Appeal No. 2006-1092
Application No. 08/948,530
combinable with Ginsberg so that calls could be effectively routed to an available
call center selected from multiple call centers.
In addition, contrary to appellant's argument, we find that Becker
reasonably teaches storing information used to route incoming calls at the
Internet network level. In particular, we note that Becker's call center router 36,
CTI data collection server 38, and each call center's CTI server are connected to
wide area network (WAN) 26. Thus, data collection and retrieval for call routing
purposes as described above is performed at the WAN level which reasonably
suggests the Internet network level to the skilled artisan. The examiner's
obviousness rejection is therefore sustained.
Furthermore, since appellant has not separately argued the patentability of
dependent claims 7 and 8, these claims fall with independent claim 6. The
rejection of claims 7 and 8 is therefore sustained.
Likewise, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of dependent claim 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Ginsberg
in view of Becker and Bateman. We find that (1) the examiner has established at
least a prima facie case of obviousness for this claim on pages 4 and 5 of the
answer, and (2) appellant has not persuasively rebutted the examiner's prima
facie case. The rejection is therefore sustained.
We now consider the rejection of claims 6-9 and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) based on Andrews and Becker. Regarding independent claims 6, 14, and
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007