Ex Parte Joyce et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 27, 2012

10447250 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/447,250 05/27/2003 Robert Joyce 0600/96753 2918
24628 7590 02/27/2012
Husch Blackwell LLP
Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz
120 S RIVERSIDE PLAZA
22ND FLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
KE, PENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROBERT JOYCE and PRABHURAM MOHAN
_____________

Appeal 2010-011130
Application 10/447,250
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER,
and DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-011130
Application 10/447,250

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-60. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a customer interaction
system that receives and processes an instant message call with other
interaction types based on information associated with the instant message
call (Spec. ¶ [0030]).
Claims 1 and 30, reproduced below, are representative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. A method to process an instant message call from a customer
within a customer interaction system, the method including:
receiving the instant message call, initiated by the customer, through a
third party instant messaging service independent of the customer and the
customer interaction system, at the customer interaction system said
customer initiated call being commingled with messages of other interaction
types received by the customer interaction system over other media; and
processing the instant message call within the customer interaction
system with other interaction types based on information associated with the
instant message call including determining whether to allocate the instant
message call to an automated agent or to a blended live-agent, and queuing
the instant message call within a unified message queue that includes other
interaction types if a blended live-agent is not available upon determining to
allocate to a blended live-agent.
30. A system to process an instant message call from a customer
within a customer interaction system, the system including:
a plurality of media specific customer interaction systems, each for
servicing a specific media type, and including an instant message media
specific customer interaction system to receive the instant message call,
initiated by the customer through a third party instant messaging service
Appeal 2010-011130
Application 10/447,250

3
independent of the customer and the customer interaction system, at the
customer interaction system each media specific interaction system having
a media specific queue to queue media specific calls for allocation to a
media specific automated or non-blended live-agent if a media specific agent
is not available, and generating a multimedia request in response thereto,
said customer initiated call being commingled with messages of other
interaction types received over other media; and
a multimedia customer interaction system to process the instant
message call within the customer interaction system with other interaction
types in response to the multimedia request and based on information
associated with the instant message call including determining whether to
allocate the instant message call to an automated agent or to a blended live-
agent, and queuing the instant message call within a unified message queue
that includes other interaction types if a blended live-agent is not available.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Kannan US 2001/0054064 A1 Dec. 20, 2001
Pickering US 6,493,695 B1 Dec. 10, 2002
Petrovykh US 7,299,259 B2 Nov. 20, 2007
(filed Aug. 17, 2001)

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. The Examiner rejected claims 30-58 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 1-60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kannan in view of Petrovykh and Pickering.

ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in determining that independent claim 30
lacks any recitation to hardware elements and simply lists software steps?
Appeal 2010-011130
Application 10/447,250

4
2. Did the Examiner err in determining that Kannan in combination
with Petrovykh and Pickering teach the limitation of “receiving the instant
message call, initiated by the customer, through a third party instant
messaging service independent of the customer and the customer interaction
system” as recited in claim 1?
3. Did the Examiner err in determining that Kannan in combination
with Petrovykh and Pickering teach the limitation of “customer initiated call
being commingled with messages of other interaction types received by the
customer interaction system over other media” as recited in claim 1?
4. Did the Examiner err in determining that Kannan in combination
with Petrovykh and Pickering teach the limitation of “queuing the instant
message call within a unified message queue that includes other interaction
types if a blended live-agent is not available upon determining to allocate to
a blended live-agent” as recited in claim 1?

PRINCIPLES OF LAWS
“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of
references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
The Supreme Court recognized that when there are a finite number of
identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason
to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. See KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).

Appeal 2010-011130
Application 10/447,250

5
ANALYSIS
I. Analysis with respect to the rejection of claims 30-58 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Examiner alleges that the word “system” is not directed to a
machine and that the Specification suggests that all steps of the system claim
may be implemented in software (Final Rej. 2-3).1 Appellants argue, that
contrary to the Examiner’s allegations, claims 30-58 are directed to a system
having hardware subsystems including media specific interaction systems 24
and multimedia customer interaction system 26 (see Fig. 1,¶ [0036]) which
perform the recited functions (App. Br. 9). Appellants explain that these
systems are not directed to software per se and could not be implemented
with software alone.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We find no suggestion
in the Specification, nor does the Examiner point to a specific section, that
all the steps of the system claim may be implemented by software alone.
Furthermore, claim 30 clearly recites “a plurality of media specific customer
interaction systems” (emphasis added), which are described in the
Specification as server machines 28, 30, and 32 (Spec. ¶ [0036]). Claim 30
also describes “a multimedia customer interaction system” which is
described in the Specification as including an interaction machine 40 and a
server machine 47 (Spec. ¶ [0037]). Thus, claim 30 and dependent claims
31-58 are directed to a machine.
Accordingly, we will reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims
30-58 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

1 Claim 60 was withdrawn as rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Ans. 3).
Appeal 2010-011130
Application 10/447,250

6
II. Analysis with respect to the rejection of rejected claims 1-13,
15-24, 26-29, and 31-60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kannan in view of Petrovykh and Pickering.

A. Did the Examiner err in determining that Kannan in combination
with Petrovykh and Pickering teach the limitation of “receiving the
instant message call, initiated by the customer, through a third party
instant messaging service independent of the customer and the
customer interaction system” as recited in claim 1?

