View
4
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
inContact, Inc. Petitioner
v.
Microlog Corp. Patent Owner
U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
Filing Date: September 21, 1999 Issue Date: August 15, 2006
Title: CONTACT CENTER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF HANDLING MULTIPLE MEDIA
TYPES OF CONTACTS AND METHOD FOR USING THE SAME
PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,092,509
Inter Partes Review No. 2015‐___
Table of Contents
Page
‐i‐
I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) .................................. 1
A. Real Party‐ln‐lnterest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................. 1
B. Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................... 1
C. Lead and Back‐Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................... 1
D. Service Information ............................................................................ 2
E. Power of Attorney .............................................................................. 2
II. PAYMENT OF FEES ‐ 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ........................................................ 3
III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104 AND 42.108 ....................................................................................... 3
A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................. 3
B. Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Statement of Precise Relief Requested .............................................. 3
C. Requirements for Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) .............. 4
IV. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND RELEVANT TO THE ’509 PATENT .................... 4
V. SUMMARY OF THE ’509 PATENT................................................................... 5
A. The Specification of the ’509 Patent ................................................... 5
B. Claims 1‐6 and 8‐13 of the ’509 Patent ............................................ 13
VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) ............................ 14
A. “contact(s)” ....................................................................................... 15
VII. CLAIMS 1‐6 AND 8‐13 OF THE ’509 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ............. 17
A. Ground 1 – Claims 1‐6 and 8‐13 Are Anticipated by Haigh Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .................................................................. 18
1. Claim 1 is Anticipated by Haigh .............................................. 19
a. Claim 1[a] – queuing component ................................. 22
b. Claim 1[b] – routing component .................................. 25
2. Claim 2 is Anticipated by Haigh .............................................. 29
Table of Contents (continued)
Page
ii
3. Claim 3 is Anticipated by Haigh .............................................. 31
4. Claim 4 is Anticipated by Haigh .............................................. 32
5. Claim 5 is Anticipated by Haigh .............................................. 35
6. Claim 6 is Anticipated by Haigh .............................................. 38
7. Claims 8‐13 are Anticipated by Haigh ..................................... 38
B. Ground 2 – Claims 1‐6 and 8‐13 Are Anticipated by Berkowitz Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) .................................................................. 40
1. Claim 1 is Anticipated by Berkowitz ....................................... 42
a. Claim 1[a] – queuing component ................................. 44
b. Claim 1[b] – routing component .................................. 46
2. Claim 2 is Anticipated by Berkowitz ....................................... 50
3. Claim 3 is Anticipated by Berkowitz ....................................... 52
4. Claim 4 is Anticipated by Berkowitz ....................................... 53
5. Claim 5 is Anticipated by Berkowitz ....................................... 54
6. Claim 6 is Anticipated by Berkowitz ....................................... 56
7. Claims 8‐13 are Anticipated by Berkowitz .............................. 56
VIII. REDUNDANCY ............................................................................................. 58
IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
List of Exhibits
iii
Exhibit No. Title of Document
1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509 to John C. Mears et al.
1002 U.S. Patent No. 5,793,861 to Steven Paul Haigh
1003 U.S. Patent No. 5,903,877 to Patricia Ann Berkowitz et al.
1004 U.S. Patent No. 5,465,286 William K. Clare et al.
1005 File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
1
Petitioner inContact, Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully submits this Petition for
Inter Partes Review of claims 1‐6 and 8‐13 of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509 [Ex. 1001]
(“the ’509 patent”).
I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
A. Real Party‐ln‐lnterest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
Petitioner inContact, Inc. is the real party‐in‐interest.
B. Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
The Petitioner is aware of two pending litigations involving the ’509 patent.
The patent owner, Microlog Corp., filed four actions in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware and one action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland on January 14, 2014. The action in which Petitioner is named as a
defendant is entitled Microlog Corp. v. inContact, Inc., Case No. 14‐47 (LPS) (D.
Del. filed Jan. 14, 2014).
C. Lead and Back‐Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel.
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
2
LEAD COUNSEL BACK‐UP COUNSEL
Erik B. Milch (Reg. No. 42,887) emilch@cooley.com zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com COOLEY LLP, ATTN: Patent Group 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004 Tel: (703) 456‐8573 Fax: (703) 456‐8100
John R. Mills (Reg. No. 56,414) jmills@cooley.com zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com COOLEY LLP, ATTN: Patent Group 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004 Tel: (703) 456‐8171 Fax: (703) 456‐8100
Petitioner will file a motion to appear pro hac vice for additional proposed
back‐up counsel, Laura J. Cunningham, an experienced patent litigator and
counsel for Petitioner. The earliest date on which such motion may be filed is
twenty‐one (21) days after service of the Petition on the patent owner. See
“Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission,” in IPR2013‐00639.
D. Service Information
This Petition is being served by USPS EXPRESS MAIL®, costs prepaid, to the
attorney of record for the ’509 patent, ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, LLP,
1300 19th Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036. The Petitioner may be
served at the address provided immediately above in Section I.C. The Petitioner
also consents to electronic service by e‐mail at the e‐mail addresses provided
above.
E. Power of Attorney under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b)
A Power of Attorney is filed concurrently with this Petition.
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
3
II. PAYMENT OF FEES ‐ 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
This Petition requests review of 12 claims of the ’509 patent and is
accompanied by a payment of $23,000 for 12 claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.15. This
Petition therefore meets the fee requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1).
III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104 AND 42.108
A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
The Petitioner certifies that the ’509 patent is available for inter partes
review, and that the Petitioner is not barred or otherwise estopped from
requesting inter partes review on the grounds identified in the present Petition.
B. Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Statement of Precise Relief Requested
The Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board initiate inter partes
review of claims 1‐6 and 8‐13 of the ’509 patent, and find them unpatentable.
This Petition cites the following prior art references:
Ex. No. Prior Art Document
1002 U.S. Patent No. 5,793,861 to Steven Paul Haigh (“Haigh”)
1003 U.S. Patent No. 5,903,877 to Patricia Ann Berkowitz et al.
(“Berkowitz”)
1004 U.S. Patent No. 5,465,286 William K. Clare et al. (“Clare”)
The grounds on which this Petition is based are listed in the table below.
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
4
Ground No.
Claims Affected
Proposed Ground for Inter Partes Review
1 1‐6, 8‐13 Anticipated by Haigh under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
2 1‐6, 8‐13 Anticipated by Berkowitz under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
As reflected in the chart above, this Petition is being filed with a first
ground of rejection based on Haigh and a second ground of rejection based on
Berkowitz. A specific explanation of each of the two grounds listed above is set
forth in Section VII below.
C. Requirements for Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c)
Inter partes review of claims 1‐6 and 8‐13 of the ’509 patent should be
instituted because this Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that the
Petitioner will prevail with respect to each challenged claim. See 35 U.S.C. §
314(a). Each limitation of each claim challenged herein is disclosed and/or
suggested by the prior art, as explained in detail below.
IV. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND RELEVANT TO THE ’509 PATENT
The ’509 patent relates generally to contact centers having customer
service representatives or agents who assist customers. (See, e.g., ’509, 1:21‐30,
1:31‐38.) These contact centers are used by many businesses, such as
commercial retailers, financial institutions (e.g., banks and lending companies),
credit card companies, and telemarketing companies. (Id., 1:32‐36; see also, e.g.,
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
5
U.S. Patent No. 5,793,861 to Steven Paul Haigh [Ex. 1002] (“Haigh”), 1:22‐35; U.S.
Patent No. 5,903,877 to Patricia Ann Berkowitz et al. [Ex. 1003] (“Berkowitz”),
1:13‐31.) An example of a contact center is a call center, where customer service
agents assist customers by telephone and each agent is assigned to a telephone
having a particular extension number. (See ’509, 1:32‐39; see also Berkowitz,
1:26‐67.)
V. SUMMARY OF THE ’509 PATENT
A. The Specification of the ’509 Patent
The specification of the ’509 patent is voluminous and describes
“exemplary embodiments” of the purported invention in great detail. (See ’509,
63:17‐18.) Indeed, the recitation of claims does not begin until page 105 of the
’509 patent. Being constrained by a page limit and striving to reduce the burden
on the Board, the Petitioner provides herein a description of the specification that
is relevant to the challenged claims.
The purported invention of the ’509 patent is directed to a contact center
“capable of handling different types of media contacts.” (Id., 1:21‐22.) The
“Description of the Related Art” acknowledges that contact centers handling
customer telephone calls (i.e., call centers)—including call centers using computer
terminals to display certain information to agents in response to an incoming
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
6
telephone call being routed to a particular agent—were known in the prior art.
(See, e.g., id., 1:44‐53, 2:1‐7.) The ’509 patent states, however, that “traditional
call centers are incapable of efficiently handling requests made in media other
than telephony.” (Id., 2:24‐25.)
