Ex Parte Phelps et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 17, 2015

11235833 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte DAVID E. PHELPS and BRIAN BADGER1
________________

Appeal 2012-012243
Application 11/235,833
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JOHN G. NEW, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The Real Party-in-Interest is Verizon Communications Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2012-012243
Application 11/235,833

2
SUMMARY

Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 3–13, 15–25, 27, and 28 (Final Rej.
2; Ans. 2).2 Specifically, claims 1, 5, 6, 8–13, and 17–23 stand rejected as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Browne et al. (US 2004/0057571 A1, March 25, 2004)
(“Browne”) and Dhir et al. (US 6,553,113 B1, April 22, 2003) (“Dhir”).
Claims 3, 4, 15, 16, 24, 25, 27, and 28 stand rejected as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Browne,
Dhir, and Yegoshin (US 2002/0093942 A1, July 18, 2002) (“Yegoshin”).3
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to providing network-based call
processing. A packetized voice call is received from a first station and is
queued at a pre-designated queue maintained within a network of a service
provider. The packetized voice call is then selectively forwarded to a second
station. Abstract.

2 Claims 2, 14, and 26 are canceled. App. Br. 16, 17, and 19.
3 Appellants note claims 1, 3–13, 15–25, 27, and 28 are pending in the
application but do not provide any arguments with respect to dependent
claim 7 (App. Br. 2, 7). Because claim 7 is before us but was not addressed
or argued, we affirm the rejection of claim 7 for the same reasons as those
set forth in the Final Office Action with respect to claim 19 (Final Rej. 7) .
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii) (2011).
Appeal 2012-012243
Application 11/235,833

3
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Because Appellants make essentially the same arguments for all of the
independent claims, we select independent claim 1 as representative. App.
Br. 6, 14. Claim 1 recites:
1. A method for providing network-based call processing,
the method comprising:

receiving a packetized voice call from a first station, wherein
the packetized voice call is parked at a first call center
associated with the first station;

queuing the packetized voice call at a pre-designated queue
maintained within a network of a service provider; and

selectively transferring, by control logic within the network of
the service provider, the packetized voice call to a second
station within a second call center.

App. Br. 16.

ISSUES AND ANALYSES
A. Claim 1
Issue 1
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred because the combination of
Browne with Dhir would impermissibly change the principle of operation of
Browne. App. Br. 7.

Analysis
Appellants argue that Browne teaches techniques for processing
communications in a communication system switch, in which one or more
processing scripts are selected for application to one or more
Appeal 2012-012243
Application 11/235,833

4
communications, in accordance with weightings assigned to at least a subset
of the scripts. App. Br. 7 (citing Browne, Abstract). According to
Appellants, Browne thus teaches a system that facilitates the processing of
communications in the system switch and provides improved efficiency and
reliability. Id.
Specifically, Appellants submit that Browne teaches an exemplary
communication system 100, which includes a switch 102 that serves
premises 104. App. Br. 7 (citing Browne, ¶ 22). Appellants argue that
Browne teaches that the communication system 100, which includes the
switch 102 for processing calls, is configured as a single call center. Id.
(citing Browne, ¶ 19). Appellants point out that Browne lists exemplary
communication system elements, including private-branch exchange (PBX)
systems, automatic call distribution (ACD) systems and computer-telephony
integration-based (CTI) systems, all of which are part of the single call
center of Browne’s multi-terminal premises 104. Id.
Appellants argue that, by way of contrast, Dhir teaches a much larger
system than Browne’s switch 102. App. Br. 7 (citing, e.g., Dhir, Fig. 1).
According to Appellants, Dhir teaches a system including a central server
routing system 100, a data logger system 110, an administrative controller
system 115, a call router database 105, an interactive voice response (“IVR”)
system1 125, and IVR system2 150, a call site center system1 145, a call site
center system2 150, a call site center system3 155, an interexchange carrier
(“IXC”) 130, an IXC interface 127, a local exchange carrier 135 and a caller
140. App. Br. 7–8 (citing Dhir, col. 4, ll. 40–47). Appellants argue that
Dhir teaches, within the call site center system1 145, a central server
interface 302, a call center administrative system 304, a primary branch
Appeal 2012-012243
Application 11/235,833

5
exchange (“PBX”) 306, an automatic call distributor (“ACD”) 310, a central
server ACD interface 308, an agentl system 316, an agent2 system 318, an
agent3 system 320, etc. Id. at 8 (citing Dhir, col. 8, ll. 28–39). It is
Appellants’ contention that, at most, the automatic call distributor (ACD)
310 of Dhir corresponds to Browne’s switch 102 within a single call center.
Id. Therefore, argue Appellants, the entire disclosure of Browne concerns
only one element of Dhir’s teachings, viz., the automatic call distributor
(ACD) 310. Id.
Appellants take issue with the Examiner’s finding that it would have
been obvious to include within Browne’s single call center premises 104
Dhir’s teaching of a call routed to a targeted queue of a virtual call center
provider, and forwarding the call using TNT technology to a proper target.
App. Br. 8. Appellants contend that Dhir’s teaching of a call routed to a
targeted queue of a virtual call center provider are aspects associated with
Dhir’s entire system, as exemplified in Figure 1 of Dhir. Id. According to
Appellants, Dhir’s entire system is larger than the single call center taught
by Browne. Id. (citing, e.g., Dhir, Figs. 1, 7, 9, and 10).
Therefore, Appellants argue, the Examiner erred by finding that it
would be obvious to configure Dhir’s entire system into one of Dhir’s
automatic call distributors 310. App. Br. 9. Appellants submit that such a
combination is completely unsupported by the teachings of both Dhir and
Browne and would, at least, change the principle of operation of either one
of the two references. That is, Appellants argue Dhir teaches the automatic
call distributors 310 are part of the system in Figure 1, and not the entire
system. Id.
Appeal 2012-012243
Application 11/235,833

6
The Examiner responds that Browne teaches that terminals can make
outgoing telephone calls such as VoIP communication, or SIP
communications via network 112. Ans. 4 (citing Browne, ¶ 20). The
Examiner finds Browne teaches not only a single call center, corresponding
to communication system switch 102 of Figure 1, but also outgoing calls
destined for outside of the system’s internal premises via network 112. Id.
(citing Browne, ¶ 30).
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Browne teaches the limitations
of claim 1 reciting receiving a packetized voice call (citing Browne, ¶ 20
(VoIP)) from a first station (citing Browne, ¶ 56, Fig. 3B (incoming call); ¶
23 (call center application of the system 100, with each of the terminals
corresponding to an agent workstation), wherein the packetized voice call is
parked at a first call center associated with the first station (citing Browne ¶¶
48–55; Fig. 3A (where calls are queued at switch 102); ¶ 5 (a given call
queued to a certain agent))). Ans. 5.
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to combine routing a targeted queue of a virtual cell
center provider, and forwarding the call, using TNT technology to a proper
target, as taught by Dhir. Ans. 5. The feedback control of call processing in
a communication system switch, with script selection based on assigned
weightings, as taught by Browne, would improve the percentage of calls
properly routed. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ reasoning. Appellants contend
the automatic call distributor 310 of Dhir corresponds to Browne's switch
102 within a single call center and Dhir teaches that the automatic call
Appeal 2012-012243
Application 11/235,833

7
distributor 310 is part of the system of Dhir’s Figure 1, but is not the entire
system. App. Br. 8, 9. However:
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.

In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (C.C.P.A. 1981).
The Examiner finds Browne teaches all of the limitations of claim 1
with the exception of “queuing the packetized voice call at a pre-designated
queue maintained within a network of a service provider” and “selectively
forwarding transferring, by control logic within the network of the service
provider, the packetized voice call to a second station within a second call
center.” Final Rej. 3. The Examiner finds Dhir remedies these deficiencies,
as related supra. Id. at 4. The Examiner also articulates a reason with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See
KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Appellants contend that the combination would render the purpose of
Browne inoperable, but fail to articulate a specific reason why, other than
arguing that the teachings of Browne could not be incorporated into the
larger system of Dhir without changing the operating principle of Browne.
This is not sufficient to overcome the Examiner’s prima facie finding of
obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. We therefore uphold the
Examiner’s rejection on this ground.

Appeal 2012-012243
Application 11/235,833

8
Issue 2
Appellants next argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combined cited prior art references teach or suggest the limitations of claim
1 reciting “receiving a packetized voice call from a first station, wherein the
packetized voice call is parked at a first call center associated with the first
station” and “selectively transferring, by control logic within the network of
the service provider, the packetized voice call to a second station within a
second call center.” App. Br. 9.

