Appeal No. 2006-1092
Application No. 08/948,530
Claim 6 merely recites, in pertinent part, routing incoming calls to "selected agent
addresses at [the] at least one call center" [emphasis added]. Such language
does not require a plurality of call centers, but rather one or more call centers.
The call routing system of Ginsberg fully reads on this limitation. Moreover, we
find no recitation of a database in claims 6-8. In our view, the teachings of
Ginsberg appear anticipatory for at least claim 6.
Nevertheless, obviousness rejections can be based on references that
happen to anticipate the claimed subject matter. In re Meyer, 599 F.2d 1026,
1031, 202 USPQ 175, 179 (CCPA 1979). We agree with the examiner that the
teachings of Becker are reasonably combinable with Ginsberg essentially for the
reasons stated by the examiner.
Becker's CTI data collection server 38 continuously collects data from
each call center 50 via a CTI server 60 located at each call center [Becker, col. 8,
lines 45-55]. Call center router 36 then retrieves this data from the CTI data
collection server via wide area network 26 to determine if the intended
destination call center has sufficient current availability to accept the call.
Availability is determined by total number of agent workstations, agents currently
handling calls, current number of calls in the queue, and the rate of incoming
calls [Becker, col. 8, lines 57-63]. Data is also collected regarding agent
availability [Becker, col. 8, line 64 - col. 9, line 10]. Since both Becker and
Ginsberg are in the same field of endeavor, we find Becker's teaching reasonably
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007