The ’509 patent purports to disclose a contact center “capable of handling
different types of media contacts,” including contacts made in media other than
telephony such as e‐mails, faxes, web chats, and voice over internet protocol
communications. (See id., 1:20‐26.) The purported invention of such a contact
center includes multiple “agent workstations,” “a queuing component,” and “a
routing component.” (Id., Abstract.) Each agent workstation “includes a
computer terminal” and is associated with a telephone, so as to enable an agent
to interact with customers. (See id., 8:28‐31, 39‐41.) The queuing component
“receiv[es] contacts of different media‐types, . . . and maintain[s] the different
media types [sic] contacts in a common queue” while they “await[] routing to the
agent workstations.” (Id., Abstract.) The routing component “routes the queued
contacts to the agents based on criteria of the contacts, criteria of the agents, or
both.” (Id., Abstract.)
The specification of the ’509 patent describes embodiments that use
hardware and software components to achieve the queuing and routing
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
7
functionalities of the purported invention. One such embodiment, labeled
“contact center 100,” is illustrated by Fig. 1 of the ’509 patent (shown below).
(See id., 8:24‐25.)
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
8
According to the specification of the ’509 patent, the embodiment of
contact center 100 “includes a plurality of agent workstations 102,” each
operated by an agent or customer service representative. (Id., 8:25‐28.) As
depicted above, contact center 100 is capable of receiving normal (i.e., non‐IVR)
telephone calls and IVR telephone calls from customer telephone 110, faxes from
customer fax 112, and emails, web chats, web callback requests, and voice over IP
communications from customer PC 144. (See id., 41:49‐52.) The “software and
related hardware” of contact center 100 “provide unified queuing” of the
received contacts (of different media types) “into a single unified queue” and
“provide skills‐based and priority‐based routing of these contacts to agents.” (See
id., 10:14‐22.) “[T]he basic manner in which the contact center system 100
receives contacts of different media types, retains the different media types in a
common queue, and routes the queued contacts to the appropriate agents” can
be seen in Fig. 50 of the ’509 patent (shown below). (Id., 41:45‐49.)
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
9
Within contact center 100, according to one embodiment of the purported
invention, the hardware and software components of contact server 122 (shown
at right1) place the contacts of different
media types received from customers in a
common queue. (See id., 46:40‐43 (“FIG.
65 shows components of the contact
center server 122, namely, the routing
manager, route request broker, assignment
manager, and agent manager, that are involved in placing a contact in the queue
as will now be described, . . .”).) More specifically, the “routing manager” of
contact server 122 calculates priority information for a received contact, including
1 Contact server 122 is also shown in Fig. 1 above (towards the top of the figure).
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
10
“initial queue priority, priority incremental frequency and
priority incremental rates,” and the “assignment
manager” of contact server 122 “adds the contact to the
‘in memory’ queue,” where all contacts awaiting routing
are maintained. (Id., 47:4‐11.) An added contact will be
“bumped higher up in the queue” as time passes (in
accordance with the contact’s priority information) and
as other queued contacts are routed from the queue.
(See id., 66:59‐65; see also Fig. 68.)
The hardware and software components of contact
server 122 (shown at left), according to one embodiment,
also route the queued contacts to agents of contact
center 100. (See id., 47:14‐18 (“FIG. 67 is a conceptual
block diagram illustrating components of the contact center server 122, namely,
the media proxy, routing manager, assignment manager, agent manager, and
agent Java interface involved in routing a queued contact to an agent.”).) In
particular, the “assignment manager” of contact center server 122 “identifies the
highest priority queued contact,” “interacts with the agent manager . . . to
identify the logged on agents who are capable of handling the highest priority
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
11
contact,” and “matches [the] contact to an agent.” (Id., 47:28‐53.) In one
embodiment, the step of identifying agents who are capable of handling the
highest priority contact, described as “step 2110” by the specification (shown in
relevant part at below right), involves identifying agents based on criteria of the
contact (e.g., contact campaign2, contact media type) and criteria of the agents
(e.g., agent media skills, agent language skills, agent general skills). (See, e.g., id.,
47:36‐38 (“The assignment manager interacts with
the agent manager in step 2110 to identify the
2 See id., 9:50‐60 (“Campaigns are often thought of as outbound telemarketing
campaigns where a plan is organized, a list of contacts are identified, a time frame
for running the campaign is decided, a script is developed, and a desired response
is sought. Once initiated, specific results are recorded to measure the success of
the campaign. Generally, and for purposes of this disclosure, a campaign is
defined as a focused set of resources targeted towards achieving a specific goal
according to a pre‐established plan. Campaigns are not restricted to outbound
telemarketing activities.”).
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
12
logged on agents who are capable of handling the highest priority contact.”), Fig.
68 (illustrating identifying agents based on criteria of the contact and criteria of
the agents in step 2110).) Once the assignment manager matches a contact to an
appropriate agent, the “agent manager” of contact center server 122 routes the
contact to that agent’s workstation. (See, e.g., id., 47:58‐59, 48:60‐63, 52:34‐36,
53:3‐6, 56:38‐41, 58:38‐40, 59:14‐17, 59:49‐
51.) The routing of a contact from contact
system server 122 to an agent workstation 102
is illustrated by Fig. 70 of the ’509 patent
(shown at right). (Id., 6:56‐58.)
Upon receiving a routed contact, in some
embodiments, an agent workstation 102 will
display or “pop‐up” a “screen presentation”
that includes information related to the
contact or information related to the customer. (See, e.g., id., 48:63‐49:3 (“In
step 2320, the agent receives the contact and retrieves specified contact data for
preparation of a screen presentation on his or her workstation. This data can be
retrieved, for example, from the customer database 128 and/or the customer
legacy system 130. Further details of the types of customer information that can
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
13
be retrieved are described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/260,549,
referenced above.”), 2:4‐7 (“[A] computer telephony system which controls an
agent’s computer terminal to display or ‘pop‐up’ certain information in response
to an incoming telephone call routed to that agent.”); see also, e.g., 52:36‐40,
53:6‐9, 56:41‐44, 58:40‐44, 59:17‐20, 59:51‐54.) The computer‐generated
displays allow an agent to better assist a customer originating a contact. (See,
e.g., id., 2:19‐21, 49:55‐59.) For example, the display screen may include
customer information such as “name, telephone number, credit card number, or
the like” retrieved from a customer database. (See, e.g., id., 1:61‐64, 2:14‐16.) If
a customer wishes to place an order, for instance, the display screen may also
include “a computer‐generated order form” into which information may be
entered. (Id., 1:58‐60.)
In instances where the routed contact is a telephone call, a telephone 104
assigned to the workstation receiving the routed call will start ringing. (See id.,
49:33‐39.)
B. Claims 1‐6 and 8‐13 of the ’509 Patent
The two independent claims addressed in this Petition—claims 1 and 8—
purport to recite a system and method for receiving and distributing contacts of
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
14
different media types. The first independent claim addressed is claim 1, which
recites:
1. A system for receiving and distributing contacts of different media
types to a plurality of workstations, comprising:
[a] a queuing component, adapted to receive said different
media‐type contacts and maintain said contacts in a common
queue while said contacts are awaiting routing to said
workstations; and
[b] a routing component, adapted to route the queued contacts to
said workstations based on designated criteria.
(’509, 67:2‐10 (Claim 1).) Independent claim 8 is substantially similar to
independent claim 1 but is written as a “method” claim.
The additional claims addressed in this Petition—i.e., claims 2‐6 and 9‐13—
depend from independent claims 1 and 8 mentioned above. This Petition will
address those claims in detail in Section VII below.
VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
A claim subject to inter partes review must be given its “broadest
reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). As the Federal Circuit has recognized, the
“broadest reasonable construction” standard is different from the manner in
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
15
which the scope of a claim is determined in litigation. See In re Swanson, 540 F.3d
1368, 1377‐78 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Under the broadest reasonable construction
standard, claim terms are presumed to be given their ordinary and customary
meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context
of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
2007). Accordingly, the Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board adopt the
ordinary and customary meaning of the challenged claims under the broadest
reasonable construction standard, and, to the extent the Board determines
express construction to be necessary, supplies the following construction.
