Appeal No. 2006-2574
Application No. 10/331,706
availability of contacted or to-be-contacted persons and because
of Zmolek’s teaching that this enhanced presence system can be
used in a myriad of differing distributed networks.
Appellant does not question the combinability of the applied
references, nor does appellant argue many of the features alleged
by the examiner to be taught by the references. The only
argument presented by appellant with regard to the independent
claims is that these claims recite a “registering” of individual
resources for one or more of the plurality of skill sets and,
contrary to the examiner’s position, this feature is not
“inherent” in Kishinsky.
After careful consideration of the evidence before us, we
conclude that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness that has not been successfully rebutted by appellant.
It is the examiner’s view that “registering” of individual
resources for a plurality of skill sets in “inherently” disclosed
by Kishinsky because a management system determines availability
of an agent by a query to a database, and a placement of a call
to an agent who has the skill set that matches the call request.
The examiner concludes, reasonably in our view, that in order for
the system to know the skill set applicable to a particular
agent, the skills/skill set of each agent must have been
previously “registered.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007