Ex Parte 6587067 et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 11, 2010

90007876 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 11, 2010)

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.
90/007,876 01/17/2006 6587067 7865
7590 09/13/2010
GREENBURG TRAURIG PC
77 W WACKER DRIVE
SUITE 2500
CHICAGO, IL 60101
EXAMINER
CHOI, WOO H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/13/2010 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.
____________

Appeal 2009-011530
Reexamination Control 90/007,876
Technology Center 3900
Patent No. 6,587,067

____________

Decided: September 13, 2010
____________

Before MICHAEL R. FLEMING, Chief Administrative Patent Judge,
JAMES T. MOORE and ALLEN R. MacDONALD, Vice Chief
Administrative Patent Judges, and HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP and
SCOTT R. BOALICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOALICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-011530
Reexamination Control 90/007,876
Patent No. 6,587,067

2
Universal Electronics, Inc. appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(b) and
35 U.S.C. § 306 from a final rejection of claims 1-6. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306.
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Reexamination Proceedings
A request for ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent 6,587,067 (“the
‘067 patent”) was filed on January 13, 2006, by Kenneth D’Alessandro of
Sierra Patent Group, Ltd., Reexamination Control No. 90/007,876.
The ‘067 patent, now expired, is entitled “Universal Remote Control
with Macro Command Capabilities” and issued July 1, 2003, to Paul V.
Darbee, Richard E. Ellis, Louis Steven Jansky, and Avram S. Grossman,
based on Application No. 09/791,354, filed February 23, 2001. The earliest
priority date claimed by the ‘067 patent is October 14, 1987. The ‘067
patent is said to be assigned to Universal Electronics, Inc., said to be the real
party in interest.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a universal remote control that
includes a library of codes and data for use in transmitting operating
commands to different home appliances made by different manufacturers.
(Abstract.)
The Claims
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. In a universal remote control comprising a
keyboard having a plurality of pushbuttons including a macro
pushbutton and a library of codes and data for use in
Appeal 2009-011530
Reexamination Control 90/007,876
Patent No. 6,587,067

3
transmitting operating commands to a plurality of different
home appliances of different manufacturers, a readable medium
having instructions for performing steps comprising:
matching the universal remote control to a plurality of
different home appliances of different manufacturers such that
selected codes and data from the library are used to transmit
operating commands to the matched home appliances in
response to activation of selected pushbuttons of the keyboard,
the pushbuttons of the keyboard being activated to directly
identify each of the plurality of different home applicances [sic]
of different manufacturers to which the universal remote control
is to be matched; and
assigning to the macro pushbutton a subset of the
selected codes and data from the library whereafter activation
of the macro pushbutton causes the universal remote control to
use the subset of selected codes and data from the library to
transmit a plurality of operating commands to one or more of
the matched home appliances.

The References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Micromint, Inc., Home Run Micromint’s Home Control System Users
Manual 1-159 (1985) (“Micromint”).

The Rejection
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Micromint.
Appellant relies upon the following rebuttal evidence:
Declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 of Patrick H. Hayes, dated
June 10, 2008 (“Hayes Declaration”).

Declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 of Alex M. Cook, Jr., dated
June 10, 2008 (“Cook Declaration”).
Appeal 2009-011530
Reexamination Control 90/007,876
Patent No. 6,587,067

4
ISSUE
With respect to independent claims 1, 3, 4 and 6, Appellant argues
that the Examiner improperly construed the terms “codes” and “data” and
further argues that, when properly construed, Micromint does not teach a
library of codes and data for use in transmitting operating commands to a
plurality of different home appliances of different manufacturers, as claimed.
(App. Br. 7-15; see also Reply Br. 2-6.)
The following dispositive issue is presented:
Under the proper claim construction, does Micromint teach a library
of codes and data for use in transmitting operating commands to a plurality
of different home appliances of different manufacturers?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
‘067 Patent
1. The ‘067 patent describes a universal remote control (col. 1, l. 42) that
acquires infrared codes for a controlled apparatus (col. 1, ll. 49-51),
such as a television, VCR, CD, cable converter, or other equipment
(col. 8, ll. 37-40). The universal remote control generates code data
related to the infrared codes for storage in a RAM (random access
memory) as a library or table of code data. (Col. 1, ll. 51-56.) The
code data is used to generate infrared codes for operating different
electrical apparatus manufactured by different manufacturers. (Col. 1,
ll. 57-58). Figure 1 (below) shows a perspective view of a universal
remote control device. Figure 7 (below) shows a plan view of the
Appeal 2009-011530
Reexamination Control 90/007,876
Patent No. 6,587,067

5
circuit board assembly mounted inside the universal remote control
device.