A. “contact(s)”
The term “contact(s)” may be construed as “communication(s).” This
construction is supported by the specification of the ’509 patent, which describes
that “[c]ontacts will come from telephone calls, e‐mails, web site ‘hits’, facsimile
devices and other forms of contact.” (’509, 15:28‐29; see also, e.g., 1:23‐26
(“[T]he present invention relates to a contact center system capable of receiving
contacts of different media types, such as telephone calls, e‐mails, facsimiles, web
chat, voice over Internet protocol, and so on, . . .”), 3:11‐14 (“A further object of
the present invention is to provide a contact center system capable of receiving
contacts of different media types, such as telephone calls, e‐mails, facsimiles, web
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
16
chat, voice over Internet protocol, and so on, . . .”); 3:22‐24 (“[C]ontacts of
different media‐types, such as telephone calls, e‐mails, facsimiles, web callbacks,
web chat, voice over internet protocol, and so on, . . .”), 41:39‐41 (“[C]ontacts of
different media types, such as telephony, facsimile, e‐mail, Internet‐based
contacts, and so on, . . .”).) The principal characteristic shared by and underlying
these examples of “contact(s),” repeated throughout the specification, is that
they are all “communication(s).” This construction is further supported by the use
of the term in the dependent claims. (See id., 67:27‐32 (“A system as claimed in
claim 1, wherein said contacts include at least one of the following: a voice
communication; a facsimile communication; an e‐mail communication; and data
transmittable over the Internet.”) (Claim 6); see also, e.g., 68:10‐15 (Claim 13),
68:66‐69:7 (Claim 20).). Finally, this construction is consistent with the file
history, in which the patentee implicitly distinguished “contact(s)” from “contact
object(s)” in claims similar to the two independent claims (claims 1 and 8)
challenged herein. (See, e.g., File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509 [Ex. 1005],
Amendment Dated October 7, 2005, p. 7 (“25. (New) A system for receiving and
distributing contacts of different media types to a plurality of workstations,
comprising: a queuing component, adapted to receive said different media‐type
contacts and maintain said contacts in a common queue while said contacts are
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
17
awaiting routing to said workstations; and a routing component, adapted to route
the queued contacts to said workstations based on designated criteria; wherein
the queuing component comprises a routing manager, at least one of a proxy and
a computer telephony integration (CTI) server to receive a contact and send a
route request to the routing manager, the routing manager creating a contact
object in response thereto, . . .”), pp. 8‐9 (“34. (New) A method for receiving and
distributing contacts of different media types to a plurality of workstations,
comprising the steps of: maintaining said different media‐type contacts in a
common queue while said contacts are awaiting routing to said workstations; and
routing the queued contacts to the workstations based on designated criteria
wherein the maintaining step comprises the steps of receiving a contact from at
least one of a proxy and a computer telephony integration (CTI) server, creating a
contact object for the contact, . . .”).)
Therefore, to the extent that “contact(s)” requires express construction,
the Board should construe “contact(s)” as “communication(s).”
VII. CLAIMS 1‐6 AND 8‐13 OF THE ’509 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
18
A. Ground 1 – Claims 1‐6 and 8‐13 Are Anticipated by Haigh Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Each limitation of claims 1‐6 and 8‐13 is disclosed by U.S. Patent No.
5,793,861 to Steven Paul Haigh [Ex. 1002] (“Haigh”). Haigh qualifies as prior art
to the ’509 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre‐AIA) because it is a patent
that issued on August 11, 1998, more than one year prior to September 21, 1999,
the filing date of the ’509 patent.
Haigh, entitled “Transaction Processing System and Method,” discloses a
system and method for “the management and processing of transactions
including inbound and outbound telephone calls as well as other transactions
such as electronic mail, voice mail, video calls, facsimile transmissions, data
packets over the Internet, etc.” (Haigh, Abstract.) Haigh explains that “previous
call processing systems have been limited to processing transactions involving
telephone calls,” and therefore, a system that processes “inbound and outbound
telephone calls as well as other transactions such as electronic mail, voice mail,
video calls, facsimile transmissions, data packets over the Internet, etc. would
facilitate improved productivity in telemarketing activities.” (Id., 1:25‐35.) Haigh
further teaches embodiments that use hardware and software components to
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
19
implement such a system. (See id., 1:63‐2:24.) Thus, Haigh discloses a system
essentially identical to the one later described and claimed in the ’509 patent.
1. Claim 1 is Anticipated by Haigh
The preamble of claim 1 recites “[a] system for receiving and distributing
contacts of different media types to a plurality of workstations.” Haigh discloses
the claimed “system” in the form of a system 10, shown in Fig. 1 below.
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
20
Fig. 2 is “a flowchart illustrating the method of operation” of system 10.
System 10 and its method of operation are described in more detail in connection
with the claim limitations below.
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
21
Haigh discloses that this system is “for receiving and distributing contacts .
. . to a plurality of workstations,” as recited in claim 1. According to Haigh, “[t]he
system 10 is capable of receiving transactions from entities.” (Haigh, 2:2‐3; see
also step 46 of Fig. 2 (reproduced above).) The term “transaction,” as used in
Haigh, includes communications from customers. (See id., 5:10‐14 (“The
transaction processing system 12 then receives a transaction from . . . outside the
system 10, such as inbound calls and E‐mail from customers.”).) The received
transactions are “process[ed] and rout[ed] to appropriate stations 32, 34.” (Id.,
4:9‐10; see also, e.g., 6:48‐49 (“[S]ends a next queued transaction to the available
agent in step 60.”), step 60 of Fig. 2 (reproduced above), 10:17‐20 (“4. The
transaction processing system of claim 1 further comprising: a plurality of agent
stations associated with a respective agent for processing transactions.”) (Claim
4), 12:7‐9 (Claim 16).)
Haigh further discloses that contacts are “of different media types,” as
recited in claim 1. Haigh describes “handling various types of transactions, such
as E‐mail, voice mail, graphics, video calls, etc.” (Id., 4:53‐54.) Haigh additionally
states that “the transactions may include electronic mail (E‐mail), voice mail,
video calls, facsimile (fax) transmissions, etc.,” and that “[t]he transactions include
one of incoming video calls, telephone calls, voice mail transmissions, E‐mail
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
22
transmissions, facsimile transmissions, internet transmissions, downloaded files,
etc.” (Id., 2:4‐6, 5:14‐17; see also step 46 of Fig. 2 (reproduced above).)
Transaction types disclosed by Haigh also include “outbound [telephone] calls.”
(See, e.g., id., 1:22, 2:43‐44, 2:58, 5:12, 6:7, 6:19, 6:58, 6:62.)
a. Claim 1[a] – queuing component
Claim 1[a] recites “a queuing component, adapted to receive said different
media‐type contacts and maintain said contacts in a common queue while said
contacts are awaiting routing to said workstations.” Haigh discloses “a queuing
component” in the form of transaction processing system 12, shown in Fig. 1 and
reproduced in relevant part below.
As shown in Fig. 1, above, transaction processing system 12 includes
hardware and software components. (See, e.g., id., 2:10‐24, 2:41‐58.) The
hardware and software components of transaction processing system 12 include
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
23
memory 14, queue 16, transaction controller 18, and identifier generator 20. (Id.,
2:10‐14.)
The transaction processing system 12 in Haigh is “adapted to receive said
different media‐type contacts,” as recited by claim 1. The transaction processing
system 12, according to Haigh, “receives [] transaction[s] from . . . outside the
system 10, such as inbound calls and E‐mail from customers.” (Id., 5:10‐13; see
also, e.g., 2:25‐27, 2:34‐
36.) As discussed above
and as further illustrated by Fig. 2 (shown in relevant part above), the received
transactions are of different media types, including video calls, telephone calls,
voice mail transmissions, E‐mail transmissions, facsimile transmissions, internet
transmissions, and downloaded files. (See id., 2:4‐6, 5:14‐17.)
The transaction processing system 12 in Haigh is further adapted to
“maintain said contacts in a common queue while said contacts are awaiting
routing to said workstations,” as recited by claim 1. As explained in Haigh,
“[u]pon receiving a transaction, the transaction controller 18 [of transaction
processing system 12] queues the transaction in at least one queue 16” included
in memory 16 of transaction processing system 12. (Id., 2:34‐36; see also, e.g.,
step 52 of Fig. 2, 9:63‐64 (“. . . [A] memory for storing the transactions in at least
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
24
one queue; . . .”) (Claim 1), 10:12‐16 (“3. The transaction processing system of
claim 1 wherein the memory stores transactions including one of an inbound call,
an outbound call, a facsimile signal, an E‐mail signal, a voice mail signal, a video
signal, a multimedia signal, and a data file.”) (Claim 3), 10:53‐54 (Claim 11), 11:15‐
16 (Claim 13), 11:42‐43 (Claim 15), 12:19‐20 (Claim 18).) In one embodiment,
queue 16 includes “a common queue” in the form
of a single queue 82 (shown at left). (See id., 2:36‐
40 (“The queue 16 may include a plurality of classes
or types of queues, such as E‐mail queues and
facsimile queues, and may include at least one
queue and/or subqueue for each class or type of
queue.”), 5:51‐53 (“Alternatively, as shown in FIG. 4,
multiple transactions of diverse types may be queued in a single queue 82, . . .”).)
Furthermore, “multiple transactions of diverse types may be queued in [the]
single queue 82” while they await “process[ing],” i.e., routing to “one of the agent
stations 34.” (See id., 5:51‐59 (“[A]s shown in FIG. 4, multiple transactions of
diverse types may be queued in a single queue 82, and queued transactions may
be processed by transaction type order or by queued order, regardless of the
transaction type. For example, although facsimile transaction FC‐1 [sic] 84 is the
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
25
first transaction in the queue 82, an inbound agent at one of the agent stations 34
may access the first inbound call IC‐1 86 in the queue 82 instead of the facsimile
transaction 84.”).) Each received transaction may be maintained in single queue
82 as a concatenation of the transaction bit sequence and a transaction identifier
generated by identifier generator 20 of transaction processing system 12. (See
id., 5:40‐53 (“In an illustrative embodiment shown in FIG. 3, a facsimile
transaction FT‐L 70, which may be a concatenation of a facsimile bit sequence 72
received through the transaction interface 24 and the respective identifier L 74
from the identifier generator 20, is queued in a facsimile queue 76, . . .
