Appeal No. 1997-0805
Application No. 08/314,189
pages 6 and 7), we are in agreement with Appellants’ position
as stated in the Brief. Our interpretation of the disclosure
of Kohler coincides with that of Appellants, i.e., while a
skill level indicator is assigned to an agent who meets a
threshold level of knowledgeability concerning a particular
skill area, there is no disclosure of any assigned rating
which would indicate the relative proficiency of the agent in
that skill area as claimed by Appellants. As illustrated in
Kohler’s Figures 3 and 6, along with the accompanying
description at columns 5-7, call agents are assigned a skill
indicator representative of their ability to answer questions
concerning a particular area of information. In the travel
information service example provided by Kohler, agents 1, 2,
and 3 are assigned skill level 1 indicative of their
knowledgeability about the state of Maine which is arbitrarily
given the skill level designation 1. There is no way of
knowing, however, which of the three agents 1, 2, or 3 has a
higher proficiency of knowledge about Maine relative to one
another in order that an incoming call query concerning Maine
may be assigned to an agent with the highest proficiency
rating.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007