US 6122632

I'll run the requested docket/USPTO searches, then summarize from the authoritative patent text.

Docket / database search results (April 26, 2026)

USPTO / court records for "6122632": Searches of USPTO-derived sources (Google Patents, uspto.report, everypatent classification index, inventor-index pages) returned exactly one document matching 6122632 — US 6,122,632 A, "Electronic message management system." No CAFC 2026 docket and no district-court docket naming this patent was located. Consistent with the prior sections of this analysis, the patent is expired and unasserted.

Near-miss numbers that are NOT this patent (flagging per the strict-ID rule, so they aren't confused with it):

• US 60/633,632 — provisional application in Huynh et al., "Electronic Message Management" (a 2002–2005-filing family, unrelated owner; surfacing in IPR2014-01253, which concerns US 7,634,556).
• US 9,482,632 and US 10,628,273 — asserted in Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell (E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00637); different patents.
• +261 6122632 — a phone number in an unrelated PDF; ignored.

Note on a conflicting secondary source (explicit flag): Two third-party inventor-aggregator pages (Radaris profiles for Karen Musson / Elizabeth Stites) reproduce an application 8/897777 whose claim text reads "a first computer… a storage…" and "A method for third party managing of electronic messages…" — language that does not match the authoritative Google Patents claim set for US 6,122,632 (72 claims; independent claims 1, 18, 49, 59, 70). I treat the aggregator text as a corrupted/derivative record (possibly a sibling or early-prosecution version) and prefer the authoritative full-text claim set below.

US 6,122,632 — Concise summary

Abstract (verbatim)

"An electronic message, or e-mail, management system having a digital computer for accepting e-mail messages; a program interface for automatically transferring received electronic messages to a database; a structured database for storing the received electronic messages in a predetermined format; and an interface for allowing a customer service representative, at a remote computer, to access, and respond to, the electronic messages stored at the database."

The five independent claims in plain language

1. Claim 1 — System (core). A first programmed digital computer receives customer e-mail; a relational database is interfaced to it and the e-mail is automatically forwarded from the computer into the database; the stored messages are structured by predetermined attributes (e.g., receipt time, sender address, status); and a customer service representative entitled to review the messages can electronically access them by at least one of those attributes.
2. Claim 18 — Method (core). Receiving electronic messages from customers (off the Internet or an intranet); automatically forwarding them to a structured database; storing them there; structuring the storage of each message by predetermined message attributes; and providing an interface so CSRs can reach the database from a computer apart from the database.
3. Claim 49 — System (three-tier architecture). A first computer running mail-server software to accept e-mail; a database storing messages by predetermined attributes; a second computer running Web-server software; a third computer running Web-browser software; the received messages are forwarded by the first computer to the database; and a CSR at the third computer can retrieve any stored message by any of the predetermined attributes.
4. Claim 59 — Method (workflow-oriented). Receiving electronic messages at an electronic network; forwarding them to a database; storing them based on predetermined attributes; interfacing a CSR computer for electronic access; and transmitting one stored message from the database to the CSR.
5. Claim 70 — Method (broadest / no "automatic" or "from the Internet" requirement in the body). Receiving electronic messages from customers (Internet or intranet); transferring them to a structured database; storing them; structuring the storage of each message by at least one predetermined message attribute; and providing an interface letting CSRs access the database from a computer.

Dependents (themes): SQL implementation (2); CSR computer / Web-browser client (3, 6); mail-server-configured first computer (4); ODBC interface (5); request-translation interface (7, 21, 23, 45–46); Internet source and remote third computer (8–9); attribute types — receipt time, customer e-mail address, message number, group address, status (10–12, 25–27, 51–54, 60–61); CSR data tables and access/QA/password privileges (13–14, 30–35, 55–58, 67); message status incl. "pending" (16–17, 27–28); response-and-update-to-database (36–39, 62, 72); QA review gating transmission (40–43, 64–66); expert referral with database status updates (47–48, 63); reports on message status (44–46); standard-response library and retrieval (68–69).

Plain-language overview

The patent claims a call-center system in which inbound customer e-mail is drained off a mail server into a relational database, tagged with attributes (time received, sender, group address, status, assigned CSR, etc.), and then worked by customer service representatives through Web browser screens rather than a desktop mail client. The database tracks the full lifecycle — unopened/unassigned → assigned → categorized → answered → QA-reviewed or denied → expert-referred (and back) — and drives management reporting, standard-response retrieval, and CSR privilege/QA controls.

Uncertainty and caveats

• Claim 69 contains an improper dependency. As printed, claim 69 reads "The method according to claim 52…", but claim 52 is a system claim (attribute = customer e-mail address), not a method claim, and it is not a proper antecedent for the recited "standard responses" steps. This is a claim-drafting defect in the printed text; I have not "corrected" it. It would have been a cert.-of-correction/ex parte reexam candidate had the patent ever been asserted.
• Forward vs. backward citations. The "Cited By (126)" list on the Google Patents page (e.g., US20010032263A1, US6381316B2, US6941304B2) are later-filed documents citing the '632 patent — not prior art against a July 21, 1997 filing date. The Justia result listing "6122632 | September 19, 2000 | Botts et al." under RE46387 is likewise a forward citation, not a family member.
• Assignee "as issued" vs. "current." The face of the patent names Convergys Customer Management Group Inc.; the Google Patents header now shows Concentrix CVG Customer Management Delaware LLC. Both are correct at their respective dates.
• No docket = no positive finding, not proof of absence. Older or settled cases are not always indexed publicly; a PACER/Unified Patents check with the exact string "6,122,632" would be needed for certainty. Nothing in these searches indicates any CAFC 2026 activity.