2. The universal remote control device 10 includes a central processing
unit (CPU) 56 and a read-write RAM 54. (Col. 2, ll. 35-41; col. 5,
ll. 57-60; fig. 7.) The device 10 also includes light emitting diodes
LED 1, LED 2, LED 3 (col. 4, ll. 54-56; fig. 1) and LED 4 (col. 4,
ll. 59-60; fig. 1). LED 1, LED 2 and LED 3 are infrared light emitting
diodes (col. 5, l. 67 to col. 6, l. 1) for communicating with the
Appeal 2009-011530
Reexamination Control 90/007,876
Patent No. 6,587,067

6
controlled apparatus (col. 5, ll. 59-61). LED 4 is for communicating
with the user of device 10 through red and green “blink codes.”
(Col. 4, ll. 58-61; col. 5, ll. 63-64; fig. 1.)
3. The device 10 also can decipher infrared codes for operating various
pieces of equipment (e.g., TV, VCR, CD player or cable converter).
(Col. 8, ll. 33-40; fig. 1.) Figure 12b illustrates “a graph of the
waveform of the captured, and later recreated, infrared codes,
showing when the infrared signal is on and when it is off.” (Col. 10,
ll. 7-9.) The CPU 56 executes IR-ON, IR-OFF and NOP (no
operation) instructions for operating the infrared-emitting LEDs (i.e.,
LED 1, LED 2, and LED 3) such that “the infrared codes are
transformed into a bit stream of 0’s and 1’s.” (Col. 10, ll. 9-15.)
4. As illustrated in Figure 11, the infrared codes can be characterized by
several modulation schemes. (Col. 9, ll. 17-19; fig. 11.) In some
embodiments, the modulation schemes include different carrier
frequencies and gating schemes. (Col. 9, ll. 19-27; figs. 11a-11g.)
Typical carrier frequencies range from 20 kHz to 45 kHz. (Col. 9,
ll. 20-22.) Gating schemes include fixed and variable bit periods,
non-return to zero, variable burst widths, single/double burst and a
catch-all category. (Col. 9, ll. 22-27.) Figure 11 (shown below)
shows graphical representations of several modulation schemes used
in the universal remote control device.
Appeal 2009-011530
Reexamination Control 90/007,876
Patent No. 6,587,067

7

5. In the Figure 11h embodiment, a continuous frequency (CW)
modulation scheme is used. (Col. 9, ll. 28-30; fig. 11h.) In the Figure
11i embodiment, the modulation scheme does not use a carrier
frequency and instead sends a stream of infrared pulses where the data
is encoded in the spaces between the pulses. (Col. 9, 31-34; fig. 11i.)
Micromint
6. Micromint relates to a home control system (HCS), including a
computer, that controls lights and appliances in a home. (P. 1, ¶ 1.)
The HCS “senses presence in rooms, automatically turns lights on,
Appeal 2009-011530
Reexamination Control 90/007,876
Patent No. 6,587,067

