Appeal No. 2001-1017
Application No. 08/988,151
No. 10, filed June 22, 2000) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 12, filed
November 2, 2000) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 39.
Each of independent claims 1, 19, and 24 recites the steps
of comparing the type of request “to a stored table of request
types, each of said request types having an attribute indicating
whether said request type is capable of being fulfilled by a
customer service representative or by an automated system," and
"depending upon said attribute, directing said request either to
a queue for handling of said request by a customer service
representative” or directing the request “to a queue for
processing said request by an automated system." The examiner
asserts (Answer, pages 4-5) that Keyser teaches the comparing
step in claim 7, column 5, lines 44-48, and column 12, lines 43
and 48, but fails to disclose directing the request according to
attributes associated with different request types. The examiner
attempts to remedy this deficiency of Keyser with Muller.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007