Alternatively, as shown in FIG. 4, multiple transactions of diverse types may be
queued in a single queue 82, . . .”); see also, e.g., Fig. 3 (illustrating concatenation
of a bit sequence and an identifier), 10:3‐5 (“. . . [S]aid transaction controller
queuing each transaction with an associated transaction type signal concatenated
with the transaction.”) (Claim 1), 10:58‐60 (Claim 11), 11:19‐22 (Claim 13), 12:3‐6
(Claim 15), 12:27‐30 (Claim 18).)
b. Claim 1[b] – routing component
Claim 1[b] recites “a routing component, adapted to route the queued
contacts to said workstations based on designated criteria.” Haigh discloses “a
routing component,” also in the form of transaction processing system 12 shown
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
26
in Fig. 1 and reproduced in the Section VII.A.1.a above. The hardware and
software components of transaction processing system 12 are additionally
“adapted to route the queued contacts,” as recited in claim 1.3 As Haigh
explains, transaction controller 18 of transaction processing system 12 “may
automatically send the queued transactions” upon identifying “a next available
3 As the Federal Circuit has recognized, “the use of two terms in a claim requires
that they connote different meanings, not that they necessarily refer to two
different structures. The prosecution history, specification, comparison with
other claims in the patent, and other evidence may require that two terms in a
claim refer to different structures, but preserving claim integrity does not.”
Applied Medical Research Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1333 n.3
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis in original) (internal citations omitted). As discussed on
Section V.A above, the specification of the ’509 patent makes clear that the
hardware and software components of contact server 122 perform both
functionalities of queuing and routing. Accordingly, the Petition properly cites to
the hardware and software components of transaction processing system 12 as
anticipating both “a queuing component” and “a routing component,” as recited
by claim 1.
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
27
agent.” (Id., 5:65‐67; see also, e.g., 6:45‐49, step 60 in Fig. 2, 10:56‐58 (“. . . [A]
transaction controller for conveying a queued transaction having a predetermined
transaction type to the at least one agent station, . . .”) (Claim 11), 11:18‐19
(Claim 13), 12:25‐27 (Claim 18).) Haigh further discloses that the queued contacts
are routed “to said workstations,” as recited in claim 1. According to Haigh,
transactions are “rout[ed]” to the claimed “workstations” in the form of agent
stations 34. (See id., 4:6‐10, 5:55‐59; see also 1:10‐15.)
Finally, Haigh discloses that the queued contacts are routed “based on
designated criteria,” as recited by claim 1. As explained in Haigh, transactions are
“process[ed],” for example, “in a First‐In, First‐Out (FIFO) order.” (See id., 2:25‐34
(“The transaction controller 18 processes transactions . . ., and controls the queue
16 to store received transactions, for example, in a First‐In, First‐Out (FIFO) order,
which may be a default queue processing order capable of being modified by a
supervisor.”), 10:47‐50 (“. . . [T]o determine a first‐in, first‐out (FIFO) order in the
queue; and the transaction controller responds to the identifiers to provide a
first‐out transaction to an available agent.”) (Claim 10).) Haigh also explains that
“other known queue processing techniques may be used, such a Last‐In, First‐Out
(LIFO) ordering of transactions, selective processing of transactions in a queue,
and queue processing based on . . . the current loading or length of the queue.”
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
28
(Id., 2:30‐34.)
Haigh further discloses that transactions “may be processed by transaction
type order” and agent designations (e.g., inbound agents). (See, e.g., id., 5:53‐59
(“[Q]ueued transactions may be processed by transaction type order . . . For
example, although facsimile transaction FC‐1 [sic] 84 is the first transaction in the
queue 82, an inbound agent at one of the agent stations 34 may access the first
inbound call IC‐1 86 in the queue 82 instead of the facsimile transaction 84.”).)
For example, “agents may be designated . . . as inbound agents and outbound
agents which exclusively handle inbound calls and outbound calls, respectively.”
(Id., 6:4‐7.) Agents may also be designated to handle “specific types of
transactions.” (Id., 5:67‐6:4; see also, e.g., 6:9‐10, 10: 23‐24 (“. . . [A]n agent
associated with a predetermined transaction type.”) (Claim 5), 10:29‐35 (“7. The
transaction processing system of claim 5 wherein the memory stores a
designation of each respective agent to receive at least one type of transaction;
and the transaction controller responds to a corresponding designation of an
agent to convey a transaction of the agent, with the transaction having a
transaction type associated with the designation of the agent.”) (Claim 7),
12:10‐14 (Claim 17).) In fact, “specific agents may be assigned to primarily
process a specific transaction, such as facsimiles, voice mail, E‐mail, etc., but
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
29
may have a standby status for secondary types, tertiary types, or other types of
transactions beyond tertiary transactions.” (Id., 6:21‐25.)
Finally, Haigh discloses that transactions may be processed based on
transaction designations and agent skills. (See id., 6:31‐34 (“Alternatively, the
transactions may have designations associated therewith which are set for the
skills of the agent or person getting the transactions.”).)
In summary, Haigh discloses designated criteria in the form of First‐In, First‐
Out (FIFO), Last‐In, First‐Out (LIFO), selective processing, processing based on the
current loading or length of the queue, transaction type, agent designations,
transaction designations, and agent skills. Designated criteria in Haigh may be
“modified,” for example, “by a supervisor.” (See id., 2:29‐30 (“[A] default queue
processing order capable of being modified by a supervisor.”); see also, e.g., 6:7‐
10 (“[A]gents may be redesignated as either inbound or outbound as queue
processing requires such redesignation to make more agents available to handle a
specific type of transaction.”), 10:37‐38 (“[D]esignation means for redesignating
the designation of an agent to receive specific transaction types.”) (Claim 8).)
2. Claim 2 is Anticipated by Haigh
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites: “A system as claimed in claim 1,
wherein: said designated criteria includes at least one of criteria of said queued
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
30
contacts and criteria assigned to agents operating said workstations.” Each
limitation of independent claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, is disclosed by
Haigh as explained in Section VII.A.1 above. The additional limitation of claim 2 is
satisfied by designated criteria disclosed by Haigh in the form of First‐In, First‐Out
(FIFO), Last‐In, First‐Out (LIFO), selective processing, processing based on the
current loading or length of the queue, transaction type, agent designations,
transaction designations, and agent skills, as explained in Section VII.A.1.b above.
To anticipate claim 2, Haigh must disclose designated criteria that “includes
at least one of” criteria of queued contacts and criteria assigned to agents. Haigh
discloses “criteria of said queued contacts,” as recited by claim 2, at least in the
form of (1) transaction type (see Haigh, 5:53‐59) and (2) transaction designations,
including “designations . . . set for the skills of the agent or person getting the
transactions (id., 6:31‐34). Haigh further discloses “criteria assigned to agents
operating said workstations,” as recited by claim 2, at least in the form of (1)
agent designations, including designations to handle “specific types of
transactions” (id., 5:67‐6:4; see also, e.g., 6:10, 6:21‐25) and designations to
exclusively handle “inbound” transactions or “outbound transactions” (see id.,
6:4‐7; see also, e.g., 1:12‐18, 5:55‐59, 6:15‐20), and (2) agent skills (see id., 6:31‐
34). Accordingly, designated criteria disclosed by Haigh “includes at least one of
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
31
criteria of said queued contacts and criteria assigned to agents operating said
workstations,” as recited by the claim.
3. Claim 3 is Anticipated by Haigh
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and recites: “A system as claimed in claim 2,
wherein: said designated criteria includes said criteria of said queued contacts
and said criteria assigned to said agents.” Each limitation of independent claim 1,
from which claim 3 depends by virtue of being dependent on claim 2, is disclosed
by Haigh as explained in Section VII.A.1 above. The one limitation added by claim
2 to claim 1 is also disclosed by Haigh as explained in Section VII.A.2 above.
Claim 3 is similar to claim 2 but differs in that designated criteria must
include both criteria of said queued contacts and criteria assigned to said agents.
As discussed in Section VII.A.2 above, Haigh discloses (1) “criteria of said queued
contacts” at least in the form of (a) transaction type (see Haigh, 5:53‐59) and (b)
transaction designations, including “designations . . . set for the skills of the agent
or person getting the transactions. (Id., 6:31‐34). As further discussed in Section
VII.A.2 above, Haigh discloses (2) “criteria assigned to said agents” at least in the
form of (a) agent designations, including designations to handle “specific types of
transactions” (id., 5:67‐6:4; see also, e.g., 6:10, 6:21‐25) and designations to
exclusively handle “inbound” transactions or “outbound transactions” (see id.,
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
32
6:4‐7; see also, e.g., 1:12‐18, 5:55‐59, 6:15‐20), and (b) agent skills (see id., 6:31‐
34).