8
raises the heat or lowers the air conditioning, and follows a variety (as
opposed to one) of prescribed control sequences defined by the ‘real
time’ assessment of the activities of the house occupants” (p. 7, ¶ 1).
The HCS computer includes a keyboard console connected to a
monitor for programming the home control system “by answering
questions, or selecting items from a menu.” (P. 27, ¶ 3; fig. 10.) The
HCS is designed around the concept of “events,” which are actions
performed on a device or module. (P. 5, ¶ 6.) An “event” has four
elements: (1) the type of event (e.g., ON/OFF or DIMMER); (2) the
device on which the event operates; (3) a trigger that starts the event
and; (4) a trigger that ends the event. (P. 5, ¶ 6; see also p. 101, ¶ 3.)
All events entered into the HCS are stored in a RAM. (P. 106, ¶ 3;
p. 12, ¶ 2.)
7. The HCS has as its central element a command controller that “sends
commands to the receiver modules by coded messages sent through
the AC power lines.” (P. 7, ¶ 4.) Receiver modules include lamp
modules, wall switch modules, three-way wall switch modules and
appliance modules for controlling “any appliance.” (P. 111, ¶¶ 1-4.)
Each receiver module typically controls a single light or appliance.
(P. 85, ¶ 2.) For example, any module can be turned on or off and the
lamp module can be dimmed. (P. 44, ¶ 1.)
8. A 9-bit command messages contains a 4-bit “house code” and a 5-bit
“device code” (p. 8, ¶¶ 2, 4) that are “transmitted in true and inverted
format on successive half cycles of the AC waveform” (p. 8, ¶ 4). “A
logic 1 bit is three 1-millisecond bursts of 120 kHz signal
Appeal 2009-011530
Reexamination Control 90/007,876
Patent No. 6,587,067

9
commencing approximately 200 microseconds after the zero crossing
of the AC line. A logic 0 bit is represented by no signal for that half
cycle.” (P. 8, ¶ 5.) Each receiver module monitors the AC line for “a
coded message corresponding to its unique house code (A through P)
and unit device code (1 through 16).” (P. 9, ¶ 1.) The HCS can
accommodate a total of sixteen house codes with sixteen device codes
for each house code. (P. 8, ¶ 2.)
ANALYSIS
Claim Interpretation
Claim interpretation necessarily precedes the addressing of questions
of patentability. See, e.g., Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (“Implicit in our review of the Board’s anticipation analysis is
that the claim must first have been correctly construed to define the scope
and meaning of each contested limitation.”).
“[T]he words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and
customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations omitted). The “ordinary and
customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have
to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention,
i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Id. at 1313.
“Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the
claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the
disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the
specification.” Id. “[T]he specification is always highly relevant to the
claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best
Appeal 2009-011530
Reexamination Control 90/007,876
Patent No. 6,587,067

10
guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Id. at 1315 (internal citations
omitted). However, it is improper to “import limitations into claims from
examples or embodiments appearing only in a patent's written description,
even when a specification describes very specific embodiments of the
invention or even describes only a single embodiment, unless the
specification makes clear that ‘the patentee . . . intends for the claims and the
embodiments in the specification to be strictly coextensive.’” JVW Enters.,
Inc. v. Interact Accessories, Inc., 424 F.3d 1324, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323). It is also improper to confine the
claims to the specific embodiments disclosed in the specification. Phillips,
415 F.3d at 1323.
Interpretation of Expired Patent Claims
Appellant states that “[t]he subject reexamination proceeding involves
claims of an expired patent.” (App. Br. 6).
In construing patent claims in a civil action in district court, “[t]he
role [of claim construction] is neither to limit nor broaden the claim, but to
define, as a matter of law, the invention that has been patented.” Netword,
LLC v. Centraal Corp., 242 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “‘Claim
construction’ is the judicial statement of what is and is not covered by the
technical terms and other words of the claims.” Id. That is, the district court
provides a “definitive” or “true” or “exact” claim construction. By
comparison, patent claims in a reexamination proceeding in the USPTO are
ordinarily given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
patent disclosure. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004). When the patent has not expired, construing claims
Appeal 2009-011530
Reexamination Control 90/007,876
Patent No. 6,587,067

11
broadly is not unfair to the patentee because the patentee has the opportunity
to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. Id. However,
claims of an expired patent may not be amended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.530(j).
The standard of claim construction for the claims of an expired patent
in reexamination was addressed by the Board in Ex parte Papst-Motoren,
1 USPQ2d 1655 (BPAI 1986). The Board noted that In re Yamamoto,
740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984), held that claims in a reexamination
proceeding should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation,
consistent with the specification, because applicants had the right to amend,
whereas in a district court, “claims should be so construed, if possible, as to
sustain their validity.” Yamamoto, 740 F.2d at 1571 n.* (citing ACH Hosp.
Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
The Board held:
[I]n reexamination proceedings in which the PTO is
considering the patentability of claims of an expired patent
which are not subject to amendment, a policy of liberal claim
construction may properly and should be applied. Such a
policy favors a construction of a patent claim that will render it
valid, i.e., a narrow construction, over a broad construction that
would render it invalid.