Based on my searches, I found no known litigation involving US patent 6122632.

Summary of findings

Patent identification (verified):

• Patent No.: US6122632A (also cited as 6,122,632)
• Title: Electronic message management system
• Inventors: Jennifer M. Botts, Karen L. Musson, Elizabeth M. Stites, Douglas C. Weber, David A. Wilson
• Issue date: September 19, 2000
• Original assignee: Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. (later Concentrix CVG Customer Management Delaware LLC)
• Status: Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration July 21, 2017)

Litigation search results:

• Searches of litigation-oriented sources (including queries designed to surface Unified Patents-style case lists, district court dockets, and CAFC/PACER content) returned no cases naming US patent 6122632 as an asserted or challenged patent.
• Two search hits surfaced numbers that might superficially resemble "6122632" but are not this patent and should not be confused with it:
  • Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. et al., No. 2:2024cv00637 (E.D. Tex.) — asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 7,739,544; 9,482,632; 9,560,177; 9,629,265; 9,651,320; 9,900,249; and 10,628,273 (different patents; numbers 9,482,632 and 10,628,273 merely end in "632"/"273").
  • A Justia reference to "6122632" appears only in the context of the patent family (reissue/related patent RE46387, "Method and apparatus for extended management of state and interaction of a remote knowledge worker from a contact center"), not in a litigation context.

Conclusion: To my knowledge and based on the searches performed, US patent 6122632 has no publicly known litigation (no plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, case numbers, filing dates, or outcomes to report). This is consistent with the patent having expired by operation of law in 2017 (21 years after its July 21, 1997 priority/filing date), which would have substantially reduced any incentive for later assertion.

If you need absolute certainty (e.g., for a freedom-to-operate or diligence analysis), I'd recommend a direct docket search on PACER and the Unified Patents litigation portal using the exact patent number "6,122,632," since public web indexes do not always capture older or settled cases.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file for US 6,122,632. The USPTO Open Data Portal structured data (the canonical list for this analysis) contains no IPR, PGR, CBM, or derivation proceedings against this patent, and web searches likewise surfaced no older or recently-filed petitions (searching the patent number and the "electronic message management system" / Convergys / Matrixx Marketing owner chain in PTAB and Federal Circuit contexts returned nothing). The breakdown is: 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denied. For a defendant, the operative defensive fact is not PTAB activity but the patent's expiry: the '632 patent's term ran out on 2017-07-21 (20 years from the 1997-07-21 filing, status "Expired – Lifetime"), so it cannot support injunctive relief or post-expiry damages, and any demand predicated on it must be tied to pre-expiration acts within the § 286 six-year damages window. An IPR-based defense is unavailable and unnecessary — there is nothing for the PTAB to review.

Per-proceeding detail

There are no proceedings to profile. Per the instructions, I am not inventing proceeding numbers. The only AIA-trial-adjacent facts on the record are negative ones:

• No IPR / PGR / CBM petitions naming US 6,122,632 were located in the ODP data or via web search (searches included "6122632" IPR, "US 6,122,632" PTAB final written decision, and PTAB-domain-restricted queries).
• The patent was never the subject of a PTAB Final Written Decision; no judge panels, institution decisions, settlements, or CAFC appeals exist to cite.
• The parent's continuation, US 6,415,290 B1 (also "Electronic message management system," filed 2000-07-20, family status "Expired – Lifetime"), likewise shows no PTAB proceedings in the structured data.

Strategic summary

Claims status. All 72 claims of the '632 patent — independent claims 1, 18, 49, 59, and 70, plus their dependents — are UNTESTED by the PTAB. None have been canceled and none have been sustained in an AIA trial. The concept of a "surviving claim set" is therefore moot: the entire patent is expired and unenforceable against ongoing conduct, regardless of validity.

Estoppel landscape. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel is a non-issue because no petitioner ever filed an IPR, so no party or privy is barred from raising any prior-art ground in district court. If a defendant were defending a pre-expiration damages claim, the full universe of § 102/§ 103 prior art would remain available (the EP search report cited by the European counterpart — e.g., the "Gold Mailer," "Browsing Electronic Mail," and IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin references — hints at the rich 1988–1996 prior art that predates the 1997-07-21 filing date). But because the patent is expired, the cleaner defenses are no ongoing infringement (no remedy for post-expiry use) and the § 286 six-year damages bar for any pre-expiry acts, not invalidity.

Pattern signals. There are no pattern signals: no serial petitioner, no Unified Patents or defensive-aggregator involvement, no aggressive patent-owner PTAB enforcement, and no appeals. The absence of PTAB activity is consistent with the patent's owner history (Matrixx Marketing → Convergys → Concentrix CVG) and with the fact that the patent expired in 2017 — after expiry, IPR is generally not an available or useful vehicle, so well-advised challengers simply let the term run.

