Ex Parte Lin et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 14, 201210769240 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 14, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte XIAOFAN LIN, STEVEN J. SIMSKE, SHERIF YACOUB, and JOHN ROLAND BURNS _____________ Appeal 2009-013656 Application 10/769,240 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before ERIC S. FRAHM, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-013656 Application 10/769,240 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Invention The invention is directed to an automated call handling system that uses an interactive voice response system, and allows for operator selection based on the language skill level of the operators (Spec. 1:14-2:8; claim 1; Fig. 1). Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below, with emphasis added to the disputed portion of the claim: 1. A method for operator selection, comprising: initiating a dialog between a contact and a call handling system; identifying a language variation spoken by the contact; determining a skill level with respect to the language variation for each operator within a set of operators following the initiation of the dialog between the contact and the call handling system, the skill level for each operator within the set of operators being determined on a real time basis while each operator is engaged in a dialog with a contact that has been transferred to that operator; selecting an operator whose skill level in the language variation is above a predetermined value; and transferring the dialog with the contact to the operator. Appeal 2009-013656 Application 10/769,240 3 Examiner’s Rejections (1) The Examiner rejected claims 1-15, 22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Das (US 6,847,714 B2) and Bala (US 6,798,876 B1). Ans. 3-6. (2) The Examiner rejected claims 16, 18, 20, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Das, Bala, and Bahler (US 4,896,358). Ans. 6-7 and 9. (3) The Examiner rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Das, Bala, Bahler, and Theophano Mitsa, Image Registration Using Elastic Contours and Internal Landmarks, IEEE INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT TECHNOLOGY Conference, pp. 451- 455 (May 18-20, 1998) (hereinafter, “Mitsa”). Ans. 7-8. (4) The Examiner rejected claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Das, Bala, Bahler, and Gupta (US 6,122,361). Ans. 8. ISSUE The Examiner relies upon Bala’s column 4, line 66 to column 5, line 3 and column 6, lines 15-18 as teaching determining operator skill level in real time (see Ans. 4 and 9-12). The Examiner determines that Bala monitors call data during the actual call and determines if the call was successful or not, then updates the system at the completion of the call (Ans. 10). The Examiner equates Bala’s monitoring of the call data during the actual call to the recited feature of determining operator skill level on a real time basis while an operator is engaged in dialog with a contact (Ans. 10). Appellants argue (App. Br. 7-17; Reply Br. 4-7) the Examiner’s rejections are in error because Bala’s column 6, lines 15-18 do not teach or Appeal 2009-013656 Application 10/769,240 4 disclose determining the skill level for each operator “on a real time basis while each operator is engaged in a dialog with a contact that has been transferred to that operator,” as recited in representative claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 21, 22, and 24. Appellants contend (App. Br. 7-11) with regard to claims 1, 22, and 24 that Bala’s column 6, lines 15-18 updates the system at the completion of the call, and does not update customer service representative profiles until after the call completion. Appellants also contend (Reply Br. 5-7) that Bala monitors call data and determines if a call was successful, but does not teach or suggest determining operator skill level on a real time basis. In fact, Appellants argue (Reply Br. 5-7), Bala does not teach when the skill level determination actually occurs. Accordingly, the issue is whether the Examiner erred because Bala fails to teach or suggest determining the skill level for each operator on a real time basis while each operator is engaged in a dialog with a contact that has been transferred to that operator, as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 21, 22, and 24? ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the briefs and we concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of references teaches determining the skill level for each operator on a real time basis while each operator is engaged in a dialog with a contact that has been transferred to that operator, as claimed. We find that Bala discloses monitoring call data to determine if the call was successful or not, and then updating a customer service Appeal 2009-013656 Application 10/769,240 5 representatives profile “which, accordingly impacts the system algorithm for determining a routing choice” (col. 4, l. 66 to col. 5, l. 3). Bala also discloses (see Bala’s method claim 6 at col. 6, ll. 1-18) a method for routing incoming calls to a customer service representative (i.e., operator), including “determin[ing] which customer service representatives are more qualified to handle the incoming call” (col. 6, ll. 9-10), routing an incoming call to the highest ranked representative (col. 6, ll. 13-14), and “automatically updating, at the completion of the call, the caller profile and the highest ranked customer service representative profile with information regarding the success of the call” (col. 6, ll. 15-18 (emphasis added)). However, Bala is silent as to the timing of the skill level determination. The operational flowcharts shown in Bala’s Figures 2 and 3 and the detailed description of the system operation found from column 4, line 50 to column 6, line 18 do not disclose, teach, or suggest determining operator skill level on a real time basis during a call, and certainly do not disclose, teach, or suggest when the skill level determination is made in relation to the occurrence of the call. In fact, Bala seems to suggest changing the routing choice algorithm based on an evaluation of the skill level of the customer service representatives after a call has been completed (see col. 6, ll. 1-18). Accordingly, Appellants’ argument (Reply Br. 6) that Bala fails to teach when a determination is made regarding the skill level of the customer service representative is persuasive. In view of the foregoing, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has not shown the claimed feature of determining the skill level for each operator on a real time basis while each operator is engaged in a dialog with a contact that has been transferred to that operator, as recited in Appeal 2009-013656 Application 10/769,240 6 claims 1-24. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-24. We have decided the appeal before us. However, should there be further prosecution of claims 1-24, the Examiner’s attention is directed to guidance from the Director and our reviewing courts regarding subject matter eligibility for process claims. See, e.g., Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos, 75 Fed. Reg. 43922, 43922-28 (Jul. 27, 2010); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible under § 101); Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010). Should there be further prosecution of claims 22 and 23, the Examiner’s attention is directed to guidance from the Director and our reviewing courts regarding computer-readable media. See, e.g., 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010); Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media; In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that transitory, propagating signals are not within any of the four statutory categories). Notably, Appellants’ Specification (Spec. 5:22-14:18) describes a call handling system 102 including a dialog router 110, dialog manager 106, classifier 122, modules 108 and 124, and databases 118, 120, and 126 (see Figure 1). However, the Specification is silent as to whether the “computer-usable medium embodying computer program code for performing operator selection” (claim 22) may comprise a carrier wave or signal, or may comprise a hardware element such as a disk drive or memory. Appeal 2009-013656 Application 10/769,240 7 CONCLUSION Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-24. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-24 is reversed. REVERSED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation