PTAB

IPR2014-00665

PreSence Technology LLC v. Interactive Intelligence Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Staged Predictive Dialing System
  • Brief Description: The ’346 patent is directed to a call center predictive dialer that uses information about the substantive progress of active calls to decide whether to initiate another outbound call. The system aims to improve efficiency by basing outbound dialing decisions on the substantive stage of calls in progress, such as an offer phase, closing phase, or other agent-driven events.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Szlam in view of Anderson - Claims 1-8, 11-23, 25, 26, and 28 are obvious over Szlam in view of Anderson

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Szlam (Patent 5,309,505, which incorporates by reference Patent 5,214,688) and Anderson (Patent 5,757,904).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that during prosecution, the patent owner overcame rejections by asserting the prior art failed to teach predictive dialing based on the "substantive content of the discussion" between an agent and a customer. This combination, however, explicitly teaches that very concept.
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Szlam taught a predictive dialing system that adjusts call pacing based on the predicted availability of agents to maximize productivity. Anderson taught a system that determines an agent's anticipated availability by monitoring the "substantive progress" of an active call, such as an agent entering a "wrapup state." Anderson's system generates a status signal based on this progress, which is fed to an automatic call distributor (ACD) switch to calculate wait times. The combination of Anderson’s substantive progress monitoring with Szlam’s predictive dialer renders the core invention of the ’346 patent obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Anderson's method for determining agent availability with Szlam's predictive dialer to improve the system's efficiency. Using the substantive progress of a call, as taught by Anderson, would provide a more accurate prediction of agent availability for Szlam's dialer, directly aligning with Szlam's stated goal of maximizing agent productivity.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known technique (Anderson's progress monitoring) to improve a similar system (Szlam's predictive dialer) in a predictable manner.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Szlam/Anderson in view of Thorne - Claims 9 and 10 are obvious over Szlam in view of Anderson and Thorne

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Szlam (’505 patent), Anderson (’904 patent), and Thorne (Patent 6,100,891).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1 to address the specific limitations of claims 9 and 10, which depend from claim 6 and add features related to agent script navigation. Petitioner contended that Thorne supplied these missing script-related elements.
    • Prior Art Mapping: Claims 9 and 10 require the system to accept script navigation input from an agent and generate a progress signal in response. Thorne disclosed an agent interface with an interactive script where an agent’s navigation (e.g., clicking a button or topic) generates signals indicating progress. These signals are used to control the script flow and provide an indication of the agent's position in the call.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to use the script navigation events from Thorne as another type of progress-indicating event, similar to the "wrapup state" from Anderson. Incorporating Thorne's teachings would provide the predictive dialing system with additional, granular data points about call progress, thereby further improving the accuracy of agent availability predictions and overall system efficiency.

Ground 3: Anticipation by Thorne - Claim 27 is anticipated by Thorne

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Thorne (Patent 6,100,891).

  • Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that independent claim 27, which described a scripting system for use in a call center, was fully anticipated by the Thorne reference alone under 35 U.S.C. §102.

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner mapped each element of claim 27 directly to disclosures in Thorne. Thorne was shown to teach a scripting system for an agent workstation in a call center having a predictive dialing system. It explicitly disclosed a means for receiving telephone calls connected to a respondent by the dialer, a display for showing script elements, a means for providing signals based on agent navigation through the script, and a means for sending status signals representative of that script progression to the predictive dialing system.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including Ground 3 (claims obvious over Szlam, Anderson, and Cave (Patent 5,570,419)) and Ground 5 (claims obvious over Perkins (Patent 5,553,133) and Anderson). These grounds relied on similar theories but introduced references teaching the use of standard deviation in pacing algorithms (Cave) or alternative predictive dialer architectures (Perkins).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner argued for broad constructions for several key "means-plus-function" terms, contending these constructions were necessary for a proper invalidity analysis and were supported by the patent's specification and file history.

  • "linking means": Petitioner proposed construing this term as "any hardware and/or software that would predictively establish communications over a communications channel." This broad construction was argued to encompass the controllers and dialers in the prior art that place calls based on a pacing algorithm.
  • "feedback means": Petitioner proposed this term encompass "any hardware and/or software that facilitate communication of a signal, including an agent workstation." This construction was central to mapping the prior art, which disclosed agent workstations sending status updates (e.g., entering a "wrapup state") to a central server or switch.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-28 of Patent 6,804,346 as unpatentable.