Moreover, Haigh describes an example of routing based on (1) criteria of
queued contacts and (2) criteria assigned to agents. As Haigh explains, “multiple
transactions of diverse types may be queued in a single queue 82, and queued
transactions may be processed by transaction type order . . . For example,
although facsimile transaction FC‐1 [sic] 84 is the first transaction in the queue 82,
an inbound agent [criteria of assigned agent in the form of a designation to
exclusively handle ‘inbound’ transactions] at one of the agent stations 34 may
access the first inbound call IC‐1 86 [criteria of queued contact in the form of
transaction type] in the queue 82 instead of the facsimile transaction 84.” (Id.,
5:51‐59.) Therefore, Haigh discloses that “designated criteria includes said
criteria of said queued contacts and said criteria assigned to said agents,” as
recited by claim 3.
4. Claim 4 is Anticipated by Haigh
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites: “A system as claimed in claim 1,
further comprising: a contact handling component, adapted to initiate an event at
any of said workstations in response to said contact being routed thereto.” Each
limitation of independent claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, is disclosed by
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
33
Haigh as explained in Section VII.A.1 above.
Haigh also discloses “a contact handling component” in the form of
“transaction processing hardware and[] software” included in each agent station
34 “for handling various types of transactions.” (Haigh, 4:53‐56.) Each agent
station 34, as explained in Haigh, “may be a terminal, a personal computer,
and/or a workstation using, for example, the ‘INTEL’ ‘PENTIUM’ microprocessor,
memory devices such as a 1 GB hard drive and 16 MB of RAM, and various input
and output devices such as a telephone handset or headset, a mouse, a keyboard,
and/or a display.” (Id., 4:39‐44.) Each agent station 34 further “operate[s]
custom telemarketing software . . . to perform various telemarketing and
supervisory functions.” (Id., 4:47‐50.)
The transaction processing hardware and software of agent station 34 is
“adapted to initiate an event at any of said workstations in response to said
contact being routed thereto,” as recited by claim 4. According to Haigh, each
agent station 34 “includes an individual VGA video board to generate graphical
displays such as user menus for facilitating telemarketing capabilities and call
management by the agents.” (Id., 6:60‐63; see also, e.g., 11:5‐11 (“12. The
transaction processing system of claim 11 wherein the agent interface of at least
one agent station includes a display; and the agent station, responsive to the
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
34
transaction type signal, generates a screen on the display associated with the
transaction type of the transaction being conveyed for facilitating processing of
the transaction by an agent.”) (Claim 12), 12:36‐42 (Claim 19).) Haigh further
explains that in response to receiving a transaction from transaction processing
system 12, agent station 34 may perform an “[a]utomated look‐up . . . to a
customer host database . . . to match the transaction to a particular customer
record and to present the appropriate host screens and information to the
agent.” (See id., 7:3‐7.) Accordingly, Haigh discloses “initiat[ing] an event at any
of said workstations in response to said contact being routed thereto” in the form
of a presentation, at agent station 34, of host screens and information to the
agent.
The presentation of host screens and information, for example, may
include “data . . . concerning the transaction, such as the biographical data of a
caller.” (See id., 6:65‐7:1.) The presentation of host screens and information may
also include “an input screen on a display allowing an agent to input data in data
fields having associated labels or questions.” (Id., 7:8‐10.) Furthermore, “in
anticipation of receiving an outbound call, the agent station 34 may generate an
outbound call processing screen for inputting data as the agent transacts with the
called party.” (Id., 7:14‐17.) “In addition, in anticipation of receiving data from
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
35
the Internet such as downloaded multimedia files, the agent station 34 may log
onto the Internet and execute an Internet browser to process the downloaded
multimedia files.” (Id., 7:18‐21.) Finally, “in preparation to receive E‐mail, the
agent station 34 may automatically generate an E‐mail screen.” (Id., 7:22‐23.)
5. Claim 5 is Anticipated by Haigh
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and recites: “A system as claimed in claim 4,
wherein: said event includes at least one of ringing a telephone assigned to said
any workstation and causing said any workstation to generate a display on its
display screen.” Each limitation of independent claim 1, from which claim 5
depends by virtue of being dependent on claim 4, is disclosed by Haigh as
explained in Section VII.A.1 above. The one limitation added by claim 4 to claim 1
is also disclosed by Haigh as explained in Section VII.A.4 above.
Claim 5 specifies that “said event [initiated at workstations] includes at
least one of ringing a telephone assigned to said any workstation and causing said
any workstation to generate a display on its display screen.” To anticipate claim
5, Haigh must disclose an “event” that is either (1) “ringing a telephone assigned
to said any workstation” or (2) “causing said any workstation to generate a display
on its display screen.” As explained in Section VII.A.4 above, Haigh discloses
“initiat[ing] an event” in the form of a presentation, at agent station 34, of host
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
36
screens and information to the agent, thereby disclosing “causing said any
workstation to generate a display on its display screen,” as recited by claim 5.
Thus, Haigh’s disclosure of a presentation, at agent station 34, of host screens and
information to the agent is sufficient to anticipate claim 5.
Haigh also discloses an “event” that is “ringing a telephone assigned to
said any workstation,” as recited by claim 5. Each agent station 34, according to
Haigh, may be assigned a
telephone 110 (shown at
right). (See id., 8:39‐46
(“[A]s shown in FIG. 7 in conjunction with FIG. 1, an ACD system 102 may include
a plurality of agent desktops 104, each including . . . a telephone 110 including a
telephone base 112 and a telephone headset 114, with such components being
incorporated in the agent station corresponding to the agent station 34 in FIG.
1.”).) In response to receiving a telephone call signal, agent station 34 may
“facilitat[e] the execution of an interactive transaction processing protocol by the
agent,” which “may be set of aural prompts,” i.e., ringing of telephone 110, heard
by the agent. (See id., 6:65‐7:13.) Additionally, Haigh explains that “[t]he
operation of the transaction processing system 12 may incorporate automatic call
distribution (ACD) techniques known in the art” (id., 2:41‐43), including those
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
37
disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 5,465,286 William K. Clare et al. [Ex. 1004] (“Clare”), a
reference expressly incorporated by Haigh so as to become part of Haigh’s
disclosure (see id., 2:48‐53).4 And according to Clare, “[a]n ACD call ring[s] an
agent’s extension.” (Claire, 7:40‐41.) Haigh, therefore, discloses an “event” in the
form of ringing a telephone assigned to an agent station 34.
Because claim 5 requires that “said event include[] at least one of ringing a
telephone assigned to said any workstation and causing said any workstation to
generate a display on its display screen,” Haigh’s disclosure of either (1) a
presentation, at agent station 34, of host screens and information to the agent
(qualifying as “causing said any workstation to generate a display on its display
screen,” as recited by the claim), or (2) ringing a telephone assigned to an agent
station 34 (qualifying as “ringing a telephone assigned to said any workstation,” as
recited by the claim) is sufficient to anticipate.
4 As the Federal Circuit has recognized, “[w]hen a document is ‘incorporated by
reference’ into a host document, such as a patent, the referenced document
becomes effectively part of the host document as if it were explicitly contained
therein.” Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc. 247 F.3d 1316, 1329 (Fed.
Cir. 2001).
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
38
6. Claim 6 is Anticipated by Haigh
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites: “A system as claimed in claim 1,
wherein said contacts include at least one of the following: a voice
communication; a facsimile communication; an e‐mail communication; and data
transmittable over the Internet.” Each limitation of independent claim 1, from
which claim 6 depends, is disclosed by Haigh as explained in Section VII.A.1
above. Haigh also discloses that contacts include (1) “a voice communication” in
the form of (a) inbound telephone calls (see Haigh, e.g., 1:31‐32, 2:43‐44, 2:58,
5:13, 5:45, 5:58, 6:6, 6:16, 6:57, 6:61, 7:55), (b) outbound telephone calls (see id.,
e.g., 1:31‐32, 2:43‐44, 2:58, 6:7, 6:61), and (c) and voice mails (see id., e.g.,
Abstract, 1:33, 2:5, 4:54, 5:15‐16, 6:22, 6:59); (2) “a facsimile communication”
(see id., e.g., Abstract, 1:33, 2:5, 3:1, 4:64, 5:16‐17, 5:28, 5:41, 5:55, 5:58, 6:22,
6:25, 6:58); (3) “an e‐mail communication” (see id., e.g., 2:5, 3:63, 5:12, 5:14,
5:16, 6:22, 6:28, 6:59); and (4) “data transmittable over the Internet” in the form
of (a) video calls (see id., e.g., Abstract, 1:33, 2:5, 4:54, 4:57), (b) internet
transmissions (see id., 5:17, Fig. 2), and downloaded files (see id., 5:17, Fig. 2).