Recommended next steps

• Say plainly: there is no PTAB activity on file for US 6,122,632. If opposing counsel represents otherwise, demand the proceeding number — none exists.
• Lead with expiration, not IPR. The patent expired 2017-07-21. There is no ongoing royalty, no injunction, and no post-expiry damages. Any demand letter must identify specific pre-expiration acts (before 2017-07-21) and is capped by 35 U.S.C. § 286 (damages limited to the six years before suit is filed — i.e., for a suit filed today, in 2026, the reachable window closed in 2019, which is after the patent already expired, so recoverable damages are effectively zero).
• Check the continuation. Confirm whether the demand also cites US 6,415,290 B1 ("Electronic message management system," family status "Expired – Lifetime"). It was filed 2000-07-20 and is likewise expired (term ran ~2020), giving the same no-ongoing-remedy defense.
• Do not waste resources on an IPR. The PTAB's trial framework is not available as a practical tool against an expired patent, and filing would be both cost-ineffective and unnecessary given the expiration-based defenses.
• If the demand is tied to pre-2017 conduct in a filed lawsuit, the validity prior art remains fully available (no § 315(e)(2) estoppel exists), and the EP1002281A2 search-report references (Goldberg "Information Tapestry" 1992; Barbará "The Gold Mailer" 1993; Kent "Browsing Electronic Mail" 1988; IBM TDBs 1990–1996) are a useful starting point for a § 102/§ 103 attack if validity becomes relevant.

Sources: USPTO Open Data Portal structured data block (canonical, provided in prompt — no AIA trial proceedings); Google Patents record for US6122632A (status "Expired – Lifetime," anticipated expiration 2017-07-21; family continuation US6415290B1); web searches of PTAB/CAFC records returned no proceedings for this patent. No FWD, panel, or docket citations are provided because none exist.

Inventors

All five named inventors were Ohio residents at filing, consistent with employment at the Cincinnati-based original assignee, Matrixx Marketing Inc. (later renamed Convergys):

Unusual patterns: None. The inventors executed an "assignment of assignors interest" to Matrixx Marketing Inc. on 1997-07-21 (the filing date), per the Google Patents legal-event feed. There is no evidence of mass inventor departure or a pre-sale portfolio shuffle.

Original assignee

• Entity named on the issued patent: Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. (Cincinnati, OH) — reached via two recorded name changes from the original filing entity, Matrixx Marketing Inc. (see timeline).
• Product/line of business: Convergys (and its predecessor Matrixx Marketing) was a major operating company in customer-management / call-center business-process outsourcing. The patent's claims — a relational-database e-mail management system that lets customer service representatives retrieve, respond to, track, and QA-review customer e-mails — describe the core infrastructure of its own call-center operations. It is an operating-company patent, not a paper patent.
• Current status: Acquired. SYNNEX Corp. acquired Convergys for ~$2.8B (announced June 2018, closed October 2018) and folded it into its Concentrix subsidiary; the combined entity was later spun off as Concentrix (NASDAQ: CNXC), still operating. The patent itself expired on 2017-07-21 (20 years from priority), per the "Expired – Lifetime" status.

Assignment timeline

I could not retrieve the full USPTO Assignment Center record (reel/frame numbers and correspondents of record are not exposed in the search results available to me). The chain below is reconstructed from the Google Patents legal-event feed, which is authoritative for the existence and order of the conveyances. Reel/frame numbers are given only where a search result surfaced them, and are flagged as unverified for this specific patent.

• 1997-07-21 — executed / recorded 1997-07-21

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: Jennifer M. Botts, Karen L. Musson, Elizabeth M. Stites, Douglas C. Weber, David A. Wilson
  • Assignee: Matrixx Marketing Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources
  • Context: Inventors → employer at filing; ordinary initial assignment.

• 1999-04-05 — recorded 1999-04-05 (execution date not separately confirmed)

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: Matrixx Marketing Inc.
  • Assignee: Convergys Customer Care Management Group Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources
  • Context: Corporate rebranding of the Cincinnati Bell customer-management unit; no change in substance of ownership.

• 1999-04-07 — recorded 1999-04-07 (execution date not separately confirmed)

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: Convergys Customer Care Management Group Inc.
  • Assignee: Convergys Customer Management Group Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources
  • Context: Second step of the same rebranding; this is the entity printed on the issued patent.

• 2000-07-24 — recorded 2000-07-24 (per Google Patents; reel/frame not confirmed for this patent — a matching Convergys bulk assignment appears at Reel 011007 / Frame 0521 on sibling patent US5966429A, dated 2000-06-13, which may be the same bulk document)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: Convergys Customer Management Group Inc.
  • Assignee: Convergys CMG Utah Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources
  • Context: Internal IP consolidation into the Utah subsidiary — the same entity that owns continuation US6415290B1.

• 2012-06-14 — executed / recorded 2012-06-18 — Reel 028394 / Frame 0434–0436 (reel/frame per legacy USPTO assignment record assignment-pat-028394-0434.pdf; consistent with the 2012-06-14 Google Patents event)

  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: Convergys CMG Utah Inc.
  • Assignee: Convergys Customer Management Delaware LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources
  • Context: Statutory merger converting the Utah entity into a Delaware LLC; internal reorganization only.

• 2018-10-05 — recorded 2018-10-05 (reel/frame not confirmed from available sources)

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Convergys Customer Management Delaware LLC
  • Assignee: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources
  • Context: Collateral grant under the SYNNEX/Concentrix acquisition credit facilities — standard operating-company bank financing, recorded after the patent had already expired.

• 2018-10-05 — recorded 2018-10-05 (reel/frame not confirmed from available sources)

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Convergys Customer Management Delaware LLC
  • Assignee: Bank of America, N.A.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources
  • Context: Same acquisition-financing collateral grant; the two banks are agents under the credit agreement, not patent acquirers.

• 2019-04-04 — recorded 2019-04-04 (reel/frame not confirmed from available sources)

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: Convergys Customer Management Delaware LLC
  • Assignee: Concentrix CVG Customer Management Delaware LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources
  • Context: Post-acquisition rebranding of the surviving Convergys entity under Concentrix.

• 2020-11-30 — recorded 2020-11-30 (reel/frame not confirmed from available sources)

  • Conveyance: Termination and Release of Security Interest in Patents
  • Assignor: Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent
  • Assignee: Concentrix CVG Customer Management Delaware LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources
  • Context: Release of the 2018 collateral grant upon refinancing.

• 2020-12-01 — recorded 2020-12-01 (reel/frame not confirmed from available sources)

  • Conveyance: Termination and Release of Security Interest in Patents
  • Assignor: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Administrative Agent
  • Assignee: Concentrix CVG Customer Management Delaware LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources
  • Context: Release of the second 2018 collateral grant.

Note on correspondents: I was unable to verify the correspondent-of-record names from the sources available to me; the USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) should be consulted for the cover-sheet correspondents on each reel/frame. Given that every post-issuance link is a name change, merger, or bank security interest within one corporate family, the expected correspondent pattern is the company's in-house IP counsel or its regular corporate firm — not a repeat-player NPE filer.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6122632
    1997 : Filed by Matrixx Marketing
    1999 : Renamed Convergys Customer Care
         : Renamed Convergys Customer Mgmt
    2000 : Patent issued Sep 19
         : Transferred to Convergys CMG Utah
    2012 : Merged into Convergys Delaware LLC
    2017 : Patent expired
    2018 : Acquired by SYNNEX Concentrix
         : Security interest to JPMorgan
         : Security interest to Bank of America
    2019 : Renamed Concentrix CVG Delaware LLC
    2020 : Bank of America release
         : JPMorgan release

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. Every link in the chain is an operating-company entity in the Convergys/Concentrix corporate family (Matrixx Marketing → Convergys Customer Care Mgmt Group → Convergys Customer Mgmt Group → Convergys CMG Utah → Convergys Customer Management Delaware LLC → Concentrix CVG Customer Management Delaware LLC). The Delaware LLC is the surviving post-merger entity of a Fortune-scale operating business, not a licensing shell; the 2018-10-05 security interests (JPMorgan, Bank of America) are credit-facility collateral grants, released 2020-11-30 / 2020-12-01.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. No Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or Spangenberg entity appears anywhere in the recorded chain or the Google Patents legal-event feed.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear (no evidence of an NPE pattern). Correspondent names were not retrievable from the sources available to me. However, the conveyance types alone (two change-of-name records, one internal assignment, one merger, two bank security interests, two bank releases, one rebranding) are the signature of routine in-house corporate IP management, not an NPE conveyancing pattern. This is a gap in data, not a positive finding.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. The transfers span 1997–2019 and map one-to-one to documented corporate events (Cincinnati Bell rebranding to Convergys in 1998–99; internal IP consolidation into the Utah subsidiary in 2000; Delaware merger in 2012; SYNNEX/Concentrix acquisition in 2018; rebranding in 2019). No chained LLC flips within 24 months.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. I found no infringement suit naming US6122632. The patent expired 2017-07-21, making any assertion of it legally impossible; the post-expiry recordings (2018–2020) are financing and M&A mechanics.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Convergys was acquired in a ~$2.8B strategic cash-and-stock deal by SYNNEX (announced 2018-06-28, closed October 2018) and combined with Concentrix — the opposite of a bankruptcy disposition.

7. Privateering — not present. No SEC filing or press coverage suggests Convergys/Concentrix transferred the patent to an NPE to assert against competitors; the assignee is the operating company itself.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain terminates at Concentrix CVG Customer Management Delaware LLC, an operating company, not at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Verdict

Defensive / non-asserting

The complete recorded chain — inventors → Matrixx Marketing → Convergys (three name/merger steps) → Convergys CMG Utah → Convergys Delaware LLC → Concentrix CVG Delaware LLC — shows nothing but corporate rebranding, an internal reorganization, and bank financing mechanics (2018-10-05 security interests to JPMorgan and Bank of America, both released in late 2020). There is no NPE in the chain, no litigation naming the patent, and the patent expired on 2017-07-21, so it cannot be asserted at all. The patent is held by a still-operating customer-experience company (Concentrix, ex-SYNNEX subsidiary) that practiced this technology class in its own call-center business; the "defensive / non-asserting" label is the best fit, with the caveat that the chain terminates at an operating company rather than a defensive aggregator. Verification of reel/frame numbers and correspondent names should be completed at the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "US 6122632" or "6122632").

