Incontact Inc v. Microlog Corp

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2015-00560
• Patent #: 7,092,509
• Filed: January 15, 2015
• Petitioner(s): inContact, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Microlog Corp.
• Challenged Claims: 1-6 and 8-13

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Contact Center System Capable of Handling Multiple Media Types of Contacts and Method for Using the Same
• Brief Description: The ’509 patent describes a contact center system designed to handle communications from different media types (e.g., telephone calls, emails, faxes). The system uses a "queuing component" to receive and hold these varied contacts in a common queue and a "routing component" to distribute the queued contacts to agent workstations based on designated criteria.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Haigh - Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are anticipated by Haigh under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Haigh (Patent 5,793,861).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Haigh discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Haigh describes a "Transaction Processing System" for managing various inbound and outbound "transactions," which it explicitly defines to include different media types such as electronic mail, voice mail, video calls, and facsimile transmissions. This system corresponds to the claimed system for receiving and distributing contacts.
  • Petitioner mapped Haigh’s "transaction processing system 12" to both the "queuing component" and "routing component" of claim 1. Haigh's system is adapted to receive different media-type contacts and maintain them in a "queue 16," which can be a single common queue (Fig. 4, queue 82). This satisfies the "queuing component" limitation. The same system is also adapted to route the queued contacts from queue 16 to a plurality of "agent stations 34" (workstations) based on designated criteria, thus satisfying the "routing component" limitation.
  • Haigh’s disclosed routing criteria include First-In, First-Out (FIFO) ordering, transaction type, agent designations (e.g., inbound-only agents), and agent skills. Petitioner contended this anticipates the limitations of dependent claims 2 and 3, which require routing based on criteria of the queued contacts and criteria assigned to agents.
  • For claim 4, Petitioner argued that the hardware and software at each of Haigh’s agent stations 34 constitute a "contact handling component" that initiates an "event" upon routing. This event could be the presentation of a screen with customer information or, as disclosed in a reference incorporated by Haigh (Clare, Patent 5,465,286), the ringing of an agent’s telephone, thereby anticipating claim 5.

Ground 2: Anticipation by Berkowitz - Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are anticipated by Berkowitz under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Berkowitz (Patent 5,903,877).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Berkowitz’s "transaction center" for processing customer requests from "alternative media sources" (e.g., facsimile, voice mail, electronic mail) anticipates the claimed system.
  • The "queuing component" of claim 1 was mapped to Berkowitz’s "transaction processing platform 10." This platform receives customer transaction requests of different media types and places them into a "service queue" to await routing to service agents, thereby meeting the limitation of maintaining contacts in a common queue.
  • The "routing component" was mapped to a combination of hardware and software in Berkowitz, including the transaction processing platform 10, a "transaction request server 20," and a "CTI platform 30." Together, these components route queued requests to an appropriate agent’s PC (workstation).
  • Petitioner argued that Berkowitz’s disclosure of routing based on factors like the geographical origin of the request, required agent skills, and agent workloads anticipates the criteria limitations of claims 2 and 3.
  • The "contact handling component" of claim 4 was mapped to the hardware and software of the service agent’s PC 90 in Berkowitz. Petitioner argued that this component initiates an "event" upon routing by displaying customer requests or generating a "screen pop" with customer information. Berkowitz also discloses that the PC 90 is connected to the agent's telephone and can initiate ringing for live calls, which anticipates the limitations of claim 5.
  • Petitioner further argued that the method claims 8-13 are anticipated for the same reasons as their corresponding system claims 1-6, as both Haigh and Berkowitz describe methods of operation that mirror the functions of their disclosed systems.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner proposed that the term "contact(s)" should be construed as "communication(s)." This construction was supported by the ’509 patent specification, which repeatedly provides examples of "contacts" that are all forms of communication (e.g., telephone calls, e-mails, web chats). The use of terms like "voice communication" and "e-mail communication" in dependent claim 6 further supports this interpretation.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested that the Board institute an inter partes review and cancel claims 1-6 and 8-13 of the ’509 patent as unpatentable.