7. Claims 8‐13 are Anticipated by Haigh
The lookup table below summarizes the proposed ground of rejection
based on anticipation by Haigh for claims 8‐13, for the same reasons as set forth
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
39
above in the referenced claims and argument sections.
Claim / Recited Limitation Corresponding Claim / Recited Limitation
Corresponding Argument
Section
8: “[a] method for receiving and distributing contacts of different media types to a plurality of workstations.”
1: “[a] system for receiving and distributing contacts of different media types to a plurality of workstations.”
Section VII.A.1
8[a]: “maintaining said different media‐type contacts in a common queue while said contacts are awaiting routing to said workstations.”
1[a]: “a queuing component, adapted to receive said different media‐type contacts and maintain said contacts in a common queue while said contacts are awaiting routing to said workstations.”
Section VII.A.1.a
8[b]: “routing the queued contacts to the workstations based on designated criteria.”
1[b]: “a routing component, adapted to route the queued contacts to said workstations based on designated criteria.”
Section VII.A.1.b
9: “said designated criteria includes at least one of criteria of said queued contacts and criteria assigned to agents operating said workstations.”
2: “said designated criteria includes at least one of criteria of said queued contacts and criteria assigned to agents operating said workstations.”
Section VII.A.2
10: “said designated criteria includes criteria of said queued contacts and criteria assigned to agents operating said workstations.”
3: “said designated criteria includes said criteria of said queued contacts and said criteria assigned to said agents.”
Section VII.A.3
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
40
Claim / Recited Limitation Corresponding Claim / Recited Limitation
Corresponding Argument
Section
11: “initiating an event at any of said workstations in response to said contact being routed thereto.”
4: “a contact handling component, adapted to initiate an event at any of said workstations in response to said contact being routed thereto.”
Section VII.A.4
12: “said event initiating step includes at least one of the following steps: ringing a telephone assigned to said any workstation; and causing said any workstation to generate a display on its display screen.”
5: “said event includes at least one of ringing a telephone assigned to said any workstation and causing said any workstation to generate a display on its display screen.”
Section VII.A.5
13: “receiving said contacts as at least one of the following: voice communication; facsimile communication; e‐mail communication; and data transmittable over the Internet.”
6: “said contacts include at least one of the following: a voice communication; a facsimile communication; an e‐mail communication; and data transmittable over the Internet.”
Section VII.A.6
B. Ground 2 – Claims 1‐6 and 8‐13 Are Anticipated by Berkowitz Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Each limitation of claims 1‐6 and 8‐13 is disclosed or suggested by U.S.
Patent No. 5,903,877 to Patricia Ann Berkowitz et al. [Ex. 1003] (“Berkowitz”).
Berkowitz qualifies as prior art to the ’509 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
(pre‐AIA) because the issued patent of Berkowitz was filed in the United States on
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
41
September 30, 1996, prior to the filing date of the ’509 patent, September 21,
1999. Berkowitz, entitled “Transaction Center for Processing Customer
Transaction Requests from Alternative Media Sources,” discloses “[a] transaction
center including a transaction processing platform having an automatic call
distribution system for queuing customer transaction requests, for choosing an
appropriate service agent according to information gathered about the
transaction requests, and for determining when the appropriate service agent is
available. (Berkowitz, Abstract.)
Berkowitz explains that “[t]raditional call centers consist[ed] solely of
customers trying to reach service agents by telephone,” during which process
“calls are placed into a queue where they wait until a service agent is available to
service them.” (Id., 1:27‐31.) “Keeping up with the rising volume of calls,”
however, “can be costly and inefficient.” (Id., 2:22‐23.) On the other hand,
existing “[a]lternative routes for customers to communicate their requests,” such
as voice mail, facsimile, electronic mail, regular mail and live multi‐media,
“provide the benefit of reducing the number of direct telephone calls that a
business . . . must handle” (see id., 2:23‐41), but result in “[f]ragment[ed]
customer service among these many media” (see id., 2:46‐47). To improve upon
these methods of servicing customers, Berkowitz teaches “processing customer
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
42
transaction requests in the form of alternative media, such as facsimile, voice
mail, electronic mail, regular mail and video, among others” in a “transaction
center.” (See id., 1:6‐10.) Berkowitz further describes embodiments that use
hardware and software components to implement the transaction center. (See
id., e.g., 3:40‐44 (“[T]ransaction processing platform 10 can take on many other
forms, such as a PC platform or the like, as long as it has the ability to be loaded
with and run the ACD system and the monitoring and reporting software as
described.”), 4:16‐18 (“[T]he transaction center shown in FIG. 1 is provided with
computer telephone integration, or CTI, software which is well known in the
art.”).) Thus, Berkowitz discloses a transaction center very similar to the one later
described and claimed in the ’509 patent.
1. Claim 1 is Anticipated by Berkowitz
Berkowitz discloses “system” of claim 1 in the form of a transaction center,
shown in Fig. 1 and described in more detail in connection with the claim
limitations below. (See Berkowitz, 3:24‐25 (“FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a
transaction center according to a preferred embodiment of the present
invention.”)
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
43
Berkowitz discloses that this transaction center is “for receiving and
distributing contacts . . . to a plurality of workstations,” as recited in claim 1.
Berkowitz describes, at a high level, that “transaction processing platform 10 [of
the transaction center] is able to receive customer transaction requests, place the
transaction requests in a service queue, and eventually route the customer
transaction requests to an appropriate available service agent for processing.”
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
44
(Id., 3:44‐48.) Each service agent, according to Berkowitz, has a personal
computer or “workstation” (see Service Agent PC 90 in Fig. 1 above) that receives
the routed customer requests and displays them to the agent. (See id., 4:41‐45.)
As discussed in connection with the claim limitations below, Berkowitz also
describes, in detail, a “preferred embodiment” of the transaction center. (See,
e.g., id., 3:24‐25, 5:12‐13.)
Berkowitz further discloses that contacts are “of different media types,” as
recited in claim 1. Berkowitz states that the transaction center “process[es]
customer transaction requests in the form of alternative media, such as facsimile,
voice mail, electronic mail, regular mail and video, among others.” (Id., 1:7‐10.)
Forms of transaction requests disclosed by Berkowitz also include “live multi‐
media” and telephone call. (See id., 5:19‐29.)
a. Claim 1[a] – queuing component
Berkowitz discloses “a queuing component” in
the form of transaction processing platform 10,
shown in Fig. 1 (reproduced in relevant part at right).
According to Berkowitz, transaction processing platform 10 includes hardware
and software components. Berkowitz explains that transaction processing
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
45
platform 10 may be “a PC platform” with “the ability to be loaded with and run
the ACD system and the monitoring and reporting software.” (Id., 3:40‐44.)
The transaction processing platform 10 in Berkowitz is “adapted to receive
said different media‐type contacts,” as recited by claim 1. According to
Berkowitz, the transaction processing platform 10 “is able to receive customer
transaction requests” (id., 3:45‐46) and, as discussed above, the received
transaction requests are of different media types, including facsimile, voice mail,
electronic mail, regular mail, video, live multi‐media, and telephone call (see, e.g.,
id., 1:7‐10, 4:44‐45, 5:19‐29).
The transaction processing platform 10 in Berkowitz is further adapted to
“maintain said contacts in a common queue while said contacts are awaiting
routing to said workstations,” as recited by claim 1. Berkowitz explains that
“transaction processing platform 10 . . . place[s] the transaction requests in a
service queue” in transaction processing platform 10 before the customer
transaction requests are eventually routed to an appropriate available service
agent for processing. (Id., 3:44‐47; see also 5:41‐45 (“The transaction request is
then placed in the service queue by transaction processing platform 10, . . .
Because the transaction request is in the queue in transaction processing
platform 10, it can be routed . . .”), 6:36‐39 (“. . . [A] transaction processing
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
46
platform, said transaction processing platform having an automatic transaction
distribution system for queuing said transaction requests, . . .”) (Claim 1), 8:22‐24
(Claim 22).). Each service agent in Berkowitz has a “workstation” that includes a
personal computer able to receive the routed customer transaction requests,
“whether [they] be in facsimile, electronic mail, voice mail, regular mail or video
format.” (See id., 4:41‐45.)
b. Claim 1[b] – routing component
Berkowitz discloses “a routing component” in the form of hardware and
software components (1) transaction processing platform 10, (2) transaction
request server 20, and (3) CTI platform 30, shown in relevant part at below left.
As discussed in the previous section, transaction processing platform 10 may be
“a PC platform” with “the
ability to be loaded with and
run the ACD system and the
monitoring and reporting
software.” (Id., 3:40‐44.)
“Transaction request server 20
may be, for example, a multi‐
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
47
media messaging platform such as Lucent Technologies, Inc.’s INTUITY AUDIX
system, or any other device that is capable of receiving and storing transaction
requests.” (Id., 4:5‐9.) Finally, CTI platform 30 includes “three software
modules”—message controller 50, workflow manager 60, and CTI controller 70—
“stored on a separate PC platform,” “on transaction processing platform 10 or on
transaction request server 20.” (See id., 4:19‐25.)