Analysis
Appellants argue that Dhir’s teaching of routing an incoming call to
the IVR systems does not disclose, “receiving a packetized voice call from a
first station, wherein the packetized voice call is parked at a first call center
associated with the first station.” App. Br. 10. Specifically, Appellants
argue, Dhir does not teach that the disclosed IVR systems correspond to a
call center and, further, that the Examiner cannot reasonably interpret Dhir’s
IVR systems as call centers. Id. Therefore, submit Appellants, routing an
incoming call to the IVR system does not constitute parking at a first call
center. Id.
According to Appellants, Dhir teaches the central server system
provides routing of an incoming call from the IVR systems to a target site,
but does not disclose parking a call at a first call center. App. Br. 10.
Therefore, Appellants submit, Dhir cannot disclose, “selectively transferring,
by control logic within the network of the service provider, the packetized
voice call to a second station within a second call center,” regardless of
whether the target site constitutes a second station within a second call
Appeal 2012-012243
Application 11/235,833

9
center, because there is no call parked at a first call center associated with a
first station. Consequently, argue Appellants, Dhir cannot teach the disputed
limitation, because Browne concerns only a single call center, and the
combination of Browne with Dhir is improper, as argued supra under Issue
1.
We have related supra why we are not persuaded that the Examiner
impermissibly combined the teachings of Browne and Dhir. Furthermore,
the Examiner explicitly cites Browne, not Dhir, as teaching the limitation
reciting “receiving a packetized voice call from a first station, wherein the
packetized voice call is parked at a first call center associated with the first
station.” In the Final Rejection, the Examiner finds:
Browne discloses a method and system for providing network-
based call processing, the method (Browne: paragraphs
[0008]-[0012]) comprising: receiving a packetized voice call
(Browne: paragraphs [0020] VoIP) from a first station
(Browne: paragraph [0056] and figure 3B incoming call and
paragraph [0023] a call center application of the system
100, each of the terminals may corresponds to an agent
workstation), wherein the packetized voice call is parked at a
first call center associated with the first station (Browne
paragraph [0048]-[0055] and figure 3A where calls are
queued at switch 102, and paragraph [0005] a given call be
queued to a certain agent).

Final Rej. 3 (emphasis in original). Because we find the combination of
Browne and Dhir is not improper, Appellants’ argument that Dhir does not
teach the limitation of claim 1 reciting “receiving a packetized voice call
from a first station, wherein the packetized voice call is parked at a first call
center associated with the first station” is not determinative of whether Dhir
also teaches the limitation reciting “selectively transferring, by control logic
Appeal 2012-012243
Application 11/235,833

10
within the network of the service provider, the packetized voice call to a
second station within a second call center.” We consequently affirm the
Examiner’s rejection on this ground.

B. Claim 5
Issue
Appellants next argue the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Browne and Dhir teaches or suggests the limitation of
dependent claim 5 reciting “wherein the transfer of the packetized voice call
is based on one or more criteria including traffic loading of a destination call
center.” App. Br. 11.

Analysis
Appellants point to the Examiner’s finding that Dhir teaches “[s]tatus
information stored by peripheral status data module 210 may be used by the
strategic decisioning and load balancing logic ... performed by central server
system 100 to establish viable route return addresses.” App. Br. 11 (citing
Final Rej. 5 (quoting Dhir, col. 7, ll. 10–14)). Appellants contend that this
teaching of Dhir concerns the call router database (CRD) 105. Id. However,
argue Appellants, the Examiner’s finding that a person of ordinary skill
would be motivated to combine the teachings of Browne and Dhir, viz., “Hit-
rate (% of calls properly routed) increases dramatically, costs are reduced,
and revenues and customer satisfaction are improved,” was based on Dhir’s
teachings concerning its IVR, and not its CRD. Id. (citing Final Rej. 5
(quoting Dhir, col. 9, ll. 51–58)).
Appeal 2012-012243
Application 11/235,833

11
Consequently, Appellants argue, because there is no connection
between the alleged teachings of Dhir at columns 7 and 9, the motivation
provided by the Examiner to support the combination of Dhir with Browne
is unrelated to the limitation at issue. Id. Rather, Appellants submit, the
Examiner’s alleged motivation to combine the references is a conclusory
statement without any of the required articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning required to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. Id.
The Examiner responds by pointing to the teaching of Dhir in which a
call center receives the incoming calls, and a central server system 100
provides strategic decision making, load balancing logic and load balancing
across available resources. Ans. 8 (citing Dhir, Fig. 3, cols. 8–9, ll. 27–12;
col. 7, l. 13. The Examiner finds that Dhir teaches that a person of ordinary
skill would be motivated to combine the cited prior art references to locate
the available resource, and thereby yield and improve hit-rate (% of calls
properly routed), reduce costs, and improve revenues and customer
satisfaction. Id. (citing Dhir, col. 9 ll. 51-58).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ reasoning. Dhir teaches:
Peripheral status data module 210 may be a module for
storing real-time status information from various system
components, such as peripherals at the call centers and IVR
systems. Such status information may include information
indicating which queues (or agents) are busy or available.
Status information stored by peripheral status data module 210
may be used by the strategic decisioning and load balancing
logic (discussed further below) performed by central server
system 100 to establish viable route return addresses

