[00:00:00] Speaker 02: This case is number 191252, in Ray Noble Systems Corporation, Mr. Costa. [00:00:13] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:00:14] Speaker 01: If it please the court, I'd like to provide a brief background. [00:00:19] Speaker 01: Contact centers employ call handlers to route calls to agents. [00:00:24] Speaker 01: They also employ e-learning systems to provide training to agents. [00:00:28] Speaker 01: And finally, they also employ workforce management systems to schedule the work shifts of agents. [00:00:35] Speaker 01: The workforce management systems typically are not involved in coordinating the other components, but the specification describes how the workforce manager system, the WFM, can be adapted to coordinate those other components to provide training to agents. [00:00:55] Speaker 01: The claims recite a limitation, the beginning of training limitation or beginning of training indicator that's sent from the WFM to the call handler at the beginning of training that causes the call handler to cease routing calls to the agents. [00:01:12] Speaker 01: Similarly, the WFM sends a beginning of training indicator to the e-learning system causing it to provide training. [00:01:21] Speaker 01: Much of the dispute centers around this beginning of training indicator and how it impacts the patent eligibility and obviousness determination. [00:01:33] Speaker 01: Patent eligibility, as you know, involves two steps. [00:01:36] Speaker 01: The first is determining whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea. [00:01:40] Speaker 01: And if so, is there an inventive concept recited in the limitations? [00:01:46] Speaker 01: The second test is satisfied when the claim limitations involve more than the performance of well-understood and routine conventional activities in the industry. [00:01:58] Speaker 01: Noble Systems disputes what the PTO alleges the claims are directed to. [00:02:03] Speaker 01: The PTO states they're directed to scheduling and providing training to call center agents. [00:02:11] Speaker 01: That's rather broad because it's well known that [00:02:15] Speaker 01: Classroom training can be scheduled for agents. [00:02:21] Speaker 01: Agents can be scheduled time to review call recordings of exemplary recordings. [00:02:26] Speaker 01: Supervisors can be scheduled to sit down with an agent and coach them in real time how to handle a call. [00:02:33] Speaker 01: Noble does not purport to have invented this. [00:02:36] Speaker 01: What we have invented is a particular way [00:02:41] Speaker 01: of using the WFM, adapting it to coordinate these other components to provide a specific form of training. [00:02:49] Speaker 01: Consequently, Noble alleges the PTO's characterization is at too high level of abstraction, and it's untethered from the claim language because it does not consider the beginning of training indicator limitations, how they're sent and how they're processed. [00:03:07] Speaker 01: A test used by this court in SAP America [00:03:11] Speaker 01: involved determining whether the claims had the specificity to transform a claim from one claiming only a result to one claiming a way of achieving it. [00:03:24] Speaker 01: Arguably, the beginning of training indication limitations recite a way of achieving it. [00:03:31] Speaker 01: Hence, Noble Systems alleges that the PTO's determination at step one should be set aside. [00:03:39] Speaker 01: Even if we accept that as correct and accurate, at step two, Noemal alleges the beginning of training indicator limitations recite an inventive concept. [00:03:53] Speaker 01: The PTO's analysis is flawed because it sweeps away all consideration of these limitations by stating [00:04:03] Speaker 01: The beginning of training indication limitations are merely part of the overall abstract idea of providing training and scheduling, which is a method of organizing human activity. [00:04:14] Speaker 01: The board correctly considered the beginning of training indicator limitation in its step one analysis, and on the last page states that those limitations should not be considered at step two. [00:04:27] Speaker 01: So this approach is going to guarantee [00:04:31] Speaker 01: an incorrect finding of patent eligibility. [00:04:36] Speaker 01: First, we come up with a broad characterization of what the invention is directed to, disregarding the role of the WFM and how it sends the beginning of training indication. [00:04:46] Speaker 01: Next, at step two, we ignore the beginning of training indicator, saying, oh, those were considered at step one. [00:04:55] Speaker 01: Of course, [00:04:57] Speaker 01: claims will be found patent eligible. [00:04:59] Speaker 01: But the PTO has not followed this court's mandate that at step two, we consider the elements of each claim both individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent eligible application. [00:05:21] Speaker 01: The PTO makes another error in its step two analysis. [00:05:26] Speaker 01: By stripping out the processes, the operations that are the inventive concept from the processing systems, of course, what you will be left with are generic components. [00:05:40] Speaker 01: Recall that in the analysis is what the processes, the functions, the steps are