Ex Parte Nelken

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 18, 2016

11740156 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2016)

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. 11/740,156 04/25/2007 Yoram Nelken SVL920050708US7 1607 45729 7590 03/18/2016 GATES & COOPER LLP - IBM 6701 CENTER DRIVE WEST SUITE 1050 LOS ANGELES, CA 90045 EXAMINER COONEY, ADAM A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2443 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/18/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte YORAM NELKEN ____________________ Appeal 2014-001528 Application 11/740,156 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2014-001528 Application 11/740,156 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1–7 and 10–16. Claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Exemplary Independent Claim Independent claim 1 is exemplary and reads as follows, with emphasis added: 1. A system for optimizing timing of responses to communications, comprising: an electronic communication system including: a contact center configured to receive a communication from a sender; and an operations center for processing the communication received by the contact center and including: a decision module configured to analyze the communication and determine whether a partial response to the communication is required, before a full response is sent to the communication, based on the communication's content and how such communications are typically processed, wherein the decision module determines whether the communication requires the partial response according to an estimated time required for the full response to the communication and based on the communication's content and how such communications are typically processed; and a response module configured to send the partial response to the sender, if required, Appeal 2014-001528 Application 11/740,156 3 wherein the decision module determines a new estimated time required for the full response to the communication after the response module sends the partial response, and the response module sends a new partial response, before the full response is sent to the communication, indicating that the communication is still being processed, after the new estimated time required has been exceeded and based on the communication's content and how such communications are typically processed. Examiner’s Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1–7 and 10–16 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Jensen (US 6,741,698 B1; issued May 25, 2004), Friedes et al. (US 5,311,583; issued May 10, 1994), and Gargeya et al. (US 6,714,643 B1; issued Mar. 30, 2004). Final Act. 4–10; Ans. 2–7. The Examiner (Final Act. 5–7) relies on a combination of Jensen and Friedes as teaching “the decision module determines whether the communication requires the partial response . . . based on the communication's content and how such communications are typically processed” and Gargeya as teaching “the decision module determines a new estimated time required for the full response to the communication . . . based on the communication’s content,” as recited in exemplary independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in independent claim 10, on appeal. Appellant’s Contentions With regard to independent claims 1 and 10, Appellant argues (App. Br. 8–16; Reply Br. 1–9) that the combination of Jensen, Friedes, and Gargeya fails to teach or suggest “the decision module determines whether the communication requires the partial response . . . based on the communication's content and how such communications are typically processed” and “the decision module determines a new estimated time Appeal 2014-001528 Application 11/740,156 4 required for the full response to the communication . . . based on the communication’s content,” as recited in independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent claim 10. Appellant contends (App. Br. 17–18; Reply Br. 9) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2–7 and 11–16 for the same reasons argued with respect to independent claims 1 and 10, respectively. Issue on Appeal Based on Appellant’s arguments, the following issue is presented for appeal: Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1–7 and 10–16 as being obvious because the combination of Jensen, Friedes, and Gargeya fails to teach or suggest (i) “the decision module determines whether the communication requires the partial response . . . based on the communication's content and how such communications are typically processed;” and (ii) “the decision module determines a new estimated time required for the full response to the communication . . . based on the communication’s content,” as recited in independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent claim 10? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection (Final Act. 4–10; Ans. 2– 7) in light of Appellant’s contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 8–18) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1–9 that the Examiner erred in light of the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 7– 11). We agree with Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 17–18; Reply Br. 9) that the combination of Jensen, Friedes, and Gargeya fails to teach or Appeal 2014-001528 Application 11/740,156 5 suggest (i) “the decision module determines whether the communication requires the partial response . . . based on the communication's content and how such communications are typically processed” and (ii) “the decision module determines a new estimated time required for the full response to the communication . . . based on the communication’s content,” as recited in independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent claim 10. Jensen discloses (col. 2, l. 66 – col. 3, l. 11, col. 3, ll. 48–51) analyzing a communication’s content and placing a call into a specific queue based on the communication’s content. Friedes teaches an announcement presented to a caller based on the estimated wait time (col. 4, ll. 53–61) and a queue manager to store information associated with the caller (col. 5, ll. 5– 11, 33–37). The Examiner alleges (Ans. 9) that because Jensen places the caller in a queue based on the content of the communication and the wait time is a result of the wait time per queue, the combination teaches or suggests the determination of whether the communication requires a partial response is based on the communication’s content. Regarding the inclusion of Gargeya, the Examiner (Ans. 10–11) argues that since the estimate of a wait time is based on the queue that the caller has been placed in, the decision is based on the communication’s content. We disagree with the Examiner’s conclusion. The combination teaches or suggests that the content of the communication determines which queue the caller is placed in, and the wait time is associated with the number of other callers in the queue. Since the caller has already been placed in the queue when the decision is made, the decision is based solely on the caller’s wait time. Therefore, the combination of Jensen, Friedes, and Gargeya only Appeal 2014-001528 Application 11/740,156 6 teaches or suggests a determination being made based on the estimated wait time, not the content of the communication. Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in concluding the combination of Jensen, Friedes, and Gargeya teaches or suggests (i) “the decision module determines whether the communication requires the partial response . . . based on the communication's content and how such communications are typically processed” and (ii) “the decision module determines a new estimated time required for the full response to the communication . . . based on the communication’s content,” as recited in independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent claim 10. Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1– 7 and 10–16 based upon the combined teachings and suggestions of Jensen, Friedes, and Gargeya. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–7 and 10–16 as being obvious over the combination of Jensen, Friedes, and Gargeya. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–7 and 10–16 is reversed. REVERSED