police the court elect to provide a brief background context centers employ culbreath handlers to rug calls to agents they also employee learning systems to provide training to agents and finally they also employ workforce management systems to schedule the work shifts of agents the workforce management systems typically are not involved in coordinating the other components but this specification describes how the workforce manager system w offend can be adapted to coordinate those other components to provide training to agents specifically the claims for site and limitation the beginning of training limitation or beginning of training indicator that sent from the w f m to the call handler at the beginning of training that causes the cole handler to cease writing calls to the agents s offense sends a beginning of training indicator to the e u learning system causing it to provide training much of the dispute centers around this beginning of training indicator and whether it how it impacts the pen no involved more than the performance of well understood in routine conventional activities in the industry no systems disputes but the p t o ledges and claims are directed to p t o states they're directed to scheduling and providing training to call center agents that's rather braun because it's well known that classrooms cresp classroom training can be scheduled for agents agents can be scheduled time to review call recordings of exemplary supervisors can be scheduled to sit down with an agent and coach them in real time to handle kong noble does not purport to have invented this what we have invented is a particular way of using the w f them adapting it to coordinate these other components to provide a specific form of training how their process a test used by this court and s h p america 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 arguably the beginning of training indication limitations recite a way of achieving it hence goble systems chios determination of step one should be set aside even if we accept that as correct and accurate at step two biloela just the beginning of training indicat limitations recites an inventive concept the p t o s analysis is flawed because it sweeps away all considerate consideration of these limitations by stating the beginning of training indication limitations are merely part of the overall abstract idea of providing training in scheduling which is a method of working in human activity the board correctly considered the beginning of training indicator limitation step one analysis and on the last page states that those limitations should not be considered at step two so this approach is going to guarantee an incorrect finding the path now w debility st we come up with a broad characterization of what the invention is directed to disregarding the role of the w f and how it since the beginning of training indicate next step two we ignore the beginning of training indicat the p t o makes another error its in its step two announces 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 recall that in the burke the analysis is what the process sees the functions the steps are performed so if you strip those out and just focus on the computer as a result of course it will be generic these beginning of training indicators consider the case of the w f m sending the indicator at the beginning of training time to the call handler causing it to cease writing coles p t o alleges one skill man new york would find this obvious or record but because kornblut teaches that the cole router ceases routing incoming calls to agents undertaking creating as they are not available to take  are three problems with this reasoning st quarter of a discloses agents can receive emails before and after calls and the emails can convey training so therefore the agents can simultaneously engage in training in call handler there's no suggestion that the call router would have to stop revving call such that even if it's means to not route a call to an available agent it's well known in the context in industry that agents speak to one person at a time when they're on a call they're unavailable when the call and they're available basis for modifying the w f and call handler and your learning system in core and what well it doesn't make sense to include this new functionality in the elements using  based on it simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform because the pirate didn't show that these old elements perform the function and besides that's really bootstrap logic to argue that we would incorporate new functionality into these old elements that already performant doesn't make sense nor those nor does kornbl show that the dubby of them sends this indicator to the eat learning system the p t o relies on figure six for teaching that figure six shows information going in the other direction to overcome this problem the p t o relies makes two arguments it relies on figure three figure three shows a central administration module and if you read the text it says that's for an a the order for the lesson press wasn't presentation my job to deliver the lesson to the agent at the scheduled time schedule or three hundred and fifty that's the w of them would have to communicate the schedule including the beginning of training time an indicator at the beginning of training tawney sending a schedule with the time is distinct from sending an indicator you have to start doing so in summary not shown by substantial evidence that cornwood renders these limitations obvious doesn't disclose or suggest the w fem sending this to either the call handler were to the evening in eligible with that i'll take any questions and thank you on the  pretty straightforward alice to step analysis under step one the board found that the claims were directed to scheduling and presenting training to call center h i just don't see how there's any difference in these claims between it's just a method of organizing human dollar thank you your honor on the point of whether there is an issue patent there is a parent patents it has issued from the same specification that patent was issued based on the beginning of training indicators because it was secondary reference now it's a primary reference in this case but it was allowed in issued as a patent regarding the method of doing schedule by manual  scheduling is done manually today where some of the problems that occur is that the call him or can be reading calls to the agents when they're not supposed to be and so using the w f them in a manner that has not been considered to do before  that's one of the problems ordinary cordoning these components so that we're not delivering training to an agent when we're not supposed to be there other two points i'd like to mention handler p t o argues in its brief on page twenty three that kornblut teaches the business purpose of a context center used to provide rapid and efficient interaction between agents and customers it's well known that if you want to have rapid call acceptance you increase the number of agents if you decrease a number of agents call handling the call acceptance time goes up so one skill in the art would use that logic to not make an agent receiving training unavailable they would not apply the teachings of the recitals limitations of making that age of one available so that implement the integrated context center business process with the p t o doesn't fully cite is the full sentence which says it's implementing the business process two hundred dollars as describe