performed. [00:05:49] Speaker 01: So if you strip those out and just focus on the computer as a result, of course, it will be generic. [00:05:58] Speaker 01: That leads us to the issue of obviousness. [00:06:04] Speaker 01: The PTO alleges that corn blint, the prior art reference, teaches these beginning, excuse me, renders obvious these beginning of training indicators. [00:06:17] Speaker 01: Consider the case of the WFM sending the indicator at the beginning of training time to the call handler, causing it to cease routing calls. [00:06:27] Speaker 01: PTO alleges one skilled in the art would find this obvious over Cornblatt because Cornblatt teaches that the call router ceases routing incoming calls to agents undertaking training as they are not available to take incoming calls. [00:06:45] Speaker 01: There are three problems with this reasoning. [00:06:49] Speaker 01: First, [00:06:51] Speaker 01: Cornbutt discloses agents can receive emails before and after calls and the emails can convey training. [00:07:00] Speaker 01: So therefore, the agents can simultaneously engage in training and call handling. [00:07:07] Speaker 01: There's no suggestion that the call router would have to stop routing calls. [00:07:13] Speaker 01: Second, even if it's true that the call handler does not route calls, [00:07:20] Speaker 01: to the agents while they're training. [00:07:22] Speaker 01: That by itself in no way suggests or teaches it's due to a WFM sending a beginning of training indicator to the call router. [00:07:32] Speaker 01: That is, there's no evidence, let alone substantial evidence. [00:07:37] Speaker 01: Finally, the PTO misinterprets the plain meaning of the words of corn blit as to what it means to not route a call to an unavailable agent. [00:07:49] Speaker 01: It's well known in the contact center industry that agents speak to one person at a time. [00:07:54] Speaker 01: When they are on a call, they're unavailable. [00:07:57] Speaker 01: When the call ends, they're available. [00:08:00] Speaker 01: The call router routes calls to available agents, meaning they can handle a call. [00:08:05] Speaker 01: That's what it means. [00:08:08] Speaker 01: Alternatively, the PTO attempts to leverage KSR as the basis for modifying [00:08:17] Speaker 01: the WFM call handler and e-learning system in core input. [00:08:24] Speaker 01: Well, it doesn't make sense to include this new functionality in the elements using KSR based on it simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform because the prior art didn't show that these old elements performed the function. [00:08:42] Speaker 01: And besides, that's really a bootstrap logic. [00:08:46] Speaker 01: To argue that we would incorporate new functionality into these old elements that already perform it doesn't make sense. [00:08:56] Speaker 01: Nor does Corrin-Blit show that the WFM sends this indicator to the e-learning system. [00:09:06] Speaker 01: The PTO relies on Figure 6 for teaching that. [00:09:11] Speaker 01: Figure 6 shows information going in the other direction. [00:09:16] Speaker 01: To overcome this problem, the PTO makes two arguments. [00:09:20] Speaker 01: It relies on Figure 3. [00:09:23] Speaker 01: Figure 3 shows a central administration module, and if you read the text, it says that's for an agent to log in and communicate with these other components. [00:09:34] Speaker 01: It says nothing about these other components using that module to communicate among themselves. [00:09:43] Speaker 01: The board makes another argument, and this argument actually helps the whole system's position. [00:09:51] Speaker 01: The board says, a skilled artisan would have understood that in order for the lesson presentation module to deliver the lesson to the agent at the scheduled time, [00:10:08] Speaker 01: that's the WM, would have to communicate the schedule, including the beginning of training time. [00:10:16] Speaker 01: The PTO is saying, once skilled in the art would know, it would have to communicate the schedule and the time. [00:10:25] Speaker 01: That's not what the limitations recite. [00:10:28] Speaker 01: The limitations recite sending an indicator at the beginning of training time. [00:10:35] Speaker 01: Sending a schedule with the time is distinct from sending an indicator at the start time. [00:10:42] Speaker 01: So in summary, the PTO has not shown by substantial evidence that corn blit renders these limitations obvious. [00:10:53] Speaker 01: doesn't disclose or suggest the WFM sending this to either the call handler or to the e-learning system. [00:11:01] Speaker 01: Certainly, the PTO has not shown that the WFM sending this indicator was well-known, conventional, or routine. [00:11:10] Speaker 01: So the PTO has not met its burden with showing that the claims are patent-ineligible. [00:11:18] Speaker 01: With that, I'll take any questions. [00:11:22] Speaker 01: OK, thank you. [00:11:25] Speaker 01: Mr. McBride. [00:11:30] Speaker 03: Good morning. [00:11:31] Speaker 03: You may please the court. [00:11:33] Speaker 03: I'd like to point out that there's two grounds of rejection here, the obviousness rejection of your corn blit and the patent eligibility rejection. [00:11:41] Speaker 03: Either one of those rejections are sufficient to affirm the board's decision. [00:11:45] Speaker 03: Starting with the 103. [00:11:46] Speaker 02: Are you aware of anything out there, either another pending application or an issued patent, [00:11:51] Speaker 02: that is related to this that would be implicated by our decision here. [00:11:56] Speaker 03: I believe we mentioned that in our brief and I'm not aware of any other pending applications that would be implicated. [00:12:06] Speaker 03: um... returning to the the obviousness rejection in view of quorum blitz. [00:12:10] Speaker 00: Why don't you instead just start with 101? [00:12:13] Speaker 03: Sure, happy to do that. [00:12:14] Speaker 03: So I think it's a pretty straightforward Alice two-step analysis under step one. [00:12:19] Speaker 03: The board found that the claims were directed to scheduling and presenting training to call center agents. [00:12:26] Speaker 00: I just don't see how there's any difference in these claims. [00:12:28] Speaker 00: It's just a method of organizing human activity using a computer. [00:12:32] Speaker 00: Exactly. [00:12:32] Speaker 00: Everything could be done if the workforce manager wasn't the computer but was instead a person. [00:12:38] Speaker 00: Couldn't he just walk from office to office to agent to agent with a hard copy of a calendar and schedule his training and when the training starts he could answer their calls for him? [00:12:48] Speaker 03: Yes, exactly. [00:12:49] Speaker 03: That's a very good point. [00:12:50] Speaker 00: Bam. [00:12:51] Speaker 00: Yes. [00:12:51] Speaker 00: Exactly done by a human. [00:12:53] Speaker 00: Everything in this claim done exactly by a human. [00:12:56] Speaker 00: This just uses the computer as a tool to do something a single human being could have done. [00:13:02] Speaker 00: exactly what the Supreme Court's told us many times over, we can't do. [00:13:05] Speaker 03: Exactly. [00:13:06] Speaker 03: That's the 101 analysis in a nutshell. [00:13:07] Speaker 00: Do you have anything else that you think we need to know? [00:13:10] Speaker 03: I don't believe so. [00:13:13] Speaker 03: If there's no further questions on the 101 analysis or the obvious misrejection, I'm happy to yield the rest of my time. [00:13:21] Speaker 03: OK. [00:13:21] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:13:25] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:13:25] Speaker 01: Mr. Foster, anything more? [00:13:29] Speaker 01: Thank you your honor on the point of whether there is an issue patent there is a parent patent that has issued from the same specification That patent was issued based on the beginning of training indicators It was are you asserting it anywhere in litigation no? [00:13:51] Speaker 01: Ironically, the same corn blit reference was cited, but it was cited as a secondary reference. [00:13:57] Speaker 01: Hence, I didn't bring that up in the appeal brief because it was a secondary reference. [00:14:03] Speaker 01: Now it's a primary reference in this case. [00:14:05] Speaker 01: But it was allowed and issued as a patent. [00:14:09] Speaker 01: Regarding the method of doing schedule by manual, yes, scheduling is done manually today. [00:14:18] Speaker 01: Some of the problems that occur is that the call handler can be routing calls to the agents when they're not supposed to be. [00:14:25] Speaker 01: And so using the WFM in a manner that has not been configured to do before solves one of the problems of coordinating these components so that we're not [00:14:37] Speaker 01: Delivering training to an agent when we're not supposed to be There are other two points. [00:14:43] Speaker 01: I'd like to mention regarding the PTO's argument as to why one skilled in the art would have modified corn blit regarding the Sun the WfM sending the indicator to the call handler the PTO argues in its brief on page 23 and [00:15:05] Speaker 01: that Corenblatt teaches, the business purpose of a contact center is to provide rapid and efficient interaction between agents and customers. [00:15:14] Speaker 01: It's well known that if you want to have rapid call acceptance, you increase the number of agents. [00:15:23] Speaker 01: If you decrease the number of agents, the call acceptance time goes up. [00:15:29] Speaker 01: So one skilled in the art would use that logic [00:15:33] Speaker 01: to not make an agent receiving training unavailable. [00:15:37] Speaker 01: They would not apply the teachings of the recited limitations of making that agent unavailable. [00:15:44] Speaker 01: So that actually cuts against the PTO's argument. [00:15:49] Speaker 01: The other point that I would like to mention is the PTO cites Coren blit paragraph 57 as encouraging one skilled in the art to modify it [00:16:03] Speaker 01: to send the indicator to an e-learning module. [00:16:07] Speaker 01: That sentence says, Cornblatt teaches the components depicted in figure three cooperate to implement the integrated context center business process. [00:16:19] Speaker 01: What the PTO doesn't fully cite is the full sentence which says, it's implementing the business process 200 as described earlier. [00:16:30] Speaker 01: Business process 200 is figure two. [00:16:32] Speaker 01: It doesn't talk about training at all. [00:16:35] Speaker 01: It doesn't talk about how the WFM interacts.