Appeal No. 1997-3181
Application No. 08/304,345
whole; there is no legally recognizable ‘heart’ of the
invention.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int'l, Inc.,
73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
cert. denied, 519 U.S. 822 (1996) citing W.L. Gore & Assoc.,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Appellants argue on page 5 of the brief that Kohler's
routing system assigns up to three skill numbers to incoming
calls and searches among a group of agents having different
skills in order to match the agent with the needs of the
caller. Appellants add on page 10 of the brief that Kohler
does not provide any teaching or suggestion to form “skill
groups of available agents” comprising of “agents having a
common agent-skill indicator” as recited in claim 1.
Additionally, Appellants state that Kohler searches for an
agent with the matching skill among agents who may be
unavailable, have the wrong skill, or both, which requires
longer search time while the caller is waiting. Appellants
further state on page 11 of the brief that without any reason
to modify Kohler to group agents in skill groups, the Examiner
uses hindsight to show obviousness.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007