Avaya Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2020

2019004925 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 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.
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