Comcast Cable Communications, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 5, 2020

14557991 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 5, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/557,991 12/02/2014 Michael Sallas 102005.021700 7871
71581 7590 10/05/2020
BakerHostetler / Comcast
Cira Centre, 12th Floor
2929 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
EXAMINER
HARRIS, DOROTHY H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/05/2020 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):
eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL SALLAS, EDWARD R. GRAUCH,
ROSS GILSON, and MARIEL SABRAW
Appeal 2019-002454
Application 14/557,991
Technology Center 2600
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, LINZY T. MCCARTNEY, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC. Appeal Brief 1, filed October 15, 2018 (Appeal Br.).
The Appeal Brief lacks page numbers. We treat the Appeal Brief as if
Appellant had consecutively numbered it starting with the page containing
the Real Party in Interest section.
Appeal 2019-002454
Application 14/557,991

2
BACKGROUND
This patent application concerns managing illumination of controllers.
See, e.g., Specification ¶ 2, filed December 2, 2014 (Spec.). Claim 1
illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
determining, by a controller, first information relating to a
current environment of the controller, wherein the controller
comprises a plurality of user engageable interfaces, and wherein
at least a portion of the plurality of user engageable interfaces are
configured to be independently and selectively illuminated,
wherein the controller is configured to transmit a
wireless signal for controlling operations of a controlled
device disposed remotely from the controller, and
wherein the controller is moveable relative to the
controlled device;
determining, by the controller, second information relating
to a current operating state of one or more of the controller and
the controlled device, wherein the current operating state
comprises one or more of a location, an orientation, a relative
position of the controller and the controlled device, and a use of
the one or more of the controller and the controlled device;
determining, by the controller, an illumination pattern for
the controller based at least in part on the first information and
the second information, wherein the illumination pattern
comprises a subset of the plurality of user engageable interfaces;
and
causing illumination of the subset of the plurality of user
engageable interfaces.
Appeal Br. 9.

Appeal 2019-002454
Application 14/557,991

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)
1, 2, 4–20 103 Reams,2 Park,3White4
3 103 Reams, Park, White, Ryu5
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections and Appellant’s
arguments, and Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. As
consistent with the discussion below, we adopt the Examiner’s reasoning,
findings, and conclusions on pages 3–28 of the Final Office Action mailed
May 14, 2018 (Final Act.), the continuation sheet of the Advisory Action
mailed July 26, 2018 (Advisory Act.), and pages 3–8 of the Examiner’s
Answer mailed November 30, 2018 (Ans.).
Claim 1 recites “determining, by the controller, an illumination
pattern for the controller based at least in part on the first information and
the second information, wherein the illumination pattern comprises a subset
of the plurality of user engageable interfaces.” Appeal Br. 9. Claim 1 recites
that the “first information relat[es] to a current environment of the
controller.” Appeal Br. 9. Claim 1 recites that the “second information
relat[es] to a current operating state of one or more of the controller and the
controlled device,” the current operating state including “one or more of a
location, an orientation, a relative position of the controller and the
controlled device, and a use of the one or more of the controller and the
controlled device.” Appeal Br. 9.

2 Reams (US 2010/0231384 A1; September 16, 2010).
3 Park et al. (US 2009/0051481 A1; February 26, 2009).
4 White et al. (US 2007/0185968 A1; August 9, 2007).
5 Ryu et al. (US 2014/0118122 A1; May 1, 2014).
Appeal 2019-002454
Application 14/557,991

4
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown that the
combination of Reams, Park, and White teaches or suggests the step of
determining an illumination pattern. See Appeal Br. 4–6; Reply Brief 2–3,
filed January 30, 2019 (Reply Br.). Appellant contends that Reams, Park,
and White each fail to teach or suggest determining an illumination pattern
based on first and second information and that Reams fails to teach or
suggest an illumination pattern that comprises a subset of the plurality of
user engageable interfaces. See Appeal Br. 4–5; see also Reply Br. 2–3.
We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive. The Examiner found
that Reams teaches determining an illumination pattern for a controller
based at least in part on the first information and the second information.
See, e.g., Final Act. 6–7. Reams provides adequate support for this finding.
Reams teaches determining whether to backlight the buttons of a remote
control based on whether (1) the amount of ambient light around the remote
control is below a threshold and (2) a user is touching or moving a remote
control. See, e.g., Reams ¶¶ 54 (explaining that control logic can “process
the inputs from the sensing circuitry 208 and the light sensor 712 to
determine when to activate the light source 206 to backlight the user input
circuitry 202” (emphasis added)), 58 (“Alternatively the flowchart in FIG. 8
could contain an ambient light decision point between operations 802
[(determining whether a user is touching the remote control)] and 804
[(activating a light source)] to process the ambient light input.”), Fig. 8
(illustrating an example process for backlighting a remote control); see also
Reams ¶¶ 52, 53, 55–57, claim 10. Reams explains that “detect[ing]
touching of the remote control or movement of the remote control . . . is
indicative of the user using the remote control.” Reams ¶ 56. Thus, Reams
Appeal 2019-002454
Application 14/557,991

5
teaches determining an illumination pattern (backlighting the buttons of the
remote control) based on first information that relates to the current
environment of the controller (the ambient light around the controller) and
second information that relates to the use of the one or more of the controller
and the control device (touching or moving the remote control, which
indicates use of the remote control).
Even if Reams alone did not teach determining an illumination pattern
for a controller based at least in part on the first information and the second
information, the Examiner’s combination of Reams, Parks, and White
teaches this limitation. Parks discloses selecting which menu to display on a
remote control based on its “gripping direction.” See, e.g., Park ¶¶ 38, 58–
79, Figs. 4A–4C, 5. And White discloses selectively illuminating buttons on
a remote control based on a device mode. See, e.g., White ¶¶ 21–23, 39–45,
Figs. 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B. Given these disclosures, the Examiner concluded that
it would have been obvious to modify Reams to use a “sensed . . . gripping
direction so as to facilitate control of multiple devices” and “have selectively
illuminated control buttons corresponding to a selected device mode . . . so
as to reduce user confusion of which control commands of the selected
device are available.” Ans. 5; see also Advisory Act., continuation sheet. In
this combination, Reams’s remote control determines which buttons to
backlight based on, for instance,
(1) the gripping direction of the remote control (second information
relating to a relative position of the controller and the controlled
device or an orientation);
(2) the device mode of the remote control (second information
relating to a use of the one or more of the controller and the
controlled device); and
Appeal 2019-002454
Application 14/557,991

6
(3) whether the amount of ambient light around the remote control
is below a threshold (first information relating to the current
environment of the controller).
See, e.g., Final Act. 27–28; Advisory Act., continuation sheet.
Finally, the Examiner did not find that Reams alone teaches or
suggests an illumination pattern that “comprises a subset of the plurality of
user engageable interfaces” as argued by Appellant. Rather, the Examiner
found that the combination of Reams, Parks, and White teaches or suggests
this limitation. See Final Act. 6–8, 25, 27–28; Ans. 3–5. Appellant’s
arguments against Reams alone have not persuaded us that the Examiner
erred. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here,
the rejections are based on combinations of references.”).
Appellant also argues that the Examiner has not provided sufficient
reason to combine the teachings of Reams, White, and Park in the claimed
manner. See Appeal Br. 6–7; Reply Br. 3–5. According to Appellant, the
Examiner’s “motivation for modifying Reams in view of Park . . . does not
make sense as Reams teaches a remote control communicating with a single
entertainment device.” Reply Br. 4. And Appellant contends that the
Examiner did “not provide a reason why one would modify the remote
control of Reams to include selectively illuminating control buttons or
selectable device modes.” Appeal Br. 7.
We find these arguments unpersuasive. First, Reams teaches that the
disclosed remote control can be “configured as a ‘universal’ remote control,
operable to remotely control other devices, such as the presentation device
104. In at least one embodiment, the remote control 106 stores command
sets in memory for various devices, such as televisions, DVD players[,]
Appeal 2019-002454
Application 14/557,991

7
VCRs and the like.” Reams ¶ 22; see also Reams ¶ 49 (explaining that a
remote control can “generate commands for the entertainment device 102
and/or the presentation device 104”), Fig. 6 (showing an exemplary remote
control). We thus see no error in the Examiner’s determination that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings
of Reams and Park “to facilitate control of multiple devices.”
Second, contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner did provide a
reason to modify the remote control of Reams to include selectively
illuminating control buttons and selectable device modes. The Examiner
found that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do
so because it would “facilitate control of multiple devices” and “reduce user
confusion of which control commands of the selected device are available.”
Ans. 5. Appellant has not persuasively explained why this reasoning is
inadequate.
For at least the above reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us that the
Examiner erroneously rejected claim 1 under § 103. We thus sustain this
rejection. Because Appellant has not presented separate, persuasive
arguments for the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–20 under § 103, we also
sustain these rejections.

Appeal 2019-002454
Application 14/557,991

8
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–20 103 Reams, White, Park 1, 2, 4–20
3 103 Reams, White, Park, Ryu 3
Overall
Outcome 1–20

No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED