Avaya Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 2, 20202019004925 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/983,068 12/29/2015 Laurent Philonenko 4366-764 2440 48500 7590 12/02/2020 SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. 1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200 DENVER, CO 80202 EXAMINER POPE, KHARYE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2652 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/02/2020 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): cjacquet@sheridanross.com edocket@sheridanross.com pair_Avaya@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LAURENT PHILONENKO, VENKATESH KRISHNASWAMY, PARAMESHWARAN KRISHNAN, and NAVJOT SINGH Appeal 2019-004925 Application 14/983,068 Technology Center 2600 Before LARRY J. HUME, JASON J. CHUNG and MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, which are all of the pending claims in the application. Appeal Br. 14–18 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Avaya Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-004925 Application 14/983,068 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed invention generally relates to the execution of a multichannel contact center. Spec. ¶ 16. Where a customer is initially on a voice channel waiting for service, the system may notify the customer that the customer may establish a separate communication channel with the contact center. Id. ¶¶ 17, 26. If the customer establishes a separate computerized communication channel, the system may deliver a “reverse screen pop” informing the customer about the agents and the estimated wait time. Id. Where the same customer initiates two communication channels, the system can determine that these involve the same customer, and bind the communications sessions together. Id. ¶ 46. Independent claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A contact center, comprising: a work assignment engine which receives contacts from customers, generates a corresponding work item for the contacts received from the customers, and selects one or more resources in the contact center to connect with ones of the customers such that the ones of the customers can receive service from the contact center; a channel manager that facilitates the contact center to simultaneously connect with a first customer, via a first communication channel, and a second customer, via a second communication channel, wherein the connection via the first communication channel is initiated by the first customer, wherein the connection via the second communication channel is initiated by the second customer, and wherein the first communication channel comprises a real-time communication session; wherein the work assignment engine consolidates the work item as a single work item comprising both the first communication channel and the second communication channel, upon determining the first customer is the same as the second customer and connecting both the first communication channel Appeal 2019-004925 Application 14/983,068 3 and the second communication channel to the same resource of the one or more resources; and an experience manager that binds information received during a communication session on the second communication channel with a communication session occurring on the first communication channel; and wherein information provided by the first customer over the second communication channel is used to generate a report or Key Performance Indicator (KPI) for an agent communicating with the first customer over the first communication channel. REFERENCES Name Reference Date Fan et al. (Fan) US 2011/0116617 A1 May 19, 2011 Tuchman et al. (Tuchman) US 2014/0119531 A1 May 1, 2014 Aleksin et al. (Aleksin) US 2014/0171034 A1 June 19, 2014 Connolly et al. (Connolly) US 2015/0350435 A1 Dec. 3, 2015 REJECTIONS Claims 1–5, 10–13, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combination of Fan and Tuchman.2 Claims 6, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combination of Fan and Tuchman, in view of Aleksin.3 2 The Examiner does not list claims 4 and 5 in the heading of the rejection, but clearly addresses those claims in the body of the rejection. Appeal Br. 7. 3 The Examiner does not list claim 7 in the heading of the rejection, but clearly addresses claim 7 in the body of the rejection. Appeal Br. 12. Appeal 2019-004925 Application 14/983,068 4 Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combination of Fan, Tuchman, and Aleksin, in view of Connolly. Claims 9, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combination of Fan and Tuchman, in view of Connolly. OPINION We have reviewed the Examiner’s obviousness rejections (Final Act. 3–13, Ans.3–17) in light of Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner erred (Appeal Br. 5–12, Reply Br. 1–6). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention of Examiner error in rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 1. Claims 1–5, 10–13, 17, and 18 We begin with claim 1. The first issue raised by Appellant is whether the combination of Fan and Tuchman teaches or suggests: a channel manager that facilitates the contact center to simultaneously connect with a first customer, via a first communication channel, and a second customer, via a second communication channel, wherein the connection via the first communication channel is initiated by the first customer, wherein the connection via the second communication channel is initiated by the second customer, and wherein the first communication channel comprises a real-time communication session Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner finds that Fan teaches these limitations, by describing multiple customers using separate channels, wherein a resource optimizer determines whether incoming communications are associated with a common account. Final Act. 4 (citing Fan ¶¶ 41, 51, 53); Ans. 4 (citing Fan ¶¶ 41, 46, 47, Fig. 3). The Examiner further finds that Fan shows that communications can originate from the same customer. Final Act. 4 (citing Fan, Fig. 2B); Ans. 4. Appeal 2019-004925 Application 14/983,068 5 Appellant argues that a “determination that a particular communication is associated with a common account fails to teach or suggest any determination that two different and simultaneous communications channels are associated with the same individual.” Reply Br. 3. We are not persuaded by this argument. First, claim 1 recites “determining the first customer is the same as the second customer.” Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). Claim 1 does not mention an “individual.” Second, Fan portrays, in Figure 2B, the same customer being associated with both communication channels: Figure 2B shows customer 200 connected through a voice node 204b and a web node 202b to a common contact routing engine 210a and a resource optimizer 212a. Appeal 2019-004925 Application 14/983,068 6 Appellant further argues that Fan does not show any determination that the customers at the first and second communication channels are the same customer. Reply Br. 3. However, Appellant has not addressed the Examiner’s finding that Fan’s resource optimizer makes such a determination. Ans. 4 (citing Fan ¶ 47). We further determine that the Examiner’s position is supported by Fan’s description of “resource optimizer 212a determines that the incoming communications are associated with a common account, the resource optimizer 212a stores . . . for the sender or senders of the incoming communications.” Fan ¶ 47 (emphasis added). The second issue raised by Appellant is whether the combination of Fan and Tuchman teaches: wherein information provided by the first customer over the second communication channel is used to generate a report or Key Performance Indicator (KPI) for an agent communicating with the first customer over the first communication channel. Appeal Br. 9. The Examiner finds Tuchman to teach this limitation, through the use of a service statistics database that stores data related to the operation and management of a call center, including the number of waiting customers, wait time, and call abandonment. Final Act. 6 (citing Tuchman ¶ 101). The Examiner further finds that it would have been obvious to modify the contact center of Fan with the contact center of Tuchman to “consolidate a plurality of related caller complaints associated with a single caller that can be directed to an agent enabling the totality of issues a caller is experiencing to be resolved with one interaction.” Ans. 6. Appellant argues that although Tuchman produces a report having data relating to a user’s interaction with a training course, the data is not provided over a simultaneous connected second channel. Appeal Br. 9. Appeal 2019-004925 Application 14/983,068 7 Appellant argues that Tuchman’s data is provided at the conclusion of a live support session, which is a different session than the training session, and at the conclusion. Id. Appellant further argues that Tuchman’s customer feedback forms fail to disclose what is claimed, and that Fan is not relied upon to teach that limitation. Reply Br. 4. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. First, Appellant’s arguments solely against Tuchman are not persuasive where the rejection is based upon the combination of Tuchman and Fan. The test for obviousness is “what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner finds Fan to lack teaching of generating a report for an agent. Ans. 5. However, the Examiner has relied upon Fan for teaching the first customer providing information over a second communication channel, and a resource (agent) in communication with the first customer over a first communication channel. Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds Fan to describe a customer data store logging information related to customer interaction for active contact sessions. Id. at 5; see Fan Fig. 2A (showing contact information data store 208 connected to both communication channels). As such, Fan is relied upon for teaching collection of information for an agent communicating with the first customer over the first communication channel, including collection of information for that same agent (where commonly routed) provided by the first customer over the second communication channel. Final Act. 5. The Examiner’s findings are supported by Fan, in which the data store establishes a contact session log prior to requesting service by an agent and “logs information related customer interaction for active contact sessions.” Fan Fig. 3; ¶ 50. The Examiner then relies upon Tuchman for generation of a report from Appeal 2019-004925 Application 14/983,068 8 customer service information in a contact center, and on the combination of Tuchman and Fan to teach the claimed limitation. Final Act. 6. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument that Tuchman, by itself, does not teach the entirety of the limitation in dispute is not persuasive, because the Examiner has shown how the combination of Fan and Tuchman teaches that limitation. For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of error, and affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appellant argues that claims 10 and 17, and claims depending from claims 1, 10, and 17, are allowable for the same reasons. Appeal Br. 9. Accordingly, we affirm claims 1, 10, and 17 and claims 2–5, 11–13, and 18, which are rejected under the same grounds. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). 2. Claims 6, 7, 14, and 19 We start with claim 6. The first issue raised by Appellant is that the applied combination of Fan, Tuchman, and Aleksin fails to teach the additional limitation of claim 6, wherein the contact center provides the first customer with a reverse screen pop via the second communication channel thereby enabling the first customer to define a desired treatment on the first communication channel. Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner finds Aleksin to teach providing the first customer with a reverse screen pop via the second communication channel. Final Act. 10. The Examiner further finds Aleksin’s reverse screen pop to enable the first customer to define a desired treatment on the first communication channel, such as being rerouted from a current communication channel to a different communication channel. Id. The Examiner finds the Specification describes “providing the customer with a conduit for real-time feedback” as a desired Appeal 2019-004925 Application 14/983,068 9 treatment. Ans. 15. The Examiner finds Tuchman describes push commands sent to a customer, and the display of wait time messages for a given channel, along with direct chat options. Id. at 16. The Examiner finds Tuchman further describes “software allowing a blend of a plurality of channels used to support customer requests.” Id. at 11. The Examiner finds the combination teaches the claimed reverse screen pop that enables the customer to define a desired treatment on the first communication channel. Id. Appellant characterizes Aleksin as teaching a reverse screen pop, but not on a second communication channel, or providing any desired treatment. