11311140 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 5, 2010)

Ex Parte Bushey et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesApr 5, 2010

11311140 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 5, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte ROBERT R. BUSHEY and BENJAMIN A. KNOTT _____________ Appeal 2009-004759 Application 11/311,140 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Decided: April 6, 2010 _______________ Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN C. MARTIN, and THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-004759 Application 11/311,140 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to method, computer readable medium, and apparatus that routes communications to a best matched agent by selecting an agent model based upon the modality of the incoming communication and determining an agent based upon the requester’s information. See Spec: 1-3. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. A method for routing communications to an agent, comprising: selecting one of a plurality of agent models for each of a plurality of agents, based upon an identified modality of an incoming communication from a requester; determining an agent corresponding to one of the selected agent models best matched to information associated with the requester corresponding to the incoming communication; and establishing a communication connection between the requester and the best matched agent. REFERENCES Mosquera US 2004/0193468 A1 Sep. 30, 2004 Golitsin US 2004/0213400 A1 Oct. 28, 2004 2 Appeal 2009-004759 Application 11/311,140 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Golitsin. Ans. 3-6. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Golitsin in view of Mosquera. Ans. 6. ISSUE Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Golitsin Appellants argue on pages 12-17 of the Appeal Brief and pages 4-8 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error. Appellants argue that Golitsin does not disclose “selecting one of a plurality of agent models for each of a plurality of agents” as required by claim 1. App. Br. 13. Appellants present similar arguments directed to claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 on page 19 of the Appeal Brief and page 8 of the Reply Brief; claim 9 on page 18 of the Appeal Brief and page 8 of the Reply Brief; and claim 15 on pages 18-19 of the Appeal Brief and page 8 of the Reply Brief. Thus, with respect to claims 1-20, Appellants’ contentions present us with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Golitsin discloses selecting one of a plurality of agent models for each of a plurality of agents?1 1 Appellants make additional arguments regarding claims 1-20. App. Br. 12- 17; Reply Br. 4-8. We do not reach these additional issues since the issue of whether Golitsin discloses selecting one of a plurality of agent models for each of a plurality of agents is dispositive of the case. 3 Appeal 2009-004759 Application 11/311,140 Rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being anticipated by Golitsin in view of Mosquera Appellants argue on pages 19-20 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 is in error. Claim 21 ultimately depends upon claim 15. Appellants present the same issues with respect to claim 15. App. Br. 19-20; Reply Br. 8.2 Thus, Appellants’ contentions with respect to claim 21 present us with the same issue as claim 15. FINDINGS OF FACT (FF) Golitsin 1. Golitsin discloses a system that determines where to route an incoming communication based upon the best computed value for the considered destinations. ¶ [0020]. 2. The determination is based upon skill weighting and agent activity over multiple mediums. ¶ [0051]. 3. Agent activity over multiple mediums comprises a scalar load that includes queue depth per media type per agent, server load for chat sessions, the state of the programs running on an agent’s machine, traffic flow, etc. ¶ [0052]. 2 Appellants make an additional argument regarding claim 21. App. Br. 20. We do not reach this additional issue since whether Golitsin discloses selecting one of a plurality of agent models for each of a plurality of agents is dispositive of the case. 4 Appeal 2009-004759 Application 11/311,140 4. Pre-set skill weights are calculated for each agent for different media types. These skill weights are combined to determine an average weight that reflects an agent’s skill level for his/her currently assigned media types. ¶ [0054]. PRINCIPLES OF LAW Office personnel must rely on Appellants’ disclosure to properly determine the meaning of the terms used in the claims. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc). “[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim is not to be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). ANALYSIS Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Golitsin Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Claim 1 recites “selecting one of a plurality of agent models for each of a plurality of agents.” The Examiner finds that Golitsin discloses this “selecting step” since Golitsin discloses associating the “highest computed value” for the most proficient agent in each communication medium. Ans. 8. We disagree. Golitsin discloses a system wherein agent skill levels for each media type are known. FF 4. The skill levels are combined to produce a value that indicates an agent’s skill level in his/her currently assigned modalities. FF 5 Appeal 2009-004759 Application 11/311,140 4. However, the difference between what is claimed and what Golitsin discloses is that while the individual skill levels for each media type are known in Golitsin, it is the combination of the skill levels for all assigned media types that is used to select the appropriate agent. FF 4. Thus, the Golitsin system only comprises one agent model for each agent and not multiple agent models based upon the modality of the incoming communication. As such, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20. Rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being anticipated by Golitsin in view of Mosquera Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21. Claim 21 ultimately depends upon claim 15 and contains similar limitations discussed supra with respect to claim 1. The additional teachings of Mosquera do not make up for the deficiencies noted in the rejection of claim 15. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 15. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding that Golitsin discloses selecting one of a plurality of agent models for each of a plurality of agents. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-21 is reversed. 6 Appeal 2009-004759 Application 11/311,140 REVERSED ELD AT&T LEGAL DEPARTMENT – GB ATTN: PATENT DOCKETING ROOM 2A-207 ONE AT&T WAY BEDMINISTER, NJ 07921 7