz fails to teach or suggest selecting an
icon according to the corresponding step of an automated workflow and the
type of call indicated by the contact center control panel, as set forth in claim
21?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiners’ rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief that the Examiner has
erred. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred with respect to the
rejection of claims 21-252; the combination of Subramaniam and Bartz fails

2 Independent claim 21 recites, in pertinent part, “wherein one of the one or
more icons is selected according to the corresponding step of the automated
workflow and the type of call indicated by the contact center control panel”
(claim 21). Claims 22-25 recite the same limitation by way of ultimate
dependency on claim 21.
Appeal 2009-011177
Application 10/633,250

9
to teach or suggest selecting an icon according to the corresponding step of
an automated workflow and the type of call indicated by the contact center
control panel, as set forth in claim 21 (see supra Appellants’ tenth
contention). The Examiner relies upon Subramaniam’s paragraphs [0009],
[0072], and [0082] as teaching selecting an icon based on the type of call
(see Ans. 14-15; Final Rej. 13-15). We find that none of the paragraphs
cited by the Examiner disclose, teach, or suggest selecting an icon based on
the type of call.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions regarding claims 1-20 and
26-29 (see supra Appellants’ contentions 1-9 and 11). With regard to the
rejection of claims 1-20 and 26-29, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken, and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 3-14 and 17-24). We
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner as to the rejection of
claims 1-20 and 26-29.
First, we agree with the Examiner that Subramaniam and Bartz are
properly combinable. Appellants’ contention (Reply Br. 11) that there is no
motivation to combine Subramaniam and Bartz due to their divergent
subject matter is not convincing in light of the fact that both references are
concerned with display of information, including graphical elements or icons
relating to applications, to a user of a GUI. The Examiner’s determination
that the combination of Subramaniam and Bartz would yield a GUI
presenting workflow automation, to provide a guided view to the user in
order to accomplish desired tasks and to ensure work is handled in an
efficient and proper manner while enforcing business processes and policies,
Appeal 2009-011177
Application 10/633,250

10
is rationally based on articulated reasoning (see supra Examiner’s Findings,
citing Ans. 5).
Second, graphical user interfaces are not new. Neither is managing
applications using a task bar with icon(s) representing those applications. A
method of having a user select icons is also old and well-known.
Third, providing an automatic way to replace a manual activity, which
accomplishes the same result, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior
art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95 (CCPA 1958); Leapfrog Enter., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Applying modern
electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace in recent
years.”). An improved product in the art is obvious if that “product [is] not
[one] of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). In view of the foregoing, we do
not agree with Appellants that selecting icons according to a step of an
automated workflow that guides a user through a process would not have
been obvious.
In any event, Bartz teaches an automated workflow, at least at column
3, lines 14-18, where Bartz discloses that certain tasks are “intelligently
selected and enforced by activating and deactivating elements, thereby
guiding the user through the tasks according to the order in which the tasks
should be logically performed.” Bartz’s method and system “can help guide
a user through a series of tasks in an orderly manner while facilitating
movement between tasks” (col. 2, ll. 43-46).
Subramaniam also teaches an automated workflow process for a GUI,
at least in paragraphs [0008] (“CRM application/software may include
various tools to automate and streamline online customer service”), [0015]
Appeal 2009-011177
Application 10/633,250

11
(“Workflow automation and dynamic scripting to ensure that work is
handled in the most efficient manner and that business processes and
policies are always enforced”), and [0082] (“server programs are designed
and configured to perform one or more specific functions or jobs including
... executing workflow and process automation”).
With regard to claims 3, 10, and 16, Bartz discloses a tool bar or quick
start bar that has one or more icons for identifying non-active (i.e., non-
managed) applications, because Figure 4A shows a first tool bar including
first elements 410 and graphical elements A, B, and C which are icons that
identify inactive or non-managed applications.
With regard to claims 4, 11, and 17, Subramaniam’s Figures 26 and
27 and paragraphs [0009] and [0162] disclose “a contact center control panel
presenting current contact information” as recited in claim 4 and similarly
recited in claims 11 and 17. Subramaniam uses CRM software for customer
service at a call center to “create a single source of customer information
that makes it easier to sell to, market to, and service customers across
multiple media channels, including the Web, call centers, [etc.]” (¶ [0009]).
In addition, Subramaniam discloses providing a “unified agent desktop to
allow an agent to handle multimedia interactions through a single user
interface” (¶ [0013]), and ensuring that each agent get a “[c]onsolidated
view of the customer” (¶ [0014]). This single interface or desktop is shown
in Figures 24-27, and provides the call center agent with the ability to look
up client information. Accordingly, we disagree with Appellants’ arguments
that Subramaniam fails to teach or suggest a contact center control panel that
presents current contact information.
Appeal 2009-011177
Application 10/633,250

12
Similarly, Subramaniam’s Figure 26 shows a Basic Search Applet,
Basic Search View, and Search Selection Applet, as described in paragraphs
[0162]-[0164], which teaches or suggests “displaying a contact center
control panel presenting current contact information,” as recited in claim 11
and 17.
With regard to claim 6, Bartz teaches or suggests concurrently
displaying more than one managed application, as recited in claim 6 because
the tasks in Bartz that are associated with graphical elements A, B, and C
can be active or managed applications (see col. 2, l. 63; col. 3, ll. 8-19; col.
8, ll. 49-53; see generally col. 7, l. 57 to col. 8, l. 53 describing Fig. 4A).
Summary
With regard to claims 1-20, our careful review of the record before us,
including the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final
Rejection and the Answer, reveals that the combination of Subramaniam and
Bartz teaches or suggests the limitations at issue (see supra Appellants’
contentions 1-9 and 11).
With regard to claims 21-25, we agree with Appellants (see supra
Appellants’ tenth contention) that the Examiner erred and the combination
of Subramaniam and Bartz fails to teach or suggest selecting an icon
according to the corresponding step of an automated workflow and the type
of call indicated by the contact center control panel, as set forth in claim 21.
With regard to claims 26-29, we disagree with Appellants (see supra
Appellants’ eleventh contention) that paragraphs [0008] and [0014] of
Subramaniam fail to disclose or suggest automatically opening one or more
applications on a desktop based on a call media type. Subramaniam
discloses providing a user or call center agent with a GUI having a
Appeal 2009-011177
Application 10/633,250

13
consolidated view for operating with multiple channels of communication,
“including telephone, email, Web chat, Web voice, fax, and page” (¶
[0014]). Subramaniam also discloses implementing CRM
software/application “using a combination of tools (e.g., knowledge bases
with an intuitive search capability, agent technology or automated email,
etc.” in order to “automate and streamline online customer service” (¶
[0008]). Subramaniam’s automated software for enhancing call center
operations by “executing workflow and process automation” (see ¶ [0082])
when operating on multiple media types (e.g., telephone, email, fax
discussed in paragraph [0014]), is encompassed by the recitation in claim 26
of automatically opening one or more applications on a desktop based on a
call media type.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in determining that Subramaniam and
Bartz are combinable, or that the combination of Subramaniam and Bartz
teaches or suggests the limitations of claims 1-20 and 26-29 at issue.
(2) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-20 and 26-29 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 21-25 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combination of Subramaniam and Bartz.
(4) Claims 1-20 and 26-29 are not patentable.

Appeal 2009-011177
Application 10/633,250

14
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 and 26-29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 21-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

msc