Appeal No. 2004-0008
Application No. 09/547,627
applying a model to the inquiry information to
determine a priority value for each inquiry, the model
estimating the probability of an outcome of an inbound
inquiry having a predetermined result; and
ordering the inbound inquiries with the priority
values.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Jolissaint 5,040,208 Aug. 13, 1991
Rogers et al. (Rogers) 5,946,386 Aug. 31, 1999
Gisby 6,002,760 Dec. 14, 1999
Walker et al. (Walker) 6,088,444 Jul. 11, 2000
(filed Apr. 11, 1997)
Claims 1, 3 through 35, 37 through 44 and 46 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Walker. The
remaining claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As evidence of obviousness as to claims 2, 36, 45 and 47, the
examiner relies upon Walker in view of Rogers. As to claims
48 and 49, the examiner relies upon Walker in view of Gisby and,
as to claim 50, the examiner adds Jolissaint to Walker.1
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief, reply brief and
supplemental reply brief for appellants’ positions, and to the
answer for the examiner’s positions.
1As noted at pages 3 and 12 of the answer, the examiner has
withdrawn a rejection of claim 1 under the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007