Papst-Motoren, 1 USPQ2d at 1656; Ex parte Bowles, 23 USPQ2d 1015,
1017 (BPAI 1991) (both nonprecedential).2 The Board also held in both
Papst-Motoren and Bowles that it would be error to read “inferential

2 Although Papst-Motoren is not designated as precedential, it was decided
by an expanded panel of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences,
including the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, the Chairman of the
Board, and an Examiner-in-Chief.
Appeal 2009-011530
Reexamination Control 90/007,876
Patent No. 6,587,067

12
limitations” into the claims. Papst-Motoren, 1 USPQ2d at 1657; Bowles,
23 USPQ2d at 1017.
Papst-Motoren's holding that “claims should be so construed, if
possible, as to sustain their validity” is another way of saying that the
USPTO does not apply the “broadest reasonable interpretation” in
construing the claims of an expired patent in a reexamination proceeding.
The policy reason is that the claims in an expired patent cannot be amended.
However, the maxim that “claims should be so construed, if possible, as to
sustain their validity” is sometimes misunderstood and therefore, the Federal
Circuit has clarified the maxim since Papst-Motoren. In accordance with
those cases, it is clear that any claim construction must be in accord with the
rules of claim construction and claims may not be redrafted. See Generation
II Orthotics Inc. v. Med. Tech. Inc., 263 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
(“[C]laims can only be construed to preserve their validity where the
proposed claim construction is ‘practicable,’ is based on sound claim
construction principles, and does not revise or ignore the explicit language
of the claims.”); Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 525 F.3d 1200,
1215-16 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“This court has repeatedly held that courts may
not redraft claims to cure a drafting error made by the patentee, whether to
make them operable or to sustain their validity. To do so ‘would unduly
interfere with the function of claims in putting competitors on notice of the
scope of the claimed invention.’” (Citations and footnote omitted.)). The
maxim is limited “to cases in which ‘the court concludes, after applying all
the available tools of claim construction, that the claim is still ambiguous.’”
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1327 (citing Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
Appeal 2009-011530
Reexamination Control 90/007,876
Patent No. 6,587,067

13
358 F.3d 898, 911 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Importantly, it is “error . . . to use the
possible invalidity of those claims, if broadly construed, as a basis for
construing them narrowly.” The Saunders Group, Inc. v. ComforTrac, Inc.,
492 F.3d 1326, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface
Architectural Resources, Inc., 279 F.3d 1357, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
(“Fairness and the public notice function of the patent law require courts to
afford patentees the full breadth of clear claim language, and bind them to it
as well. Consequently, where such claim language clearly reads on prior art,
the patent is invalid.”); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1327 (“[W]e have certainly not
endorsed a regime in which validity analysis is a regular component of claim
construction.”); Rhine v. Casio, Inc., 183 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(“[I]f the only claim construction that is consistent with the claim's language
and the written description renders the claim invalid, then the axiom does
not apply and the claim is simply invalid.”).
The maxim does not mean that claims should be construed more
narrowly than is required by the rules of claim construction, as is sometimes
misunderstood from cases such as In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404 n.30
(CCPA 1969) (“By construing a claim as covering only patentable subject
matter, courts are able, in appropriate cases, to hold claims valid in order to
protect the inventive concept or the inventor's contribution to the art. The
patentee at that time usually may not amend the claims to obtain protection
commensurate with his actual contribution to the art.”) and Yamamoto,
740 F.2d at 1572 (“District courts may find it necessary to interpret claims to
protect only that which constitutes patentable subject matter to do justice
between the parties.”).
Appeal 2009-011530
Reexamination Control 90/007,876
Patent No. 6,587,067