The initial searches surfaced the patent's front-page data but not the examiner's "References Cited" list. Let me search more specifically for the prior art cited during prosecution.

The European counterpart search surfaced the non-patent literature (NPL) cited in the family. I still need the U.S. patent references cited on the face of US6122632. Let me look at the WO/EP publications and the full USPTO record.

I've reached the search-step limit, so I'll answer based on the information gathered, being explicit about what could and could not be verified.

1. USPTO record for U.S. Patent 6,122,632 (confirmed, no near-miss numbers)

Searches against USPTO-derived sources (Google Patents patents.google.com/patent/US6122632, uspto.report/patent/grant/6122632, everypatent.com/comp/pat6122632.html, and inventor-index pages) all return the same document, US6122632A — "Electronic message management system":

Effective filing date for § 102 analysis: July 21, 1997. Only references publicly available before that date can qualify as anticipatory prior art.

2. Important framing: "Cited By (126)" is NOT prior art

The patent record you provided contains a "Cited By (126)" list (US20010032263A1, US6381316B2, US6941304B2, US7599861B2, etc.). These are forward citations — later-filed patents whose examiners cited US 6,122,632 against them. Every entry in that list has a filing date after July 21, 1997 (e.g., US20010032263A1 filed 2000-04-14; US6381316B2 filed 1998-09-15). Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a reference must predate the claimed invention, so none of the 126 forward citations can anticipate claims of US 6,122,632. They are useful only as evidence of the patent's commercial/technical significance, not as § 102 art.

The relevant prior art is the backward citation set (the "References Cited" appearing on the face of the patent and in the family's international/European search reports). I was able to retrieve the non-patent literature (NPL) set from the family search record for EP1002281A4 / WO1999004347A2 (which states "See also references of WO 9904347A2"), reproduced below. I could not, within the permitted searches, retrieve the complete list of U.S. patent documents cited on the face of US 6,122,632 (Google's rendering of this patent does not display a "References Cited" table in the text provided, and my searches did not surface a complete U.S. patent-document list). Rather than guess at specific U.S. patent numbers, I am limiting the analysis below to the verified cited references.

3. Verified prior-art references cited in the family and their § 102 relevance

NPL-1 — Goldberg et al., "Using Collaborative Filtering to Weave an Information Tapestry"

• Full citation: David Goldberg, David Nichols, Brian M. Oki, and Douglas Terry, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 35, No. 12, December 1992, pp. 61–70 (XP000334368).
• Description: Describes the Xerox PARC Tapestry system, an email/message repository in which messages are stored in a database and users retrieve them by querying structured attributes (and by collaborative-filtering annotations) rather than receiving a raw mail stream.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: Strongest against the database-centric method claims. It discloses receiving electronic messages, storing them in a structured database, structuring storage by message attributes, and retrieving messages by those attributes → claims 18, 59, 70 (and dependent claims 25–29, 60–61, 71). It is weaker on the customer-service-specific limitations (CSR privilege checking, QA review, expert referral), so it does not fully anticipate claims 30–48 or 62–66.

NPL-2 — Barbará et al., "The Gold Mailer"

• Full citation: Daniel Barbará, et al., Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), April 19–23, 1993, Vienna, pp. 92–99 (XP000380173).
• Description: Describes the Gold Mailer, an e-mail system built on a DBMS in which incoming mail is automatically stored in a database and users query/retrieve messages by database attributes — one of the closest teachings to the "automatic transfer of e-mail into a relational database with attribute-based retrieval" concept of the patent.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: The closest of the NPL set to claims 1, 18, 59, 70 (first computer receiving e-mail; automatic forwarding/storage into a structured database; storage structured by predetermined attributes; retrieval by attribute). It also supports dependent claims on attribute types (claims 10–12, 25–27, 51–54) and retrieval-by-attribute (claims 29, 71). It does not disclose the CSR access-privilege/QA/expert-routing features of claims 13–17, 30–48, 55–58.

NPL-3 — Kent et al., "Browsing Electronic Mail: Experiences Interfacing a Mail System to a DBMS"

• Full citation: C. Kent, et al., Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB), August 29 – September 1, 1988, Los Angeles, pp. 112–123 (XP002096053).
• Description: Reports practical experience interfacing an e-mail system to a relational DBMS, storing mail as database records and "browsing" messages through DBMS query facilities — an early, highly on-point teaching of e-mail-in-a-relational-database.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: Anticipates the core storage/retrieval elements of claims 1, 18, 59, 70 and dependent retrieval claims (29, 71). Predates the 1997 filing date by ~9 years. Like the others, it lacks the CSR/QA/expert/privilege limitations, so claims 30–48 and 55–58 remain unanticipated by this reference alone.

NPL-4 — IBM TDB, "LAN-Based Customer Requirements Tracking Tool"

• Full citation: IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, Vol. 35, No. 4A, September 1992, pp. 308–309 (XP002153595).
• Description: An IBM TDB describing a LAN-based tool for logging and tracking customer requirements/communications — relevant to the customer-service context, message-status tracking, and reporting.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: Relevant to the tracking/reporting/status claims — claims 27–28, 44–46, 61–62 — and to the customer-service-oriented context of claims 30–43. It is less relevant to the automatic e-mail-to-database transfer and relational structuring elements of claims 1/18/59/70.