Appeal 2012-012243
Application 11/235,833

12
Dhir, col. 7, ll. 5–15. Dhir thus teaches that the peripheral status data
module stores real-time status information from, inter alia, the IVR systems,
which can be used in strategic decision making and load balancing logic.
Dhir also teaches:
The IVR (Interactive Voice Response Unit) systems, e.g.,
IVR system1 125, may comprise a series of IVR devices, as
illustrated in FIG. 4. In the preferred embodiment, the call
routing system comprises two centralized IVR banks
comprising IVR system1 125 and IVR system2 120. In this
exemplary embodiment, IVR system1 125 comprises central
server IVR interface 405; and a series of individual IVR devices
IVR1 415, IVR2 420, IVR3 425 and IVR N 430.
…
By incorporating shared IVR systems within the call
routing network (e.g., modules 120 and 125) before a call is
forwarded to a local call site, additional information can be
received so that it is more likely that the correct account is
recognized and the proper routing strategy is computed. The
effect is that the so-called hit-rate (% of calls properly routed)
increases dramatically, costs are reduced, and revenues and
customer satisfaction are improved.

Dhir, col. 9, ll. 15–58. We find, therefore, there is a nexus between the
strategic decision making and load balancing logic by the peripheral status
data module, based on status information from the IVRs and the advantages
of the shared IVR systems in improving system performance. We therefore
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5.

C. Claims 8 and 20
Issue
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding that the combined
cited prior art references teach or suggest the limitation of claim 8 reciting
Appeal 2012-012243
Application 11/235,833

13
“wherein the call is transferred without use of a dedicated trunk between the
first call center and the second call center.”

Analysis
Appellants argue the Examiner admits that Browne does not disclose a
first call center and a second call center. App. Br. 12 (citing Final Rej. 3).
Therefore, Appellants argue, Browne cannot teach “a dedicated trunk
between the first call center and the second call center” because Browne
lacks this feature. Id. Appellants argue paragraph [0063] of Browne may
teach or suggest a statistical weighting of processing scripts in terms of their
application to incoming calls; as well as teaching the increased flexibility,
efficiency, facilitation of load sharing and simplification. Id. Likewise,
Appellants contend that paragraph [0114] of Browne may teach or suggest a
switch 102, which receives, via an input 502, a number of calls that have
been initiated into the system 100, and that one or more calls are connected
via the switch 102 to terminals or other call destinations of the system. Id.
Appellants submit that neither of these passages can be reasonably
interpreted as teaching or suggesting transferring without use of a dedicated
trunk, let alone transferring a call without use of a dedicated trunk between a
first call center and a second call center. Id.
The Examiner responds that Browne teaches VoIP packet calls, and
also teaches that a designated fraction of the incoming call can be handled
by one routing application, such as best split routing (BSR), while other
fractions of the calls are handled by applications. Ans. 9 (citing Browne, ¶¶
20, 63). The Examiner finds that call processing operations in the switch
102 are made more flexible and efficient, and load sharing between
Appeal 2012-012243
Application 11/235,833

14
distributed switch processing elements is facilitated. Id. Therefore, the
Examiner finds, incoming calls in Browne are handled flexibly based on
load sharing among distributed switch processing elements and not on a
dedicated trunk. Id.
We agree with the Examiner. Browne teaches: “[t]he term “call” as
used herein is therefore intended to include not only incoming or outgoing
telephone calls but also non-telephonic communications such as voice-over-
IP (VoIP) communications, session initiation protocol (SIP)
communications, data transmissions, e-mail, facsimile, etc.” Browne, ¶ 20.
Browne thus explicitly teaches outgoing calls (e.g., to a second call center)
may be transmitted via non-telephonic means, such as VoIP, email, etc. We
find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the non-
telephonic means taught by Browne do not require a dedicated trunk line.
We consequently affirm the Examiner’s rejection.

DECISION
The Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3–13, 15–25, 27, and 28 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc