Ex Parte Jaiswal et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 31, 201411611350 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation