Ex Parte Mitchell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 10, 2017

13549897 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
13/549,897 07/16/2012 Robert Mitchell 4366-600 1009
48500 7590
SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200
DENVER, CO 80202
EXAMINER
INTAVONG, JIRAPON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/14/2017 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_Avay a @ 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 ROBERT MITCHELL, WILLIAM JOLICOEUR, and
JOSEPH M. WALLERIUS
Appeal 2016-003686
Application 13/549,8971
Technology Center 2600
Before HUNG H. BUI, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Office Action rejecting claims 1, 3—5, 7, 10-20, 23—25,
and 27, which are all the claims pending. Claims 2, 6, 8—9, 21—22, and 26
are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Avaya Inc. App. Br.
2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed August 4, 2015
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed February 24, 2016 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer mailed January 20, 2016 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed April
20, 2015 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification filed July 16, 2012
(“Spec.”).
Appeal 2016-003686
Application 13/549,897
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to monitoring a contact center agent at a
call center, and more particularly, relates to downloading a contact center
display application to a communication device, when the communication
device is used by an agent at the call center, to provide a visual display of
contact center status information. Spec. 14; Abstract.
Claims 1,11, and 18 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of
Appellants’ invention, as reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized in italics:
1. A method comprising:
detecting, by one or more processors, a communication
device being connected to a network;
determining, by the one or more processors, that the
communication device will be used by an agent in a contact
center;
in response to determining that the communication device
will be used by the agent in the contact center, downloading, by
the one or more processors, a contact center display application
onto the communication device, wherein the contact center
display application displays contact center status information;
transmitting, by the one or more processors, the contact
center status information to the communication device;
detecting, by the one or more processors, a presence of a
supervisor observing a call between the agent and a customer,
wherein the supervisor observes the call at the communication
device used by the agent; and
in response to detecting the presence of the supervisor
observing the call between the agent and the customer at the
communication device used by the agent, modifying how the
status information is displayed by changing a font or size of a
font that is displayed to the agent and the supervisor.
App. Br. 14 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal 2016-003686
Application 13/549,897
Examiner’s Rejections and References
(1) Claims 1,3,4, 7, 10-13, 15—18, 20, and 24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Foladare et al. (US 6,049,602;
issued Apr. 11, 2000; “Foladare”), Ravenscroft et al. (US 6,466,663 Bl;
issued Oct. 15, 2002; “Ravenscroft”), Sands et al. (US 2013/0208103 Al;
published Aug. 15, 2013; “Sands”), Edholm et al. (US 2012/0069986 Al;
published Mar. 22, 2012; “Edholm”), and DeLine (US 2009/0048706 Al;
published Feb. 19,2009). Ans. 1—19.
(2) Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Foladare, Ravenscroft, Sands, Edholm, DeLine, and Barak
etal. (US 2014/0115466 Al; published Apr. 24, 2014; “Barak”). Ans. 19-
21.
(3) Claims 23, 25, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Foladare, Ravenscroft, Sands, Edholm, and
Pattison et al. (US 5,946,375; issued Aug. 31, 1999; “Pattison”). Ans. 21—
23.
(3) Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Foladare, Ravenscroft, Sands, Edholm, and Otto (US
5,392,345; issued Feb. 21, 1995). Ans. 24.
(3) Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Foladare, Ravenscroft, Sands, Edholm, and Alagappan et
al. (US 2007/0061488 Al; published Mar. 15, 2007; “Alagappan”). Ans.
25-26.
3
Appeal 2016-003686
Application 13/549,897
ISSUE
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue presented on
appeal is whether the combination of Foladare, Ravenscroft, Sands, Edholm,
and DeLine teaches or suggests the disputed limitation:
in response to detecting the presence of the supervisor observing
the call between the agent and the customer at the
communication device used by the agent, modifying how the
status information is displayed by changing a font or size of a
font that is displayed to the agent and the supervisor,
as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 11 and 18. App. Br. 8—
10; Reply Br. 3—6.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim 1, and similarly claims 11 and 18,
the Examiner finds the combination of Foladare, Ravenscroft, Sands,
Edholm, and DeLine teaches or suggests all limitations recited in those
claims. Ans. 1—19. In support of the conclusion of obviousness, the
Examiner relies on DeLine for teaching the disputed limitation of claim 1
and similarly for claims 11 and 18:
in response to detecting the presence of the supervisor observing
the call between the agent and the customer at the
communication device used by the agent, modifying how the
status information is displayed by changing a font or size of a
font that is displayed to the agent and the supervisor,
in the form of a fuel dispenser 10 at a gas station, shown in DeLine’s Figures
1—3, having camera 24 configured to detect a presence of a customer, and
controller 32 configured to monitor the relative proximity of a customer to
displays 16 and 18 of the fuel dispenser 10, shown in Figures 4—5, and to
control “the viewing angle of displays 16 and 18 and/or to change fonts or
4
Appeal 2016-003686
Application 13/549,897
text sizes accordingly to enhance visibility.” Ans. 4—5 (citing DeLine 142).
Appellants dispute the Examiner’s findings regarding DeLine and the
“motivation for someone to combine DeLine with art (Sands and Edholm)
from a completely different industry (contact centers).” App. Br. 8. In
particular, Appellants contend (1) DeLine’s “gas pump is clearly a different
type of device than a contact center’s agent communication device,” i.e.,
DeLine is a non-analogous art; (2) DeLine does not discuss “any type of call
being made—let alone a call to a contact center agent”; and (3) “DeLine
does not disclose a supervisor or an agent (or anyone for that matter)
observing the customer interaction at the gas pump—let alone observing a
call.” App. Br. 9—10. Appellants contend there is no reason for a skilled
artisan “to look at art for gas pumps to modify a communication device of a
contact center agent.” Id. at 9. According to Appellants,
[tjhere is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine
Deline [sic, throughout] with any of Ravenscroft, Loladare, or
Edholm. Deline deals with a brick-and-mortar business, namely
a gas station, and not with a call center. Deline deals with display
of information to a customer physically present at the display and
not the gas station attendant. No call is made by the customer.
In a call center, by contrast, the customer, on a call to the contact
center, is being serviced remotely by an agent. There is no
reason why the gas station would want, based on Deline, to
automatically modify the display of the customer’s gas pump
based on the physical proximity of either the attendant or the
attendant’s supervisor to the customer.
Reply Br. 5 (emphasis added).
The Examiner responds that: (1) DeLine’s “components may be used
to determine the height and other characteristics of the customer so that the
vertical viewing angle of the display may be adjusted in accordance with the
detected characteristics” and (2) “the combination of Sands et al. in view of
5
Appeal 2016-003686
Application 13/549,897
DeLine are analogous art because these references pertain to the same
problem of user displays, modification of displayed information based on
user characteristics.” Ans. 28 (citing DeLine 142).
We disagree with the Examiner. Obviousness is a question of law
based on underlying factual findings, In re Baxter, 678 F.3d 1357, 1361
(Fed. Cir. 2012), including what a reference teaches, In re Beattie, 974 F.2d
1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and the existence of a reason to combine
references. In reHyon, 679 F.3d 1363, 1365—66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In
addition, “[w]hether a reference in the prior art is ‘analogous’ is a fact
question.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Panduit
Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1568 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
“Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is analogous:
(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of
the problem addressed, and
(2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s
endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the inventor is involved.” Clay, 966 F.2d at 658—59
(citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599
F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979)).
DeFine teaches a fuel dispenser 10 at a gas station, shown in Figures
1—3, having camera 24 configured to detect a presence of a customer, and
controller 32 configured to monitor the relative proximity of a customer to
displays 16 and 18 of the fuel dispenser 10, shown in Figures 4—5, in order
to determine the relative location of the customer with respect to the fuel
dispenser 10. See DeFine 142, Figs. 1—5. The purpose of DeFine is “to
trigger an alarm when the nozzle is brought into close proximity to the at
6
Appeal 2016-003686
Application 13/549,897
least one display to prevent the user from using the nozzle to make data
entries.” DeLine 112, see also id. Tflf 13, 39, Abstract. According to
DeLine, controller 32 may also be configured to control
the viewing angle of displays 16 and 18 and/or to change fonts
or text sizes accordingly to enhance visibility. In particular, the
control system can determine when a customer was more
proximate to the right of the displays and adjust the viewing
angle of the display to better allow the customer to view the
displays by changing font size, font type, brightness, polarization
of the screen or by any other known methods of adjusting
viewing angle of a display. Likewise, these components may be
used to determine the height and other characteristics of the
customer so that the vertical viewing angle of the display may be
adjusted in accordance with the detected characteristics.
DeLine 142 (emphasis added).
We do not agree with the Examiner that DeLine is analogous art
because: (1) Deline is not in the same field of Appellants’ endeavor, i.e.,
monitoring a call center; and (2) DeLine is not reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which Appellants are involved, i.e., a supervisor
monitoring a contact center agent at a call center, via a contact center display
application downloaded. Spec. 14; Abstract.
Moreover, we note the Examiner’s rationale to incorporate the
teachings of DeLine into the teachings of Foladare, Ravenscroft, Sands, and
Edholm is without sufficient “rational underpinning” as required by KSR
Inti Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) and In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 988 (Fed Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be
sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.”). For example, the Examiner reasons “it would
have been obvious ... to apply the display modification methods discussed
7
Appeal 2016-003686
Application 13/549,897
in De[L]ine in the invention of Sands et al. in order to make adjustments to
the display in order to provide a better view of displayed called center
information to the supervisor.” Ans. 5. However, Sands teaches an
electronic display to facilitate authentication based on physical presence of a
user or supervisor. Sands Tflf 12, 27, 72, Abstract. In contrast, DeLine
teaches detecting proximity of the nozzle of a fuel dispenser at a gas station.
DeLine Abstract. Neither Sands nor DeLine addresses detecting a presence
of a supervisor observing a call between an agent and a customer in the
context of a call center. As such, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s
rationale for combining DeLine and Sands in the manner suggested by the
Examiner is supported by “rational underpinning.”
For these reasons, we decline to sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 1, and similarly, independent claims 11 and
18, and their respective dependent claims 3—5, 7, 10, 12—17, 19, 20, 23—25,
and 27.
CONCLUSION3
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have demonstrated
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3—5, 7, 10-20, 23—25, and 27 under
35U.S.C. § 103(a).
3 Should there be further prosecution of this application, the Examiner may
wish to consider whether Ravenscroft’s Figures 10—11 and its related text
(9:42—57) teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claims 1,11, and 18.
For example, Ravenscroft’s Figure 10 shows a supervisor view of status
information provided at a supervisor workstation 38, shown in Figure 1,
when the supervisor monitors an interaction between an agent and a
customer. According to Ravenscroft, “the supervisor may readily change
the view as needed and information contained within the views is updated
8
Appeal 2016-003686
Application 13/549,897
DECISION
As such, we REVERSE the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3—
5, 7, 10-20, 23-25, and 27.
REVERSED
regularly to be ensured to be current. Moreover, the information is shown in
a variety of different formats that are useful to a supervisor.” Ravenscroft
9:44-48. Such an action can be considered in response to the presence of a
supervisor.
9