NPL-5 — IBM TDB, "SmartMail Knowledge-Based System for the OfficeVision Desktop"

• Full citation: IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, Vol. 33, No. 6B, November 1990, p. 414 (XP000108933).
• Description: A knowledge-based e-mail system for IBM's OfficeVision desktop, using rules to organize and route messages.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: Most relevant to routing/standard-response/grouping features — dependent claims directed to group-based addressing (claims 54, 60), message categorization, and CSR routing. It is not a strong standalone anticipation of the independent claims.

NPL-6 — IBM TDB, "Use of Database for Efficient and Compatible Storage and Retrieval of E-Mail"

• Full citation: IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, Vol. 39, No. 2, February 1996, pp. 257 (XP000559896).
• Description: An IBM TDB (published ~17 months before the '632 filing date) proposing database-based storage and retrieval of e-mail for efficiency and compatibility — essentially a compact disclosure of the patent's central concept.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: Directly on point for the independent system and method claims (claims 1, 18, 59, 70) and the attribute-based retrieval dependents (claims 10–12, 25–29, 51–54, 60–61, 71), because it teaches storing e-mail in a database organized by attributes for retrieval. As with the others, it does not disclose the CSR privilege/QA/expert features (claims 30–48, 55–58, 62–66).

4. Candid limitations

• U.S. patent-document prior art: I was unable, within the permitted search steps, to retrieve the complete list of U.S. patents cited by the examiner on the face of US 6,122,632 (the "References Cited" table). I have not invented any U.S. patent numbers to fill that gap. If you need that list, it is on the printed patent's first page (available via USPTO Patent Center / Global Dossier for 08/897,777) and in the prosecution history (the Office Actions would identify the primary references used in rejections, typically under § 103 rather than § 102 for this type of e-mail/DBMS art).
• EP/WO "Other References" are the verified citations: The six NPL items above come from the EP1002281A4 search report for the family (which expressly references WO 1999004347A2). They are the only backward citations I could verify as belonging to this patent family.
• Claim-mapping caveat: The "potentially anticipates" assessments above are element-level screeners, not formal § 102 analyses. Full anticipation would require each limitation of the mapped claim to be present, expressly or inherently, in the single reference — and several claims (e.g., 5–9, 13–17, 30–48, 55–58, 62–66) include limitations (ODBC, Web-server/Web-browser architecture, CSR privilege tables, QA review workflow, expert referral, response tracking) that no single NPL reference here appears to disclose. In practice, the examiner's art against this application was more likely applied as § 103 obviousness combinations than as clean § 102 anticipations.

Bottom line: For US 6,122,632, the most relevant verified prior art is the 1992–1996 database-backed e-mail literature (Barbará et al., Kent et al., Goldberg et al., and the IBM TDB items), which most plausibly anticipates the independent storage/retrieval claims (1, 18, 59, 70) and their attribute-based dependents; the 126 "Cited By" entries are forward citations and cannot anticipate under § 102.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 6,122,632 ("Electronic Message Management System")

I. Scope, Method, and Evidence Base

This analysis addresses whether the 72 claims of US 6,122,632 (filed July 21, 1997; issued September 19, 2000; inventor team of Botts, Musson, Stites, Weber, Wilson; assigned to Matrixx Marketing Inc., later Convergys) would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Evidence base. The Google Patents page supplied in the prompt contains a "Cited By (126)" section, but that section lists forward citations (later patents citing the '632 patent). Those are not prior art against a July 1997 filing date and are excluded from this analysis. The relevant "Prior Art / References Cited" materials are:

1. The "Other References" (non-patent literature) cited in the search report of the European counterpart EP 1 002 281 A4, retrieved via FreePatentsOnline (https://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1002281.html#1), which lists:
   • Goldberg et al., "Using Collaborative Filtering to Weave an Information Tapestry," Communications of the ACM, Vol. 35, No. 12 (Dec. 1992), pp. 61–70.
   • Barbará et al., "The Gold Mailer," Proceedings of the 9th Int'l Conf. on Data Engineering (Apr. 19–23, 1993), pp. 92–99.
   • Kent et al., "Browsing Electronic Mail: Experiences Interfacing a Mail System to a DBMS," Proceedings of the 14th VLDB Conference (Aug. 29, 1988), pp. 112–123.
   • "LAN-Based Customer Requirements Tracking Tool," IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, Vol. 35, No. 4a (Sept. 1992), pp. 308–309.
   • "SmartMail Knowledge-Based System for the OfficeVision Desktop," IBM TDB, Vol. 33, No. 6b (Nov. 1990), p. 414.
   • "Use of Database for Efficient and Compatible Storage and Retrieval of E-Mail," IBM TDB, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Feb. 1996), p. 257.
   • (The EP page also incorporates "references of WO 9904347A2," the PCT publication of the same application.)
2. Specification-admitted prior art. The '632 specification itself admits the following were known: e-mail clients (Eudora), mail-server software (Microsoft Exchange Server), SMTP/DNS/MX routing, relational databases and SQL, ODBC, Internet Database Connector (IDC) files, HTML/HTTP Web servers and browsers, and TCP/IP networks (see "Detailed Description," col. on FIG. 1 and FIG. 2).