14
Papst-Motoren does not describe what sources of claim construction
can be used. We assume for this appeal that a patentee is entitled to rely on
any of the various intrinsic and extrinsic sources of claim meaning discussed
in Phillips. It is patentee’s burden to show how an argued narrower claim
construction is supported by the evidence.
Papst-Motoren also does not state what methodology of claim
construction should be used, e.g., whether the USPTO should consider all
sources of evidence considered by district courts. Nevertheless, the USPTO
always considers the specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[I]t would be unreasonable for the PTO to ignore any
interpretive guidance afforded by the applicant's written description . . . .”).
For purposes of this appeal, we assume that any type of evidence of claim
meaning identified by Phillips, including prosecution history of the original
patent, can be considered since patentee may not amend.
Interpretation of Specific Claim Terms
“Codes”
Appellant argues that, in the context of the ‘067 patent, “codes” for
use in transmitting operating commands to a plurality of different home
appliances of different manufacturers should be interpreted as “plural
modulation schemes, carrier frequencies, bit encoding schemes, etc., i.e.,
systems of signals used to represent numbers (i.e., 0s and 1s) in transmitting
messages, that are to be used to transmit ‘data’ to plural different
appliances.” (App. Br. 11.) To support this claim construction, Appellant
refers to the Hayes Declaration and the Cook Declaration. (App. Br. 12.)
Appellant also argues that “the specification makes clear that the ‘codes’
Appeal 2009-011530
Reexamination Control 90/007,876
Patent No. 6,587,067

15
included in infrared codes are the same as the ‘several modulation schemes,’
different types of ‘carrier frequencies,’ etc., i.e., signal systems, that are
likewise described within the specification as being included in infrared
codes.” (Reply Br. 3.) We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
Appellant points to column 9, lines 14-27 of the ‘067 patent as the
proper context for construing the claim term “codes.” (App. Br. 11-12.)
Paragraphs 8-10 of the Hayes Declaration and paragraphs 7-9 of the Cook
Declaration, which relate to the claim construction of “codes,” cite to the
same text of the ‘067 patent for support. Column 9, lines 14-27 of the ‘067
patent discusses figures 11a-11g, which illustrate several different
modulation schemes using a carrier frequency. (FF 4.) However, the
Figure 11i embodiment illustrates a modulation scheme that sends a stream
of pulses rather than using a carrier frequency. (FF 5.) Therefore, in the
context of Figure 11, Appellant’s proposed claim construction of “codes” as
meaning “plural modulation schemes, carrier frequencies, bit encoding
schemes pattern of bits . . .” (second emphasis added) is overly narrow
because such a construction excludes the Figure 11i embodiment. Also,
while the ‘067 patent Specification describes “infrared codes” (FF 2-3), the
term “infrared” is not recited in any of the independent claims and we
decline Appellant's invitation to import it.
On the other hand, the Examiner points to the use of “blink codes”
emitted from an LED (i.e., LED 4) in the Specification of the ‘067 patent
(Ans. 10-11) and construes the term “code” as meaning “one of a set of
symbols used to represent information or an assigned meaning” (Ans. 9).
The “blink codes” are used to communicate with the user of the universal
Appeal 2009-011530
Reexamination Control 90/007,876
Patent No. 6,587,067