The hardware and software components (1) transaction processing
platform 10, (2) transaction request server 20, and (3) CTI platform 30 are
“adapted to route the queued contacts to said workstations.” As discussed
below, Berkowitz describes the operation of these hardware and software
components “in detail.” (See id., 5:12‐13.)
First, “a transaction request is received by transaction request server 20
from customer 5.” (Id., 5:14‐15.) If the received transaction request is in the
form of a “proxy,”5 the transaction request is stored in transaction request server
5 A “proxy” is a type of transaction request that does not require the customer to
wait in a queue in real time (e.g., a facsimile, a voice mail, a letter, an electronic
mail message or video message), as the customer would, for example, for a live
telephone call. (See Berkowitz, 2:39‐45.)
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
48
20 in electronic format. (See id., 5:28‐29; see also, e.g., 3:67‐4:5 (“The customer
requests received and stored by transaction request server 20 must be in
electronic format. Thus, in the case of a customer request in the form of regular
mail, the customer request must be converted into an electronic form by scanner
7 prior to being stored by transaction request server 20.”), 6:32‐45 (“1. A
transaction center having a plurality of service agents for automatically servicing a
plurality of transaction requests including transaction requests placed by proxy,
the transaction center comprising: . . . a transaction request server for receiving
and storing one of said transaction requests placed by proxy; . . .”), 7:34‐35 (Claim
12), 8:30‐31 (Claim 22).) Live telephone calls that do not result in a voice mail are
not stored in transaction request server 20. (See id., 5:23‐29.)
Next, CTI platform 30 informs transaction processing platform 10 of receipt
of the transaction request. (See id., 5:29‐41.) More specifically, “message
controller 50 [of CTI platform 30] detects that a transaction request has been
received . . . and sends a signal to workflow manager 60 [of CTI platform 30]
indicating [receipt].” (Id., 29‐33.) “Workflow manager 60 [of CTI platform 30]
then sends a signal to CTI controller 70 [of CTI platform 30] instructing it to send a
signal,” for example, over API 80, “to transaction processing platform 10
indicating that a customer transaction request has been received.” (See id., 5:33‐
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
49
41.)
Transaction processing platform 10 then “place[s] [the received
transaction request] in the service queue” (in transaction processing platform
10), from where it is “routed by the ACD system provided in transaction
processing platform 10.” (Id., 5:41‐46.) Routing, however, involves hardware
and software components beyond transaction processing platform 10 because
transaction requests received in the form of a proxy remain stored in transaction
request server 20. (See id., 5:55‐61; see also 3:67‐4:5.) As explained in Berkowitz,
“[w]hen the ACD system of transaction processing platform 10 determines that an
appropriate service agent is available,” transaction processing platform 10 sends a
signal to CTI controller 70 of CTI platform 30, and workflow manager 60 of CTI
platform 30 sends a signal to transaction request server 20 requesting
“transaction request server 20 [to] deliver the transaction request to an
appropriate . . . service agent’s PC 90.” (See id., 5:55‐61.)
After “[t]he service agent . . . processes the [routed] transaction request,”
“CTI controller 70 [of CTI platform 30] sends a signal to transaction processing
platform 10 indicating that the transaction request has been processed,” so that
“the software contained in transaction processing platform 10[] knows that the
customer request has been successfully processed.” (See id., 5:62‐6:10.)
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
50
Berkowitz also discloses that the queued contacts are routed “based on
designated criteria,” as recited by claim 1. Berkowitz explains that the ACD
system of transaction processing platform 10 may route transaction requests
“based on a variety of factors relating to the customer request or the service
agents.” (See id., 1:44‐46.) According to Berkowitz, factors on which routing may
be based include geographical origin of the transaction request, whether the
transaction request is related to sales or service, whether there should be a
priority assigned to the transaction request based on the requester, type of skills
necessary to properly service the request, and relative workloads of the service
agents. (See id., 1:46‐53.) As explained in Berkowitz, the criteria used to route
transaction requests are typically “selectable and programmable by the
organization utilizing the call center,” and that contacts “are ultimately routed
based upon a set of programmable rules.” (See id., 1:63‐67.) Thus, Berkowitz
discloses that individual criterion may be selected and combined to form “a set”
of criteria that ultimately determine routing.
2. Claim 2 is Anticipated by Berkowitz
Each limitation of independent claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, is
disclosed by Berkowitz as explained in Section VII.B.1 above. The additional
limitation of claim 2 is satisfied by designated criteria disclosed in Berkowitz in the
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
51
form of geographical origin of the transaction request, whether the transaction
request is related to sales or service, whether there should be a priority assigned
to the transaction request based on the requester, type of skills necessary to
properly service the request, and relative workloads of the service agents, as
explained in Section VII.B.1.b above.
To anticipate claim 2, Berkowitz must disclose designated criteria that
“includes at least one of” criteria of queued contacts and criteria assigned to
agents. Berkowitz discloses “criteria of said queued contacts,” as recited by claim
2, at least in the form of (1) geographical origin of the transaction request (see
Berkowitz, 1:47), (2) whether the transaction request is related to sales or service
(see id., 1:48‐49), and (3) whether there should be a priority assigned to the
transaction request based on the requester (see id., 1:49‐50). Berkowitz further
discloses “criteria assigned to agents operating said workstations,” as recited by
claim 2, at least in the form of (1) type of skills necessary to properly service the
request (see id., 1:50‐51) and (2) relative workloads of the service agents (see id.,
1:52‐53). Accordingly, designated criteria disclosed by Berkowitz “includes at
least one of criteria of said queued contacts and criteria assigned to agents
operating said workstations,” as recited by the claim.
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
52
3. Claim 3 is Anticipated by Berkowitz
Each limitation of independent claim 1, from which claim 3 depends by
virtue of being dependent on claim 2, is disclosed by Berkowitz as explained in
Section VII.B.1 above. The one limitation added to claim 1 by claim 2 is also
disclosed by Berkowitz as explained in Section VII.B.2 above.
Claim 3 is similar to claim 2 but differs in that designated criteria must
include both criteria of said queued contacts and criteria assigned to said agents.
As discussed in Section VII.B.2 above, Berkowitz discloses (1) “criteria of said
queued contacts,” at least in the form of (a) geographical origin of the transaction
request (see Berkowitz, 1:47), (b) whether the transaction request is related to
sales or service (see id., 1:48‐49), and (c) whether there should be a priority
assigned to the transaction request based on the requester. (See id., 1:49‐50). As
further discussed in Section VII.B.2 above, Berkowitz discloses (2) “criteria
assigned to said agents” at least in the form of (a) type of skills necessary to
properly service the request (see id., 1:50‐51), and (b) relative workloads of the
service agents (see id., 1:52‐53). And as discussed in Section VII.B.1, Berkowitz
discloses that individual criterion may be selected and combined to form “a set”
of criteria that ultimately determine routing. (See id., 1:63‐67.) Accordingly,
Berkowitz discloses that “designated criteria includes said criteria of said queued
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
53
contacts and said criteria assigned to said agents,” as recited by claim 3.
4. Claim 4 is Anticipated by Berkowitz
Each limitation of independent claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, is
disclosed by Berkowitz as explained in Section VII.B.1 above.
Berkowitz additionally discloses “a contact handling component” in the
form of hardware and software components of each service agent’s PC 90. (See
id., 4:41‐43 (“Each of a plurality of service agents 90 preferably has a personal
computer, or PC, which is provided with desktop software . . .”).) The hardware
and software components of each service agent’s PC 90 are “adapted to initiate
an event at any of said workstations in response to said contact being routed
thereto,” as recited by claim 4. As described in Berkowitz, PC 90 receives the
routed customer requests of various types, including facsimile, electronic mail,
voice mail, regular mail or video, and displays them to the agent. (See id., 4:41‐
45.) Accordingly, Berkowitz discloses “initiat[ing] an event at any of said
workstations in response to said contact being routed thereto” in the form of a
display of customer requests, at PC 90, to the agent.
Berkowitz further explains that “the desktop software [of PC 90] has what is
commonly known in the art as a ‘screen pop’ capability[,] which presents the
customer information to the service agent on the screen of the service agent’s PC
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
54
90 just prior to the time that the agent receives the customer request.” (See id.,
5:5‐11.) Accordingly, Berkowitz also discloses “initiat[ing] an event at any of said
workstations in response to said contact being routed thereto” in the form of a
“screen pop.”