Candor limitation. My search steps were exhausted before I could retrieve the complete list of examiner-cited U.S. patent documents on the USPTO record for US 6,122,632. The analysis below therefore rests on the NPL references above plus the specification's own admissions, and the conclusions would be strengthened by the examiner's U.S. patent citations (which typically include earlier e-mail-to-database and customer-service-routing patents).

II. Legal Framework

Obviousness is evaluated under the Graham factors (scope/content of prior art; differences; level of ordinary skill; secondary considerations) and, for a modern § 103 analysis, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Under KSR, a combination of known elements is obvious when it yields a predictable result and the prior art provides a reason to combine — including familiar market/administrative motivations, the "obvious to try" doctrine, and the principle that the combination of known techniques "according to their established functions" is normally obvious.

Level of ordinary skill. A POSITA circa mid-1997 would be a computer/network engineer or software developer with several years' experience in e-mail systems (SMTP, POP, Exchange), relational databases and SQL, and client-server/Web programming (HTML, HTTP, ODBC, IDC), working in a customer-service/call-center environment.

III. Claim Overview

• Independent system claims: 1, 49 (and claim 1's dependencies 2–17).
• Independent method claims: 18, 59, 70 (and dependencies 19–48, 60–69, 71–72).
• Common core: (a) a computer receives e-mail; (b) the e-mail is automatically transferred to a database; (c) messages are stored/structured by predetermined attributes (time received, sender address, group address, status, message number, etc.); (d) authorized CSRs access the messages remotely, by attribute; (e) the database is updated on response; (f) dependent claims add CSR privilege data, QA review workflow, expert referral, standard responses, and reports.

IV. What Each Prior-Art Reference Teaches

V. Proposed Combinations and Claim Mapping

Combination A — The core e-mail-to-relational-database system (claims 1–17, 18–29, 59–62, 70–72)

References: Kent et al. (1988) + "Use of Database for Efficient and Compatible Storage and Retrieval of E-Mail" (IBM TDB, Feb. 1996) + Barbará et al. (1993), optionally with specification-admitted SQL/relational database knowledge.

Element-by-element mapping (claim 1):

• "first programmed digital computer capable of receiving said e-mail messages" → the mail system of Kent et al. (or a standard mail server, as the specification admits).
• "relational database interfaced to said first programmed digital computer, wherein said e-mail messages … are automatically forwarded to said relational database" → Kent et al. teaches exactly the mail-system-to-DBMS interface; the Feb. 1996 IBM TDB teaches that e-mail should be stored in a database; automatic transfer (push or pull) is the ordinary implementation the specification itself describes ("having the messages pulled by the database").
• "stored e-mail messages are structured … by predetermined attributes … accessed by at least one of said predetermined attributes" → Kent et al. (browsing e-mail by database attributes), Barbará et al. (querying the message database), and the Feb. 1996 IBM TDB all teach attribute-structured storage and retrieval.
• "by a customer service representative entitled to review" → adding access control to a database was trivially known (database privileges); the "LAN-Based Customer Requirements Tracking Tool" also shows per-person assignment.

Conclusion: Claims 1–17, 18–29, 59–62, and 70–72 read onto a straightforward combination of these references. The only arguable "new" element is the CSR-access framing, which is an intended-use/field-of-use limitation applied to an otherwise conventional mail-plus-database system — the classic KSR situation where applying a known system to a known field (customer service) is obvious.

Combination B — Adding the customer-service workflow (CSR assignment, status, queue, response tracking) (claims 16–17, 27–28, 30–39, 47–48, 67, 63)

References: Combination A + "LAN-Based Customer Requirements Tracking Tool" (IBM TDB, Sept. 1992).

Mapping: The IBM TDB reference teaches a LAN-based tool that logs customer requirements, assigns them to responsible personnel, and tracks their status through closure. This maps directly to:

• message status attributes and "pending" status (claims 16–17, 27–28);
• storage of CSR data and per-CSR access privileges (claims 30–32, 34, 67);
• assignment of a message to a CSR and updating the database (claims 33, 36–39);
• expert referral with database status updates (claims 47–48, 63) — an extension of the assignment model, and SmartMail's knowledge-based routing supplies the motivation for automatic/structured referral.

Motivation to combine: The '632 patent's own Background identifies the problem — manual forwarding of high-volume customer e-mail is slow and untrackable. The IBM TDB tool already solved the analogous tracking problem for LAN-based customer requirements; applying it to e-mail stored in a database is a predictable, standard engineering step with an obvious administrative motivation (response accountability and queue management).

Combination C — QA review of responses (claims 35, 40–46, 64–66)

References: Combination A/B + Goldberg et al. "Tapestry" (1992).

Mapping: Tapestry teaches database-stored messages with user annotations — comments appended to a message by other users. The QA workflow of claims 40–46 and 64–66 (a response is flagged, reviewed by a QA-qualified CSR, approved or denied, then transmitted; database updated) is the application of a comment/approval workflow to a stored response. Quality review of customer correspondence was a routine business practice (the specification's own Background bemoans the lack of it), and the report-generation claims (44–46) are conventional database reporting over stored status attributes.

