Appeal No. 2004-1179 Application No. 09/127,284 profitability of the pending interaction request” sends a clear signal that the appellant does not want the disclosed and claimed invention1 to be limited to any one algorithm. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the broadly claimed phrase when read in light of the disclosure would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the indefiniteness rejection of claims 23 through 28 and 34 through 39 is reversed because the breadth of the claims is not equated with indefiniteness of the claims. In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971). Turning next to the obviousness rejections, we find that the broadly recited subject matter of claim 23 reads directly on the teachings of Walker. A method for automatically routing incoming interaction requests in a hosted communications network to different positions in a queue is disclosed by Walker (Figures 1 through 3; Abstract; column 1, lines 5 through 10). Walker receives a new interaction request from a customer via an incoming call (Abstract), and identifies the initiating 1 The examiner has not rejected the claims on appeal for lack of enablement in spite of the fact that the disclosure does not present a specific algorithm that will perform the potential profitability calculation. In the absence of such a rejection, it appears that the skilled artisan would have known which algorithm to use to make the noted calculation. 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007