Appellants argue that: (a) Kannan teaches communicating through a
service applet 534; (b) Kannan’s customer interaction system does not
receive an instant message at all; and (c) the communication is not initiated
by the customer through an independent instant messaging service (App. Br.
11).
We do not agree with Appellants. The Examiner correctly pointed out
(Ans. 20) that, according to Kannan, potential customers browsing a Web
site are intelligently routed, by matching the customer query in a queue 613
to appropriate customer service representatives (CSR) listed in queue 614
assigned to handle particular queries (i.e., queries related to a particular type
of customer, type of subject matter, or region) (see ¶¶ [0095]-[0096] and
Fig. 6). Furthermore, and most importantly, we agree with the Examiner
(Ans. 20) that Kannan’s Figure 14c and related text (¶¶ [0134]-[0135]),
teach that Instant messages can be used as a form of real-time interaction
through an instant messaging interface.
Thus, Kannan does teach instant messaging as a form of interaction
initiated by the customer (i.e., customer initiates the query). Furthermore,
the Examiner relied on Petrovykh for the teaching of a third party instant
messaging service independent of the customer (see Ans. 6, col. 26, ll.
Appeal 2010-011130
Application 10/447,250

7
14-26)—not Kannan. Accordingly, we agree with Examiner (Ans. 6) that
the combination of Kannan in view of Petrovykh teaches “receiving the
instant message call, initiated by the customer, through a third party instant
messaging service independent of the customer and the customer interaction
system” as recited in claim 1. We note that one cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections
are based on combinations of references. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
B. Did the Examiner err in determining that Kannan in combination
with Petrovykh and Pickering teach a “customer initiated call being
commingled with messages of other interaction types received by the
customer interaction system over other media” as recited in claim 1?
Appellants argue that Kannan does not teach instant message calls
processed with other interaction types (App. Br. 12).
We do not agree with Appellants’ arguments. We agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 20-21) that Kannan’s queue 613 combining particular type
of queries messages (i.e., queries related to a particular type of customer,
type of subject matter, or region) (see ¶¶ [0095]-[0096]) could be reasonably
read on the claimed “customer initiated call being commingled with
messages of other interaction types” as recited in claim 1. We also agree
with the Examiner (Ans. 20-21) that Pickering teaches that various types of
interaction media can be commingled into various queues (col. 7, l. 18-col.
8, l. 10). In particular, and for example, if the customer interaction is in
Spanish (i.e., similar to Kannan’s queries related to a particular type of
customer, and as in Pickering’s example, Spanish speaking customers) then
these queries are queued to allow for interaction with Spanish speaking
agents, “without regards to the media thereof” (col. 7, l. 49-60).
Appeal 2010-011130
Application 10/447,250

8
Thus, Kannan in combination with Petrovykh and Pickering teach and
suggest a “customer initiated call being commingled with messages of other
interaction types received by the customer interaction system over other
media” as recited in claim 1.
C. Did the Examiner err in determining that Kannan in combination
with Petrovykh and Pickering teach the limitation of “queuing the
instant message call within a unified message queue that includes
other interaction types if a blended live-agent is not available upon
determining to allocate to a blended live-agent” as recited in claim 1?
Appellants further argue that the combination of references does not
teach “queuing the instant message call within a unified message queue that
includes other interaction types if a blended live-agent is not available upon
determining to allocate to a blended live-agent” as recited in claim 1 (see
App. Br. 14).
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding (Ans. 21) that according to Pickering a customer
communication may be routed to a selected one of agents 226 or may be
routed to one or more queues 218, 220 if no appropriate agent 226 is
currently available (col. 5, ll. 13-16). Furthermore, Pickering teaches that
the messages from all media types can be queued into a single universal
media queue (see col. 7, ll. 12-17).
Thus, the combination of references teaches the limitation of “queuing
the instant message call within a unified message queue that includes other
interaction types if a blended live-agent is not available upon determining to
allocate to a blended live-agent” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly based on the analysis as stated supra under headings A-
C, we will affirm the Examiner’s rejections of independent claim 1 and the
Appeal 2010-011130
Application 10/447,250

9
rejections of claims 2-13, 15-24, 26-29, and 31-60 which were not separately
argued.
III. Analysis with respect to the rejection of independent claim 30 and
dependent claims 14 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants argue that Pickering does not teach queuing to both a
media specific queue and to a unified queue (App. Br. 15-16).
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 21) that Kannan teaches that media
specific interaction type queries can be queued together (see ¶¶ [0095]-
[0096]). The Examiner then relies on Pickering to teach that interaction
types from various media can be commingled into one queue (col. 7, l. 12-
col. 8, l. 10). Thus, the combination of the references teaches queuing to a
media specific queue for particular types of queries and/or queuing
interaction types from various media to a unified queue. Based on Kannan’s
and Pickering’s teachings, there is only a finite number of predictable
solutions in queuing a communication (e.g., using one queue for various
media or separate queues for each media), and an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have known to pursue these predictable options. See KSR, 550 U.S.
at 421.
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 30
and its dependent claims 14 and 25.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The Examiner erred in determining that independent claim 30 lacks
any recitation to hardware elements and simply lists software steps.
2. The Examiner did not err in determining that Kannan in
combination with Petrovykh and Pickering teach the limitation of “receiving
the instant message call, initiated by the customer, through a third party
Appeal 2010-011130
Application 10/447,250

10
instant messaging service independent of the customer and the customer
interaction system” as recited in claim 1.
3. The Examiner did not err in determining that Kannan in
combination with Petrovykh and Pickering teach the limitation of a
“customer initiated call being commingled with messages of other
interaction types received by the customer interaction system over other
media” as recited in claim 1.
4. The Examiner did not err in determining that Kannan in
combination with Petrovykh and Pickering teach the limitation of “queuing
the instant message call within a unified message queue that includes other
interaction types if a blended live-agent is not available upon determining to
allocate to a blended live-agent” as recited in claim 1.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-60 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 30-58
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 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

rwk