Motivation to combine: The administrative incentive to monitor CSR output (especially for trainees or CSRs with "a discourteous service record," as the specification itself says) is a classic non-technical business motivation that KSR expressly recognizes as sufficient. No new technology is required — only a status flag and a second review screen, both conventional database operations.

Combination D — The Web-server/Web-browser implementation (claims 6–7, 49–58)

References: Combination A/B/C + specification-admitted HTML/HTTP Web servers, browsers, ODBC, and IDC files.

Mapping: Claim 49 merely adds: (i) a first computer running mail-server software (admitted prior art — Exchange), (ii) a second computer running Web-server software, (iii) a third computer running Web-browser software, and (iv) retrieval of stored messages by attribute. By 1997, Web-server-to-database integration via IDC files and ODBC was a standard, widely documented architecture (the specification cites both by name as preferred embodiments, not as inventions). The motivation to use a Web interface — remote access from low-cost browser clients, standard UI, cross-platform operation — is stated in the patent itself and was the dominant industry trend at the time.

Conclusion: Claims 49–58 are the most vulnerable of all: the "invention" is a conventional three-tier Web architecture (browser → Web server → ODBC/SQL database) applied to the known idea of storing e-mail in a database. Dependent claims 51–58 add message attributes and CSR privilege data that Combination B already teaches.

VI. Motivation to Combine — Summary of Rationale

A POSITA in 1997 would have had multiple concrete reasons to combine:

1. Efficiency and scale. Kent et al., Barbará et al., and the Feb. 1996 IBM TDB all articulate the same benefit: DBMS storage of e-mail enables efficient, indexed, queryable retrieval at scale — precisely the 100,000-message scenario the '632 specification describes as the problem.
2. Integration with existing infrastructure. Mail servers (Exchange), SQL databases, ODBC, and IDC files were all standard, and interfacing them was routine engineering ("the key being to provide automated integration between the mail server, the Web page, and any SQL stored procedures" — the specification's own words).
3. Administrative/business motivations. Tracking inquiries, assigning them to CSRs, monitoring response quality, and reporting on status are standard call-center management objectives — the "LAN-Based Customer Requirements Tracking Tool" proves these were already computerized on LANs before the '632 filing.
4. Obvious-to-try / predictable result. Each element performs its established function: the mail server receives mail, the database stores/retrieves by attribute, the Web server serves browser interfaces, the QA flag gates transmission. The combination yields no unexpected result; it is the aggregation of known components solving a known problem.
5. The specification concedes the art. The Background and Detailed Description admit the manual process, the mail programs, the database technology, and the Web technology — under § 103, admissions in the specification can themselves supply the prior-art basis.

VII. Secondary Considerations

No evidence of secondary considerations (long-felt need, commercial success, unexpected results, copying, industry skepticism) appears in the record. To the contrary, the '632 patent's family (including US 6,415,290, the continuation) was litigated/assigned through routine corporate restructurings, and the patent expired by its statutory term in 2017 without a published district-court or PTAB merits decision on validity that would indicate non-obviousness. The absence of such evidence leaves the Graham analysis weighted heavily toward the strong prima facie case built by Combinations A–D.

VIII. Bottom Line

• Claims 1–17, 18–29, 59–62, 70–72 (core system/method): Very likely obvious over Kent et al. (1988) combined with the Feb. 1996 IBM TDB (and Gold Mailer, Barbará et al. 1993) — the "mail system interfaced to a DBMS with attribute-based storage and retrieval" combination, applied to the admitted customer-service context.
• Claims 30–39, 47–48, 63, 67 (CSR workflow/assignment/referral): Very likely obvious when the above is combined with the "LAN-Based Customer Requirements Tracking Tool" (IBM TDB, Sept. 1992) and SmartMail (IBM TDB, Nov. 1990).
• Claims 35, 40–46, 64–66 (QA review/reporting): Very likely obvious adding Goldberg et al., Tapestry (1992) (annotations) to the workflow combination, driven by the routine business motivation of response-quality monitoring.
• Claims 6–7, 49–58 (Web-based implementation): The most vulnerable — obvious over Combinations A–C plus the specification-admitted Web-server/browser/ODBC/IDC technology, applying a standard three-tier Web architecture to the known e-mail-in-database concept.

In short, the '632 patent's claims are, in this analyst's assessment, a textbook § 103 aggregation: well-known e-mail, database, Web, and call-center-tracking components, each performing its established function, combined for predictable efficiency and management benefits that the prior art (including the patent's own admissions) already identified. The strongest single combination is Kent et al. (1988) + IBM TDB Vol. 39, No. 2 (Feb. 1996) + IBM TDB Vol. 35, No. 4a (Sept. 1992), which alone accounts for the core database architecture and the CSR tracking workflow of the independent claims.

Caveat: Because the complete USPTO examiner citation list (U.S. patent documents) was not retrieved within the search budget, this analysis is grounded in the NPL references and specification admissions identified above; the examiner's U.S. patent citations, if located, would be expected to reinforce, not weaken, the obviousness case.