Appeal No. 2004-0008
Application No. 09/547,627
OPINION
We reverse the various rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and
35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1 through 43, but sustain the
rejections of remaining claims 44 through 50.
As generally argued by appellants in the brief and reply
brief, the rejections of independent claims 1, 16, 33 and
39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 must be reversed because there are key
recitations in each of these independent claims that Walker does
not teach. Walker’s computations or calculations of “economic
value” as outlined by the examiner in the answer fail to teach
“estimating the probability of an outcome of an inbound inquiry
having a predetermined result” as recited in independent claim 1;
fail “to predict an outcome of the pending inbound call” in
independent claim 16; fail to determine an order of inbound
inquiries “based in part on the predicted outcome of the inbound
inquiries” as set forth in independent claim 33 and fail to teach
anything “that prioritizes the inbound calls in accordance with
forecasted outcomes for the inbound calls” as recited in
independent claim 39 on appeal.
Notwithstanding the examiner’s urging otherwise in the
answer that these noted features are taught in Walker, the
portions identified and relied upon by the examiner do not
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007