Appeal No. 95-2004
Application 07/597,370
at 3-4). But the deficiency of Fields is not made up by the
disclosure of AT&T Names. While AT&T Names refers to a "team"
for handling calls, the appellants correctly argue (Br. at 12)
that the team of AT&T Names is not subdivided into a plurality
of management units which cooperate to handle a total event
load. Thus, the allocating step of claim 13 is also lacking
in AT&T Names, as it is lacking in Fields. The system of AT&T
Names (at 2-1) forecasts work volume based on historical data,
determines how many people are needed to achieve a desired
level of service, and selects the people based on their
availability. But the examiner has not identified any
disclosure which reasonably would have suggested "allocating
the expected event load among the plurality of management
units according to a predetermined number of servers expected
to be available at each management unit during each interval
of the forecast time period."
Moreover, claim 13 further requires the step of
reallocating the expected event load among the plurality of
management units during one or more intervals of the forecast
time period. We disagree with the appellants’ contention that
AT&T Names does not disclose or reasonably suggest changing
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007