Ex Parte Pickering

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2016

13226342 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016)

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.
5005 3463
EXAMINER
KIM, PAUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/226,342 09/06/2011
82318 7590
Brian R. Galvin
Galvin Patent Law LLC
2916 NW Bucklin Hill Road
Suite 485
SILVERDALE, WA 98383
12/20/2016
Richard Pickering
12/20/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD PICKERING
Appeal 2016-003073
Application 13/226,342
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to a method and
apparatus for operating a contact center system that includes providing
multimedia communications session management support for customers
Appeal 2016-003073
Application 13/226,342
(Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method of operating a multimedia contact center, the method
comprising the steps of:
(a) managing, using a session control server, a plurality
of consumer communication sessions of a plurality of media
types for a plurality of enterprises, the session control server
being located remotely from the premises of the plurality of
enterprises, wherein each enterprise maintains customer
relationship management (CRM) data relating to a plurality of
customers of the respective enterprise;
(b) uploading CRM data relating to a plurality of customers
of the plurality of enterprises from the plurality of enterprises
into a multimedia database of the multimedia contact center, the
multimedia database being located remotely from the plurality of
enterprises, wherein said uploading includes transforming the
CRM data from an original format maintained by the respective
enterprise into a standardized format for the multimedia
database; and
(c) handling consumer communications sessions by the
multimedia contact center using the transformed CRM data in the
multimedia database.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Monza
Simons
US 2004/0081183 A1
US 7,873,534 B2
Apr. 29, 2004
Jan. 18,2011
2
Appeal 2016-003073
Application 13/226,342
REJECTION
Claims 1—7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Simons and Monza (Final Act. 2—4).
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
ISSUES
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1—7
Appellant contends the purported invention as recited in claims 1—7, is
not obvious over Simons and Monza (App. Br. 5—9). The issues presented
by the arguments are:
Issue 1: Does the Examiner err by determining Simons is analogous
art?
Issue 2: Does the combination of Simons and Monza teach, suggest,
or otherwise render obvious “uploading CRM data relating to a plurality of
customers of the plurality of enterprises from the plurality of enterprises into
a multimedia database of the multimedia contact center, the multimedia
database being located remotely from the plurality of enterprises,” as recited
in claim 1 ?
Issue 3: Does the combination of Simons and Monza teach, suggest,
or otherwise render obvious “the session control server being located
remotely from the premises of the plurality of enterprises,” as recited in
claim 1?
3
Appeal 2016-003073
Application 13/226,342
ANALYSIS
Appellant asserts Simons is not drawn to analogous art (App. Br. 5).
According to Appellant, Simons teaches collecting CRM usage data to help
improve a CRM software application’s performance and does not teach
collecting CRM customer data for use in conjunction with call center centers
{id. at 6—7). More specifically, Appellant contends because Simons is about
collecting technical usage data about how CRM systems are actually used to
improve the software’s performance, an ordinarily skilled artisan would not
have looked to Simons {id. at 7).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Initially, we note
Appellant has not defined explicitly in the Specification the term “CRM
data.” Appellant’s Specification provides an example: “this information
may represent a name and address of a party associated with a particular
calling line identification” (Spec., 2:7—8). Here, Simons teaches collecting
feedback data from a CRM program and does not limit the data collected
(Simons, 5:13—24; see also Figs. 6, 8, 15). Instead, Simons teaches
collecting information about a party {id.). Thus, we are not persuaded by
Appellant that Simons fails to teach “CRM data relating to a plurality of
customers.” Moreover, we are not persuaded an ordinarily skilled artisan
would not have found Simons renders obvious collecting such CRM data.
Further, Appellant has not proffered sufficient evidence or argument
that Simons is not from the same field of endeavor. Specifically, Simon
collects and utilizes feedback data from a CRM program (Simons, 5:13—24;
Ans. 2). Thus, Simon and Appellant’s claimed invention both collect and
utilize CRM data. Appellant has not proffered sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us Simons is not drawn to analogous art, such as
4
Appeal 2016-003073
Application 13/226,342
proffering evidence or argument that Simons is not from the same field of
endeavor and is not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with the
inventor is involved.
Appellant next contends Monza fails to teach “uploading CRM data
relating to a plurality of customers of the plurality of enterprises from the
plurality of enterprises into a multimedia database of the multimedia contact
center, the multimedia database being located remotely from the plurality of
enterprises,” (App. Br. 7—8). Appellant specifically argues Monza’s “agent
stations” do not teach “enterprises” as recited in the claim (id. at 7).
According to Appellant, “enterprise” has a meaning understood by
ordinarily skilled artisans that does not teach “a cell center agent working at
a workstation” (id. ). However, Appellant has not proffered evidence to
support this interpretation, instead merely making attorney argument (id. ).
Nor does Appellant’s Specification explicitly define this term. Thus, taking
a broad but reasonable interpretation, we are not persuaded Monza’s
agent/systems fail to teach the recited “enterprise.” Monza further describes
the agent/systems as including many individual manned stations grouped by
product or business criteria (Monza 1 51). Therefore, we determine
Monza’s agent/systems are “a unit of economic organization or activity”
{Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Alb (11th ed. 2007)).
Thus, Appellant has not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to
persuade us the combination of Simons and Monza fails to teach or suggest
“uploading CRM data relating to a plurality of customers of the plurality of
enterprises from the plurality of enterprises into a multimedia database of the
multimedia contact center, the multimedia database being located remotely
from the plurality of enterprises,” as recited in claim 1.
5
Appeal 2016-003073
Application 13/226,342
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner Monza’s IR (intelligent
data router) Server is separately located away from agents/systems 129 (Ans.
3^4; Monza, Fig. 1). As Appellant has not explicitly defined the term
“remotely” in the Specification, and Appellant has not proffered evidence to
show how an ordinarily skilled artisan would have interpreted the term at the
time of the invention, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s finding. It follows, we are not persuaded Monza fails to teach
“the session control server being located remotely from the premises of the
plurality of enterprises,” as asserted by Appellant (App. Br. 5).
Appellant further argues Simons fails to teach the recited “uploading
CRM data” limitation (App. Br. 8—9). According to Appellant, Simons does
not teach customer data (i.e., “data about the customers whose relationships
are managed by the CRM system in question”). However, the Examiner
relies on Monza as teaching this limitation (Final Act. 3; Ans. 4). Thus, we
are not persuaded by Appellant’s assertions. To the extent Appellant is
arguing Simons fails to teach customer data (App. Br. 8—9), as noted above,
we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. We further note Simons
teaches collecting customer data along with other data (see, e.g., Simons,
Figs. 6, 8, 15 (illustrating collection of profile information about a user’s
organization including industry, geographical location, and e-mail address)).
As a result, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
findings and reasoning. Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us the
combination of Simons and Monza fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise
render obvious “uploading CRM data relating to a plurality of customers of
the plurality of enterprises from the plurality of enterprises into a multimedia
database of the multimedia contact center, the multimedia database being
6
Appeal 2016-003073
Application 13/226,342
located remotely from the plurality of enterprises” and “the session control
server being located remotely from the premises of the plurality of
enterprises,” as recited in independent claim 1. Claims 2—7 were not
separately argued, instead, relying on the arguments set forth for claim 1
(App. Br. 5). Thus, claims 2—7 fall with claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claims 1—7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Simons and Monza.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Simons and Monza 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7