Paul D'Arcy et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2020

13690115 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2020)

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.
13/690,115 11/30/2012 Paul D'Arcy 412128-US-
NP/AVA050PA
4508
136582 7590 03/27/2020
STEVENS & SHOWALTER, LLP
Box AVAYA Inc.
7019 Corporate Way
Dayton, OH 45459-4238
EXAMINER
DIVELBISS, MATTHEW H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2020 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
pair_avaya@firsttofile.com
pto@sspatlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PAUL D'ARCY, NEIL O'CONNOR, TONY MCCORMACK

Appeal 2018-006377
Application 13/690,115
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.

MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–6,
8, 10–14, 16–19, and 21–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We AFFIRM.2

1 The Appellant is the “applicant” as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (e.g., “the
inventor or all of the joint inventors”). “The real party in interest in the
present appeal is Avaya, Inc.” (Appeal Br. 2.)
2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a).
Appeal 2018-006377
Application 13/690,115

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant’s invention “generally relate[s] to contact centers and
particularly to increasing contact center efficiency.” (Spec. ¶ 2.)
Illustrative Claim
(with paragraphing modified)
1. A self-service system in a contact center, comprising:
a memory storing executable instructions;
a processor in communication with the memory, wherein
the executable instructions when executed by the processor
cause the processor to:
monitor interaction between a contact and the call center;
collect context information based on the monitored
interaction;
store the context information in a context store, wherein
the context information is associated with an identity of the
contact;
retrieve a self-service configuration from a data store of a
plurality of self-service configurations;
tailor the retrieved self-service configuration based on the
stored context information to produce a tailored self-service
configuration, wherein the retrieved self-service
configuration is tailored to add a customized option in a
self-service menu for the contact, the customized option
matching a last enquiry made by the contact and comprises a
newly added option to an Interactive Voice Response (IVR)
tree;
store the tailored self-service configuration in the data
store of the plurality of self-service configurations, wherein
the tailored self-service configuration is associated with the
identity of the contact;
obtain an identity of a subsequent incoming contact to the
contact center;
Appeal 2018-006377
Application 13/690,115

3
when the identity of the subsequent incoming contact
matches the identity of the contact, retrieve the tailored
self-service configuration from the data store of the plurality
of self-service configurations;
based on the collected context information, invite a
supervisor into a contact interaction; and
provide a customized self-service experience to the
subsequent incoming contact according to the tailored
self-service configuration.

References
Boyer US 2003/0177017 A1 Sept. 18, 2003
Das US 2004/0096050 A1 May 20, 2004
Schoeneberger US 2004/0141508 A1 July 22, 2004
Mei US 7,065,188 B1 June 20, 2006
Kagan US 2007/006912 A1 Mar. 22, 2007
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 8, 10–12, 16–18, and 21–25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable overt Boyer, Mei, and Schoeneberger.
(Final Action 2, 13.)
The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Boyer, Mei, Schoeneberger, and Das. (Final
Action 42–43.)
The Examiner rejects claims 6, 14, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable overt Boyer, Mei, Schoeneberger, and Kagan. (Final
Action 45.)
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 sets forth “[a] self-service system in a contact
center.” (Appeal Br. Claims App.) The Examiner determines that the
Appeal 2018-006377
Application 13/690,115

4
claimed system would have been obvious over the combined teachings of
Boyer, Mei, and Schoeneberger. (See Final Action 3–13.) We have
carefully considered the Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner errs in
making this determination (See Appeal Br. 16–20, Reply Br. 2–5), but we
are not persuaded thereby.
Independent claim 1 requires the self-service system to comprise a
“processor” that executes instructions to “provide a customized self-service
experience” to an “incoming contact.” The Examiner finds that Boyer
teaches a contact center comprising a processor that executes instructions to
provide a customized self-service experience. (See Final Action 3.) Boyer
discloses a contact system in which an “automated personal agent”
recommends certain “service options” (“from among a greater number of
service options”) when a particular customer contacts the contact center.
(Boyer ¶ 31.)
Independent claim 1 requires a “tailored self-service configuration” to
be “associated with” a particular customer (i.e., “associated with the identity
of the contact”). (Appeal Br., Claims App.) In Boyer, the personal agent
recommends certain service options to the customer based upon “customer
awareness information.” (Boyer ¶ 30.) Customer awareness information is
“information associated with the customer,” and includes “customer needs
and preferences,” and more, particularly, “auditory and visual inputs
characteristic to the contact mode,” and “media personalization of user
configurable parameters (e.g., hold music selected, background color
selected, etc.).” (Id.) Thus, a person’s “customer awareness information”
contains a tailored self-service configuration for this particular person.
Appeal 2018-006377
Application 13/690,115

