Ex Parte Arling et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2019

13043848 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/043,848 03/09/2011 Paul D. Arling
34018 7590 02/04/2019
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 W. Wacker Drive
Suite 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
81230.102US5 9650
EXAMINER
ALAM, MUSHFIKH I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
chiipmail@gtlaw.com
escobedot@gtlaw.com
j arosikg@gtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL D. ARLING, CHRISTOPHER CHAMBERS,
WAYNE SCOTT, and MARK MOMOT
Appeal2018-005399
Application 13/043,848 1
Technology Center 2400
Before MARC S. HOFF, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appellants' invention is a system and method for saving and recalling
state data for media and home appliances. A user initiates a save state
command for a particular media rendering system from which a media
element ( e.g., movie, music, etc.) is being played. Both the playback state of
1 Appellants state the real party in interest is Universal Electronics, Inc.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-005399
Application 13/043,848
the media and the rendering system's device states during playback will be
saved, in one or more central servers and/or in a portable controlling device.
Data so saved may be recalled at a later time to operate the devices and
media of the same entertainment center, or it may be recalled and converted
for use in conjunction with a different media rendering system having
analogous or complementary functionality. Spec. 2-3.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method for using saved state data in a media control
system located in an environment, the method comprising:
storing in a memory of the hand-held, portable
controlling device in association with an activable input
element of the hand-held, portable controlling device data
related to a state of an appliance and a state of an environment
in which the appliance is located; and
in response to an activation of the activable input element
of the hand-held, portable controlling device at a time
subsequent to the data related to a state of an appliance and a
state of an environment in which the appliance is located being
stored in the memory causing the handheld, portable controlling
device to transmit a sequence of commands wherein the
sequence of commands transmitted by the hand-held, portable
controlling device is determined by the hand-held, portable
controlling device as a function of the data related to a state of
an appliance and a state of an environment in which the
appliance is located as stored in the memory of the hand-held,
portable controlling device in association with the activable
input element of the hand-held, portable controlling device.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Thomas et al.
Sumida et al.
US 2002/0059621 Al
US 2002/0124584 Al
2
May 16, 2002
("Thomas")
Sept. 12, 2002
("Sumida")
Appeal2018-005399
Application 13/043,848
Krzyzanowski et al.
Zigmond et al.
US 2004/0003073 Al Jan. 1, 2004
("Krzyzanowski")
US 2005/0035846 Al Feb. 17, 2005
("Zigmond")
Claims 1-3 and 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Zigmond and Krzyzanowski.
Claims 4 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Zigmond, Krzyzanowski, and Sumida.
Claims 5, 6, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Zigmond, Krzyzanowski, and Thomas.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.," filed Nov. 14, 2017), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed May 1,
2018), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Mar. 8, 2018) for their
respective details.
ISSUE
Appellants' arguments present us with the following issue:
Does the combination of Zigmond and Krzyzanowski disclose or
suggest that a sequence of commands transmitted by the hand-held, portable
controlling device is determined by the hand-held, portable controlling
device as a function of the data related to a state of an appliance and a state
of an environment in which the appliance is located as stored in the memory
of the hand-held, portable controlling device?
3
Appeal2018-005399
Application 13/043,848
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1-3 AND 7-9
Appellants' remarks are directed exclusively to independent claims 1
and 7, discussed together. App. Br. 5-9. We therefore select independent
claim 1 as representative of claims 13 and 7-9.
Appellants allege that Krzyzanowski does not disclose that the
"sequence of commands transmitted by the hand-held, portable controlling
device is determined by the hand-held, portable controlling device as a
function of the data related to the state of an appliance and a state of the
environment in which the appliance is located," as claims 1 and 7 recite.
App. Br. 5---6 (emphasis added). Appellants contend that Krzyzanowski,
instead, "discloses and suggests allowing a user to define a macro on the
handheld controller, i.e., to allow the user to determine the sequence of
commands to be stored on the device for later use in controlling appliances
and the environment in which the appliances are located." App. Br. 6
( emphasis omitted). "[T]he commands to be transmitted are based on data
that was created by the user." App. Br. 9 (emphasis omitted). Appellants
further contend that the rejection is so uninformative as to prevent the
applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection,
because the rejection cites to portions of Zigmond when discussing what
Krzyzanowski purportedly teaches. App. Br. 9.
At the outset, we note our agreement with Appellants that citation to
sections of Zigmond is not relevant in a section of an Examiner's Answer
purporting to explain what is disclosed in Krzyzanowski. In our analysis of
the Examiner's position, we take no consideration of what Zigmond may
4
Appeal2018-005399
Application 13/043,848
disclose at the sections cited in the paragraph of the Examiner's Answer
directed to the teachings of Krzyzanowski.
We nonetheless find Appellants' argument to be unpersuasive. The
Examiner cites to paragraphs 154--17 5 of Krzyzanowski in support of the
finding that Krzyzanowski discloses transmission by the hand-held, portable
controlling device of a sequence of commands determined by the hand-held,
portable controlling device as a function of the data related to a state of an
appliance and a state of an environment in which the appliance is located.
Non-Final Act. 4. Within the section cited by the Examiner, and in contrast
to Appellants' argument that Krzyzanowski discloses only user-determined
command sequences, Krzyzanowski also discloses that
according to an embodiment of the present invention, a control
macro can be created automatically by the control server 114
based on the particular devices existing in a selected room or
region, either as known by the control server through stored
room profiles or as detected in real time by the control server as
the room profile is created.
Krzyzanowski ,r 165.
We specifically note that the Examiner finds that Zigmond discloses
storing a sequence of commands (i.e., a code set) to the hand-held, portable
controlling device, just as Appellants' Specification discloses storing a
sequence of commands to its hand-held, portable controlling device. Non-
Final Act. 3; Zigmond ,r,r 35, 47, 62; see Spec. 21-22, 25-26.
In light of this disclosure, we agree with the Examiner's finding that
the combination of Zigmond and Krzyzanowski discloses transmitting by the
hand-held, portable controlling device a sequence of commands that are
determined by the hand-held, portable controlling device, as a function of
5
Appeal2018-005399
Application 13/043,848
the data related to a state of an appliance and a state of an environment in
which the appliance is located.
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3 and
7-9 over the combination of Zigmond and Krzyzanowski. We sustain the
Examiner's§ 103 rejection.
CLAIMS 4---6 AND 10-12
Appellants present no separate argument with respect to these claims.
We therefore sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 4 and 10
over Zigmond, Krzyzanowski, and Sumida for the reasons given supra with
respect to independent claims 1 and 7. We therefore also sustain the
Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 5, 6, 11, and 12 over Zigmond,
Krzyzanowski, and Thomas for the reasons given supra with respect to
independent claims 1 and 7.
CONCLUSION
The combination of Zigmond and Krzyzanowski suggests that a
sequence of commands transmitted by the hand-held, portable controlling
device is determined by the hand-held, portable controlling device as a
function of the data related to a state of an appliance and a state of an
environment in which the appliance is located as stored in the memory of the
hand-held, portable controlling device.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-12 is affirmed.
6
Appeal2018-005399
Application 13/043,848
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7