CallMiner Inc v. Mattersight Corp

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2020-00272
• Patent #: 8,023,639
• Filed: December 20, 2019
• Petitioner(s): CallMiner, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Mattersight Corporation
• Challenged Claims: 1-3, 5-9, 11-15

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method and System Determining the Complexity of Telephonic Communication Received by a Contact Center
• Brief Description: The ’639 patent discloses a system for analyzing recorded telephonic communications in a contact center to determine their "complexity." The system compares various call attributes (e.g., duration, distress events) against predetermined rules and thresholds to generate output data indicating if a call type is complex, with the goal of improving future call routing decisions.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground I: Obviousness over Eilbacher and Peterson - Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 12 are obvious over Eilbacher in view of Peterson.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Eilbacher (Patent 6,724,887) and Peterson (Patent 8,102,973).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Eilbacher taught the core functionality of the ’639 patent. Eilbacher disclosed a contact center system that analyzes recorded calls to determine "customer satisfaction" by comparing call attributes (e.g., stress level, transfer count, duration) against predetermined parameters (a "call rule"). This determination of "satisfaction" was asserted to be analogous to the ’639 patent's "complexity" analysis. Peterson was argued to teach the graphical user interface (GUI) limitations, disclosing a system that generates a time-based visual representation of a call's audio waveform, displays graphical annotations of call attributes, and includes playback controls.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Eilbacher's analysis engine with Peterson's advanced GUI to create a more efficient and user-friendly system. Adding Peterson's interface for inputting thresholds would improve the flexibility of Eilbacher’s system, allowing administrators to modify call rules without needing to recompile software code. The combination was presented as a predictable integration of a known analysis method with a known visualization tool.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references, as it involved applying a conventional GUI to a known type of call analysis data to achieve the predictable result of improved usability and data interaction.

Ground II: Obviousness over Eilbacher, Peterson, and Konig - Claims 7-9, 11, and 13-15 are obvious over Eilbacher and Peterson in view of Konig.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Eilbacher (Patent 6,724,887), Peterson (Patent 8,102,973), and Konig (Patent 7,487,094).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground I by adding Konig to address claim limitations related to analyzing calls grouped into "call types" or "call sets." Konig taught a system for automatically classifying call center communications into predefined categories (e.g., "angry customer") using techniques like word-spotting and context-based analysis. This provided the element of categorizing calls before analysis.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Konig's call categorization technology with the Eilbacher/Peterson system to enhance analysis capabilities. All three references shared the goal of improving customer service. By first categorizing calls using Konig's method, a call center could then apply the complexity analysis from Eilbacher to specific, high-value call types, enabling more targeted and powerful insights, which aligned with the stated goals of the prior art.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was portrayed as a logical integration of known techniques. Adding a known pre-processing step (categorization via Konig) to a known analysis and visualization system (Eilbacher/Peterson) would predictably result in a more sophisticated analysis tool.

Ground III: Obviousness over Eilbacher, Peterson, Konig, and Blanchard - Claims 8 and 13 are obvious over the combination of Eilbacher, Peterson, and Konig in view of Blanchard.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Eilbacher, Peterson, Konig, and Blanchard (Patent 8,204,205).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground added Blanchard to the combination from Ground II to address the limitation of determining whether a call set is "self-service eligible." Blanchard taught a system that determines whether to route a call to an automated IVR system or a live agent based on whether the call's attributes (e.g., duration) exceed an "inefficiency threshold."
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to use the complexity score for a given call type (generated by the Eilbacher/Peterson/Konig combination) as an input for the routing logic taught by Blanchard. This would allow a call center to use the analysis results to proactively and automatically make more efficient and cost-effective routing decisions for future calls, directly addressing a primary objective of the ’639 patent.
  • Expectation of Success: Applying Blanchard's established routing logic to the output of the combined analysis system was a logical and predictable step to make the analysis actionable, thereby improving overall call center efficiency.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges for claims 6 and 11 based on alternative means-plus-function constructions, adding Blair (Patent 6,404,857) to the primary art combinations to teach the recording of separate audio tracks for the caller and agent.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "complexity of ... telephonic communication": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "an assessment made by applying a call rule to one or more attributes of [a/the] call that indicate complexity, including but not limited to call duration, distress events, third party dialog, call transfers, hold duration, and/or silence duration." This construction was based on the patent's specification and was central to mapping the term to the prior art's "customer satisfaction" and "inefficiency" metrics.
• "a code segment for...": Petitioner argued that the 17 limitations reciting "a code segment for [performing a function]" should be evaluated as means-plus-function limitations under §112, ¶ 6. While acknowledging the presumption against this construction (due to the absence of the word "means"), Petitioner contended the presumption could be overcome. It provided a detailed analysis and a chart mapping each function to corresponding structures disclosed in the ’639 patent's specification, presenting its invalidity arguments under both a plain meaning and a means-plus-function construction.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate. Although the Eilbacher and Blair references were cited in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution of the ’639 patent, Petitioner asserted that the Examiner never substantively applied these references in a rejection. Petitioner contended the Examiner made a "serious mistake" by failing to consider the specific teachings of Eilbacher, which allegedly disclosed the core elements of the claims, and that this failure weighed strongly against denying institution.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-15 of Patent 8,023,639 as unpatentable.