5
Independent claim 1 requires the system to “provide a customized
self-service experience to [a] subsequent incoming contact according to the
tailored self-service configuration.” (Appeal Br., Claims App, emphasis
added.) In Boyer, the automated personal agent provides a customized
self-service experience (i.e., the recommended service options) according to
the customer awareness information. We note that claim 1 requires the
system to provide “a customized self-service experience” according to the
customer’s tailored self-service configuration, and not necessarily to provide
the tailored self-service configuration itself to the customer.
Independent claim 1 requires the customer’s tailored self-service
configuration to be “stor[ed],” and then later “retriev[ed],” when the
customer calls the contact center again. (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The
Appellant argues that, in Boyer, the personal agent’s recommended service
options are not “stored” and/or later “retrieved.” (See Appeal Br. 17–18;
Reply Br. 2–4.) This may or may not be true. However, in Boyer, a
person’s customer awareness information (i.e., tailored self-serve
configuration) is stored, and then later retrieved, when this person
subsequently calls the contact center. (See Boyer ¶¶ 6, 30–45, Figs. 2, 7.)3
Independent claim 1 requires the system to “collect context
information,” and, “based on the collected context information, invite a
supervisor into a contact interaction.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious, in view of the

3 Moreover, Mei teaches creating, storing, and later retrieving, a
“personalized dialog menu[]” for a particular customer (Mei 3:49–52, see
also id. 4:1–2, 61–65), and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
that the same could be done with “service options” in a call center.
Appeal 2018-006377
Application 13/690,115

6
teachings of Schoeneberger, for Boyer’s system to introduce a supervisor to
the call when, based on collected context information, a supervisor’s input
would be helpful. (See Final Action 13.)
The Appellant argues that “[t]he most that Schoeneberger teaches is
that a supervisor with proper authority is able to conference into a call
involving a customer and an agent.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) We are not
persuaded by this argument because Schoeneberger discloses that it is a
supervisor’s responsibility to “gauge the efficiency of the contact center”
(Schoeneberger ¶ 100), that “lengthy wait periods” factor into the efficiency
of the contact center (id. ¶ 302), that if “a communication ages” to a certain
point the call “will be escalated” (id.), and that a supervisor is “able to
conference into” a call from a customer (id. ¶ 254). Thus, Schoeneberger
teaches that the proper response to an escalated call (e.g., a call escalated
due to a lengthy wait time) is to conference a supervisor into the call.
Moreover, the Examiner’s rejection relies on the combined teachings
of Boyer, Mei, and Schoeneberger. Boyer teaches collecting context
information that includes “wait times” (Boyer ¶ 6); and Boyer teaches that if
a customer’s “expected wait time” exceeds a given time interval, some
appropriate action must be taken (id. ¶ 50). One of ordinary skill in the art
would appreciate, in view of Schoeneberger’s teachings on escalating a call
due to a lengthy wait period, that asking a supervisor to conference into a
call would be an appropriation action if a caller’s wait period is too long. As
explained by the Examiner, this would “efficiently improve the customer’s
interactions by introducing a person of higher authority who can resolve the
customer’s issues.” (Final Action 13.)
Appeal 2018-006377
Application 13/690,115

7
Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner errs in determining that
the system set forth in independent claim 1 would have been obvious over
the combined teachings of Boyer, Mei, and Schoeneberger; and we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection. The Appellant argues all of the claims on appeal
as a group (see Appeal Br. 20), and so the rest of the claims fall with
independent claim 1.4
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 8, 10–12,
16–18, 21–25
35 U.S.C § 103
Boyer, Mei,
Schoeneberger
1–4, 8, 10–12,
16–18, 21–25

5, 13 35 U.S.C § 103
Boyer, Mei,
Schoeneberger,
Das
5, 13
6, 14, 19, 35 U.S.C § 103
Boyer, Mei,
Schoeneberger,
Kagan
6, 14, 19,
Overall Outcome 1–6, 8, 10–14,
16–19, 21–25

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

4 “When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued
as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may select a single claim
from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal as to the ground of
rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the basis of the selected
claim alone.” (37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).)