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant characterizes Tuchman as configuring options available to customers, but not as presenting in one communication channel how treatment will occur in a second ongoing channel. Reply Br. 4. We are not persuaded. Appellant argues against the references individually, but does not persuasively argue how the combination of Fan, Tuchman, and Aleksin does not teach or suggest the claimed invention. The Examiner has found Aleksin to teach or suggest the reverse screen pop, and Appellant has not argued to the contrary. Final Act. 10; Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner further found Tuchman to provide push commands and direct chat or callback upon channel request, and thereby, to teach or suggest a “desired treatment” under the scope of that term as understood by the specification. Ans. 10–11, 15–16. Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s finding that Tuchman teaches or suggests a “desired treatment,” instead contesting that Tuchman by itself fails to teach or suggest how treatment will occur in a second ongoing channel. However, we have agreed with the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Fan and Tuchman teach or suggest presenting in one communication channel information regarding a second Appeal 2019-004925 Application 14/983,068 10 channel. Supra at 7–8. Appellant does not address what the combination of Fan, Tuchman, and Aleksin teaches, and therefore, does not persuade us that such a combination fails to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 6. The second issue raised by Appellant is whether the Examiner has provided motivation to combine Fan, Tuchman, and Aleksin. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant argues that no motivation has been provided, “[a]ssuming . . . that the references’ teachings fail to produce that which is claimed.” Id. As discussed, supra, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has not shown the references teach or suggest all limitations of claim 6. Furthermore, the Examiner has provided motivation to combine Fan and Tuchman, i.e., to “enable[] the totality of issues a caller is experiencing to be resolved with one interaction and reducing the number of calls waiting to be distributed to an agent reducing overall wait time.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner has also provided motivation to combine Aleksin with Fan and Tuchman, i.e., “to minimize the amount of time that a customer spends on hold waiting to be connected to an agent resulting in more efficient call center operation.” Id. at 10. Because the Examiner has provided motivation to combine each of the combined references, and Appellant has not provided specific reasoning why such motivation is in error, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s rejection is in error for lacking proper motivation to combine the references. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6. Appellant further argues against the rejection of claim 7, which recites, “wherein the first customer is provided with information regarding the contact center or resources of the contact center and is further allowed to select a desired resource from within the reverse screen pop.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant argues that Aleksin does not teach these limitations. Id. at Appeal 2019-004925 Application 14/983,068 11 10–11. Appellant argues that claim 7 depends from claim 6 and is similarly allowable. Reply Br. 5. As noted for claim 6, Appellant argues solely against Aleksin and not against the combined teachings of Aleksin, Fan, and Tuchman. As discussed for claim 6, The Examiner finds Tuchman describes push commands sent to a customer, and the display of wait time messages for a given channel, along with direct chat, call, and agent availability options. Final Act. 01–12. For the same reasons as discussed with respect to the rejection of claim 6, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 as being obvious over the same combination of references. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 14 and 19, which were rejected under the same combination of references, and which were not argued separately. Appeal Br. 10; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). 3. Claims 8, 9, 15, 16, and 20. Appellant does not argue these claims separately. Claims 8 and 15, rejected over the combination of Fan, Tuchman, Aleksin, and Connolly, are argued as being patentable for the same reasons argued against claim 7, which were rejected over the combination of Fan, Tuchman, and Aleksin. Appel Br. 11. For the same reasons as discussed with respect to the rejection of claim 7, we are not persuaded of error in the rejections of claims 8 and 15, and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 15. Claims 9, 16, and 20, rejected over the combination of Fan, Tuchman, and Connolly, are argued as being patentable for the same reasons argued against claim 1, which were rejected over the combination of Fan and Tuchman. Appeal Br. 9. For the same reasons as discussed with respect to the rejection of claim 1, we are not persuaded of error in the rejections of Appeal 2019-004925 Application 14/983,068 12 claims 9, 16, and 20, and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 16, and 20. CONCLUSION For the above-described reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 as being obvious over the applied references under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Grounds Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 10– 13, 17, 18 103 Fan, Tuchman 1–5, 10–13, 17, 18 6, 7, 14, 19 103 Fan, Tuchman, Aleksin 6, 7, 14, 19 8, 15 103 Fan, Tuchman, Aleksin, Connolly 8, 15 9, 16, 20 103 Fan, Tuchman, Connolly 9, 16, 20 Overall Outcome 1–20 AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation