Ex Parte Jaiswal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2014

11611350 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PEEYUSH JAISWAL and NAVEEN NARAYAN
____________

Appeal 2012-004362
Application1 11/611,350
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ERIC B. GRIMES, ULRIKE W. JENKS, and
CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judges.

JENKS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims directed to
balancing loads among call center resources. The Examiner has rejected the
claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification is directed to a computer program “for dynamically
balancing call loads among call center resources when a call load reaches
a threshold.” (Spec. 2: ¶ 1.)

1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
Real Party in Interest. (Br. 2.)
Appeal 2012-004362
Application 11/611,350

2
Claims 1-20 are on appeal, and can be found in the Claims Appendix
of the Appeal Brief. The Examiner has rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Shtivelman.2 Claim 1 is representative of the
claims on appeal, and reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A computer implemented method for dynamically balancing
call loads among call center resources, the computer
implemented method comprising:
responsive to receiving an incoming call at a call center,
determining by a processor a target call center resource group to
handle the incoming call;
determining by the processor whether a call load of the
target call center resource group is above a threshold;
if the call load is above the threshold, locating by the
processor least utilized call center resources in the call center;
identifying by the processor resources in the least utilized
call center resources which have a same skill set of the target
call center resources; and
assigning by the processor the identified resources to the
target call center resource group.

The issue is: Does the preponderance of the evidence of record
support the Examiner’s conclusion that the disclosure of Shtivelman renders
the claims obvious?
Findings of Fact
FF 1. Shtivelman disclosed “a communication center system wherein
agents participate in and host communication sessions, a session
management system has a data repository storing parameters regarding
individual sessions in progress in the communication center system and

2 Yuri Shtivelman, US 6,535,492 B2, issued Mar. 18, 2003.
Appeal 2012-004362
Application 11/611,350

3
agent parameters including one or both of minimum and maximum load
capabilities for individual agents.” (Shtivelman, Abstract; see also Ans. 5.)
FF 2. Shtivelman disclosed that “[t]he system is characterized in that
the management software calculates agent load level over sessions hosted by
an individual agent, compares the calculated load level with one or both of
minimum and maximum load for said agent, and adjusts agent loading
and/or or wait time accordingly.” (Shtivelman, col. 2, ll. 37-40; see also
Ans. 5.)
FF 3. Shtivelman disclosed:
If total traffic for an agent meets or exceed that agent’s
maximum limit value over a given time period the agent in
question is considered to be at capacity or overloaded (working
beyond his or her capacity). If the total traffic for an agent is at
or below the agent’s minimum limit value over a given time
period, then the agent in question is determined to be under-
utilized. CMS 45, based on results compiled for each hosting
agent, assigns new or under-utilized agents to sessions taken
away from overworked agents, and/or retires under-utilized
agents from chat sessions, and/or adjusts wait time in sessions.
(Shtivelman, col. 7, ll. 20-30; see also Ans. 4, 5.)
FF 4. Shtivelman disclosed that skill level parameters are considered
when assigning agents as shown in “FIG. 1 to ‘look’ for a next available
agent with a matching skill-set, if required, to assign to a displaced session.”
(Shtivelman, col. 8, ll. 65-67; see also Ans. 4.) “If, however, the projected
agent load exceeds his or her maximum limit, then one or more of the
agent’s sessions will be re-assigned to another agent with the same or
closely matching skill level at step 91.” (Shtivelman, col. 9, ll. 22-25; see
also Ans. 5.)
Appeal 2012-004362
Application 11/611,350

4
FF 5. The Specification provides that “the call routing software scans
the routing points to locate the least utilized agent group in the call center.
In other words, the agent group which has the smallest call load is located by
the call routing software.” (Spec. 10: ¶ 18.)
FF 6. The Specification provides that “the call routing software
identifies the least utilized call support agents in the call center (step 320).
The call routing software then determines which agents in the group of least
utilized agents are able to handle calls for the high volume agent group (step
322).” (Spec. 13: ¶ 28.)
Analysis
Shtivelman discloses a system for hosting chat sessions in a local area
network, wherein each chat sessions is led by an agent and has a limit on the
number of participants. Because agents may be assigned multiple chat
session at a time (Shtivelman, col. 7, ll. 2-4), the agents are assigned
parameters that include minimum and maximum load volumes (FF 1). The
software calculates load levels of each agent over the multiple open sessions
and adjusts agent loading according to the set parameters (FF 2). If a
particular agent is working above capacity, load is removed from that agent
to an agent that is at or below the minimum load for that agent (FF 3). In
addition to determining the load volume, Shtivelman also matches the skill-
set of each agent so that the newly assigned agent will have a similar skill set
as the agent that was overloaded (FF 4).
Appellants contend that “Shtivelman never makes a determination of
‘least utilized call center resources.’” (Br. 10.) In particular, Appellants
assert that “[w]hile Shtivelman may identify a ‘lesser’ used resource, it most
definitely does not identify a ‘least’ used resource as claimed in the
Appeal 2012-004362
Application 11/611,350

5
Appellants’ claim 1. Identifying a ‘least’ used resource necessarily requires
some comparison of the resources themselves.” (Id. at 11.) “Shtivelman
simply bases the chat switching sessions on whether particular resources are
over or under threshold amounts.” (Id. at 12.)
The Examiner takes the position that “the claimed ‘least utilized’ is
read as ‘under utilized’ in the reference.” (Ans. 4 (emphasis added).) “The
examiner notes that the least used resources are the group of resources that
are below a predetermined minimum (see again, Col. 7, lines 24 - 27 of
Shtivelman[)].” (Id. at 6.)
“[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Here, the Specification provides that the
least utilized agent group is the group that has the smallest call load, i.e.,
which receives the smallest number of calls (FF 5). Additionally, the
software also determines the least utilized call support agents in the
particular call center group (FF 6). Accordingly, based on the Specification
we find that term “least utilized” means the smallest call load, in other words
the smallest number of calls. The claims, however, require “the least
utilized call center resources” (in the plural form), which we interpret to
mean the group of agents that has the smallest call load.
Shtivelman provides that when an agent is at or below the agent’s
minimum limit over a given time period the agent is considered under-
utilized (FF 3). The minimum call load for the individual agent is variable
in Shtivelman. Specifically, “a relative value may be assigned to each
agent-skill that an agent possesses. . . . The lower coefficient reflects less of
a load for an agent. . . . In this way, agent skill levels may be used in an
Appeal 2012-004362
Application 11/611,350

6
algorithm to determine, for example, which sessions and how many sessions
should be assigned to a particular agent.” (Shtivelman, col. 9, ll. 5-15.)
Therefore, in Shtivelman an agent that is under-utilized is not necessarily the
“least utilized” individual agent, because the agent does not necessarily have
the smallest number of calls when compared to other agents. Appellants’
argument is focused on the fact that Shtivelman does not make a
determination about which individual agent has the smallest call number.
However, claim 1 does not require locating the single least utilized
call center resource (agent). “An essential purpose of patent examination is
to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in
this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible,
during the administrative process.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir.
1989). Here, the claims recite locating “the least utilized call center
resources,” and this requires locating which agent group has the smallest
number of calls. The Examiner finds that “[i]n Shtivelman, those resources
(agents) below the minimum threshold are the call center’s least utilized
resources” (Ans. 6). We find that Shtivelman sorts the agents into three
different groups: (1) those agents that are working above their maximum
threshold capacity (i.e., “overloaded”), (2) those that are working within
their target range between their maximum and minimum thresholds (i.e., at
an optimal capacity), and (3) those agents that are working below their
minimum threshold or even off line (i.e., “under-utilized”). By categorizing
the agents into the various groups, Shtivelman necessarily makes a
determination as to which group has the smallest call number. We therefore
agree with the Examiner’s position that the under-utilized group of agents in
Shtivelman is also the group that has the smallest number of calls, thereby
Appeal 2012-004362
Application 11/611,350

7
meeting the recited claim limitation of locating the “least utilized call center
resources.”
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ contention that “Shtivelman
simply bases the chat switching sessions on whether particular resources are
over or under threshold amounts.” (Br. 12.) We agree with the Examiner,
that in addition to considering the agent’s call load, Shtivelman also assesses
the agent’s skill level for a particular subject before making an assignment
and setting call threshold levels (FF 4).
We conclude that the evidence cited by the Examiner supports a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 1, and Appellants have not
provided sufficient rebuttal or evidence of secondary considerations that
outweighs the evidence supporting the prima facie case. As Appellants do
not argue the claims separately, claims 2-20 fall with claim 1 (see Br. 12).
37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1).

SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Shtivelman.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

dm