16
remote control device 10, rather than to communicate with a controlled
apparatus. (FF 2.) However, the claimed “codes” must be “for use in
transmitting operating commands to a plurality of different home
appliances.” In other words, the “blink codes” are not “codes” within the
meaning of the claim because they do not transmit operating commands to a
plurality of home appliances. Accordingly, the Examiner’s construction of
the claim term “codes” is overly broad.
Figure 11 of the ‘067 patent illustrates multiple transmission schemes
for relaying “data” to operate different electrical appliances. (FF 4.)
Similarly, Figure 12b of the ‘067 patent describes “infrared codes” as “a
graph of the waveform . . . showing when the infrared signal is on and when
it is off” or “a bit stream of 0’s and 1’s” for the infrared-emitting LEDs.
(FF 3.) Reading the claim term “codes” in the context of the entire patent,
we interpret “codes” as transmission schemes for relaying “data” to a
controlled apparatus.
“Data”
The Examiner construes the term “data” as meaning “information
even when expressed with binary digits.” (Ans. 13.) Appellant argues that
“data” should be more narrowly construed as a “pattern of bits, i.e., 0s and
1s, that are to be sent from the universal remote control to the appliances.”
(App. Br. 10-11.)
However, we need not decide this issue. As will be discussed,
Micromint fails to teach a library of codes and data under either the
Examiner's or the Appellant's interpretation of “data.”
Appeal 2009-011530
Reexamination Control 90/007,876
Patent No. 6,587,067

17
Rejection of Claims 1-6
Under the previously discussed claim interpretation, we agree with
Appellant (App. Br. 14-15) that Micromint does not teach a library of codes
and data for use in transmitting operating commands to a plurality of
different home appliances of different manufacturers.
The Examiner found that the “house codes” and “device codes”
transmitted from the command controller to receiver modules of Micromint
correspond to the claimed “codes.” (Ans. 3-4, 12.) We do not agree.
Micromint relates to a home control system (HCS) for the “real time”
control of various appliances. (FF 6.) The HCS can accommodate a total of
sixteen house codes (letters A to P) and sixteen device codes (numbers 1 to
16) for each house code. (FF 8.) The HCS includes a command controller
that uses unique 9-bit command messages to send commands through the
AC power line to receiver modules. (FF 8.) The 9-bit command messages
includes a 4-bit “house code” and a 5-bit “device code.” (FF 8.)
The “house codes” and “device codes” of Micromint are not
transmission schemes for relaying “data” to a controlled apparatus, and
therefore do not correspond to the claimed “codes.” Instead, the “house
codes” and “device codes” of Micromint correspond to the claimed “data”
under either the Examiner's construction of “data” (i.e., “information even
when expressed with binary digits”) or the Appellant's construction of “data”
(i.e., a “pattern of bits, i.e., 0s and 1s, that are to be sent from the universal
remote control to the appliances”).
Regarding the claimed “codes,” Micromint teaches that the HCS
command controller sends 9-bit command messages to the receiver modules
Appeal 2009-011530
Reexamination Control 90/007,876
Patent No. 6,587,067

18
through the AC power line using bursts of a 120 kHz signal. (FF 7-8.)
Micromint also teaches that a logic 1 bit is three 1-millisecond bursts of the
120 kHz signal commencing 200 microseconds after the zero crossing of the
AC line. (FF 8.) Micromint further teaches that a logic 0 bit is represented
by no signal for that half cycle. (FF 8.) This transmission scheme for
relaying data to a controlled apparatus using bursts of a 120 kHz signal
through the AC line is the only transmission scheme disclosed by
Micromint. As discussed previously, the claimed “codes” are transmission
schemes for relaying “data” to a controlled apparatus. Thus, Micromint
teaches only a single “code” within the meaning of the claims.
In other words, rather than teaching multiple transmission schemes,
Micromint teaches only a single transmission scheme for relaying a 9-bit
command message (i.e., data) to the receiver module. Accordingly,
Micromint does not teach a library of codes and data for use in transmitting
operating commands to a plurality of different home appliances of different
manufacturers, as claimed.
Therefore, Micromint does not anticipate independent claims 1, 3, 4
and 6. Claims 2 and 5 depend from independent claims 1 and 4, and we
conclude that Micromint does not anticipate these claims for the reasons
discussed with respect to independent claims 1 and 4.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of fact and analysis above, we conclude that
Micromint does not anticipate claims 1-6.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
Appeal 2009-011530
Reexamination Control 90/007,876
Patent No. 6,587,067

19
REVERSED

saw

For Patent Owner:

Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 West Wacker Dr., Ste. 2500
Chicago, IL 60601

For Third Party Requester:

LEWIS AND ROCA LLP
1663 HWY 395, SUITE 201
MINDEN, NV 89423