- An automated call distribution system comprising
a server and a call center, the server providing network service to a customer terminal, with the server being operable to receive data provided by the customer upon selection of a remote help option provided from one or more pages downloadable to the customer terminal where the data provided to the server includes a contact channel through which the user of the customer terminal can be reached and an Internet Protocol (IP) address;
the server being operable to receive the data and forward the data, including the contact channel and IP address, to the call center;
the call center being operable to receive the data from the server and automatically establish communication between the call center and the user of the customer terminal through the contact channel specified in the received data and wherein the established communication is based at least in part on the IP address within the received data.
Defendants motion to dismiss.
Abstract Idea: Yes
“At its essence, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of communication between a customer and a business using a call center, automated and obfuscated along the way using certain computer, telephonic and network services. This invention might be faster, automated, and more streamlined using web pages, but the idea at its core is connecting customers to call centers.”
Something More: No
“[C]laim 1 merely recites a system for connecting a customer to a call center, using two servers to pass along certain information related to the call or process. The generic technological elements of the claim such as ‘automated call distribution system,’ ‘network service,’ ‘terminal,’ ‘data,’ ‘remote,’ ‘one or more pages downloadable,’ ‘Internet Protocol (IP) address,’ individually, or collectively do not transform the abstract idea into something more.”
“Plaintiff analogizes its claims to those in a recent Federal Circuit case, DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), but Plaintiff has not demonstrated how its claims are rooted specifically in a problem for computer technology, rather than the abstract concept of communicating with call centers.”
“Faster, simpler, automatic or more successful connections of customers to live agents do not save the claims from being directed to the abstract idea of connecting customers to calls centers. See, e.g., Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (US.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (2012) (‘To salvage an otherwise patent-ineligible process, a computer must be integral to the claimed invention, facilitating the process in a way that a person making calculations or computations could not.’).”