Ex Parte Lin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 14, 2012

10769240 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 14, 2012)

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