Finally, Berkowitz discloses that each service agent’s PC 90 is connected to
that service agent’s telephone. (See id., 4:41‐49 (“Each of a plurality of service
agents 90 preferably has a personal computer, or PC, which is provided with
desktop software which enables the service agent to receive and/or view each
customer request whether it be in facsimile, electronic mail, voice mail, regular
mail or video format. In the case of voice mail messages, the customer request
can be played back to the service agent . . . over the service agent's telephone
connection.”).) In instances where “a customer transaction request in the form of
a live telephone call . . . is handled by a service agent as a live call” (id., 5:25‐28),
then, the hardware and software components of PC 90 initiate an event in the
form of ringing a telephone.
5. Claim 5 is Anticipated by Berkowitz
Each limitation of independent claim 1, from which claim 5 depends by
virtue of being dependent on claim 4, is disclosed by Berkowitz as explained in
Section VII.B.1 above. The one limitation added by claim 4 to claim 1 is also
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
55
disclosed by Berkowitz as explained in Section VII.B.4 above.
Claim 5 specifies that “said event [initiated at workstations] includes at
least one of ringing a telephone assigned to said any workstation and causing said
any workstation to generate a display on its display screen.” To anticipate claim
5, Berkowitz must disclose an “event” that is either (1) “ringing a telephone
assigned to said any workstation” or (2) “causing said any workstation to generate
a display on its display screen.” As explained in Section VII.B.4 above, Berkowitz
discloses initiating an event in the form of (1) a display of customer requests, at
PC 90, to the agent (see id., 4:41‐45), and (2) a “screen pop” at PC 90 (see id., 5:5‐
11), thereby disclosing “causing said any workstation to generate a display on its
display screen,” as recited by claim 5. Thus, these disclosures from Berkowitz are
sufficient to anticipate claim 5.
Berkowitz also discloses an “event” that is “ringing a telephone assigned to
said any workstation,” as recited by claim 5. As explained in Section VII.B.4
above, Berkowitz discloses initiating an event in the form of ringing a telephone
(see Berkowitz 4:41‐49, 5:25‐28).
Because claim 5 requires that “said event includes at least one of ringing a
telephone assigned to said any workstation and causing said any workstation to
generate a display on its display screen,” Berkowitz’s disclosure of either (1) a
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
56
display of customer requests, at PC 90, to the agent, and/or a “screen pop” at PC
90 (each qualifying as “causing said any workstation to generate a display on its
display screen,” as recited by the claim); or (2) ringing a telephone (qualifying as
“ringing a telephone assigned to said any workstation,” as recited by the claim) is
sufficient to anticipate.
6. Claim 6 is Anticipated by Berkowitz
Each limitation of independent claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, is
disclosed by Berkowitz as explained in Section VII.B.1 above. Berkowitz also
discloses that contacts include (1) “a voice communication” in the form of (a)
telephone calls (see Berkowitz, e.g., 2:40, 5:26), and (b) voice mails (see id., e.g.,
1:9, 3:56, 4:45, 4:46); (2) “a facsimile communication” (see id., e.g., 1:9, 3:56,
4:44, 4:58, 5:17, 6:19); (3) “an e‐mail communication” (see id., e.g., 1:9, 3:56,
4:45, 4:58, 5:17, 6:19); and (4) “data transmittable over the Internet” in the form
of live multi‐media requests (see id., 5:20.)
7. Claims 8‐13 are Anticipated by Berkowitz
The following lookup table summarizes the proposed ground of rejection
based on anticipation by Berkowitz for claims 8‐13, for the same reasons as set
forth above in the referenced claims and argument sections.
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
57
Claim / Recited Limitation Corresponding Claim / Recited Limitation
Corresponding Argument
Section
8: “[a] method for receiving and distributing contacts of different media types to a plurality of workstations.”
1: “[a] system for receiving and distributing contacts of different media types to a plurality of workstations.”
Section VII.B.1
8[a]: “maintaining said different media‐type contacts in a common queue while said contacts are awaiting routing to said workstations.”
1[a]: “a queuing component, adapted to receive said different media‐type contacts and maintain said contacts in a common queue while said contacts are awaiting routing to said workstations.”
Section VII.B.1.a
8[b]: “routing the queued contacts to the workstations based on designated criteria.”
1[b]: “a routing component, adapted to route the queued contacts to said workstations based on designated criteria.”
Section VII.B.1.b
9: “said designated criteria includes at least one of criteria of said queued contacts and criteria assigned to agents operating said workstations.”
2: “said designated criteria includes at least one of criteria of said queued contacts and criteria assigned to agents operating said workstations.”
Section VII.B.2
10: “said designated criteria includes criteria of said queued contacts and criteria assigned to agents operating said workstations.”
3: “said designated criteria includes said criteria of said queued contacts and said criteria assigned to said agents.”
Section VII.B.3
11: “initiating an event at any of said workstations in response to said contact being routed thereto.”
4: “a contact handling component, adapted to initiate an event at any of said workstations in response to said contact being routed thereto.”
Section VII.B.4
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
58
Claim / Recited Limitation Corresponding Claim / Recited Limitation
Corresponding Argument
Section
12: “said event initiating step includes at least one of the following steps: ringing a telephone assigned to said any workstation; and causing said any workstation to generate a display on its display screen.”
5: “said event includes at least one of ringing a telephone assigned to said any workstation and causing said any workstation to generate a display on its display screen.”
Section VII.B.5
13: “receiving said contacts as at least one of the following: voice communication; facsimile communication; e‐mail communication; and data transmittable over the Internet.”
6: “said contacts include at least one of the following: a voice communication; a facsimile communication; an e‐mail communication; and data transmittable over the Internet.”
Section VII.B.6
VIII. REDUNDANCY
This petition is being filed with one ground of rejection based on Haigh and
one ground of rejection based on Berkowitz. Although numerous prior art
references related to contact centers disclose queuing received contacts in a
common queue and routing contacts based on designated criteria, Petitioner has
presented only those grounds necessary to sufficiently demonstrate that claims 1‐
6 and 8‐13 of the ’509 patent are not patentable, having demonstrated how the
teachings of Haigh and Berkowitz address the claims divergently.
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
59
Petitioner submits that Haigh and Berkowitz raise two non‐redundant
grounds of rejections because Haigh and Berkowitz are prior art under different
sections of the statute (i.e., 102(b) v. 102(e)), and also because of their different
treatment of the “routing” recited in claims 1‐6 and 8‐13.
Claim 1 (from which claims 2‐6 depend) recites “a routing component,
adapted to route the queued contacts to said workstations.” Claim 8 (from which
claims 9‐13 depend) recites “routing the queued contacts to the workstations.”
As discussed in Section VII.A.1.a and Section VII.A.1.b above, Haigh discloses
routing contacts to workstations directly from queue 82, where each contact is
stored as a concatenation of the contact bit sequence and a contact identifier. On
the other hand, as discussed in Section VII.B.1.b above, Berkowitz discloses
routing contacts to workstations involving steps including: (1) transaction
processing platform 10 sending a signal to CTI platform 30, (2) CTI platform 30
sending a signal to transaction request server 20, where contacts are stored in
electronic format, and (3) transaction request server 20 delivering a contact to a
workstation. While both are believed to “rout[e] the queued contacts” to
workstations, they are believed to be non‐redundant in the manner in which they
meet this feature.
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
60
Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board institute
rejections on both grounds presented in this petition, in part because Petitioners
have worked hard to reduce the burden on the PTAB through presentation of just
two grounds, and in part to avoid prejudicing the Petitioners based on at least the
differentiated treatment of “routing” mentioned above. However, to the extent
the Board declines to institute both grounds presented, Petitioner requests that
the Board institute the ground of rejection based on Haigh.
IX. CONCLUSION
The Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board institute inter partes
review of claims 1‐6 and 8‐13 of the ’509 patent, and find them unpatentable,
based on the two grounds presented in this Petition.
Dated: January 15, 2015 COOLEY LLP ATTN: Patent Group 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004 Tel: (703) 456‐8000 Fax: (202) 842‐7899
Respectfully submitted,
By: /Erik B. Milch/ Erik B. Milch Reg. No. 42,887 Counsel for Petitioner
inContact, Inc.
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,162,509
61
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. Sections 42.6 and 42.105, that a complete copy of the attached PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,092,509, including all exhibits (Nos. 1001‐1005, being included on a compact disc (CD)), are being served via USPS EXPRESS MAIL®, costs prepaid, on the 15th day of January, 2015, the same day as the filing of the above‐identified document in the United States Patent and Trademark Office/Patent Trial and Appeal Board, upon
(1) the Patent Owner by serving the correspondence address of record with the USPTO, and
(2) upon counsel of record for the Patent Owner in the litigation pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware entitled Microlog Corp. v. inContact, Inc., Case No. 14‐47 (LPS) (D. Del.):
ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, LLP 1300 19th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036
Jay D. EllwangerDiNOVO PRICE ELLWANGER & HARDY LLP 7000 North MoPac Expressway Suite 350 Austin, TX 78731
/Erik B. Milch/ Erik B. Milch Reg. No. 42,887
COOLEY LLP ATTN: Erik B. Milch Patent Docketing 1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20004 Tel: (703) 456‐8573 Fax: (703) 456‐8100
Recommended