Ex Parte Arling et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 17, 2017

13043848 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2017)

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.
13/043,848 03/09/2011 Paul D. Arling 81230.102US5 9650
34018 7590 04/19/2017
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
77 WEST WACKER DRIVE
SUITE 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
EXAMINER
ALAM, MUSHFIKH I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/19/2017 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):
j arosikg @ gtlaw .com
chiipmail @ gtlaw .com
escobedot@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
Appeal 2017-000942
Application 13/043,8481
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
the media and the rendering system’s device states during playback will be
1 Appellants state the real party in interest is Universal Electronics, Inc.
Appeal 2017-000942
Application 13/043,848
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 saving state data with a control event 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 which is assigned a sequence of
commands data related to at least one of 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 at least one of a state of an appliance and a
state of an environment in which the appliance is located being
stored in the memory causing the hand-held, portable controlling
device to transmit the sequence of commands assigned to the
activable input element and at least one further command
wherein the
at least one further command transmitted by the hand-held,
portable controlling device is determined as a function of the data
related to at least one of 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:
2
Appeal 2017-000942
Application 13/043,848
Thomas et al. US 2002/0059621 Al May 16, 2002
(“Thomas”)
US 2002/0124584 Al Sept. 12, 2002
(“Sumida”)
US 2004/0003073 Al Jan. 1, 2004
(“Krzyzanowski”)
US 2005/0035846 Al Feb. 17, 2005
(“Zigmond”)
Sumida et al.
Krzyzanowski et al.
Zigmond et al.
Claims 1—3 and 7—9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zigmond and Krzyzanowski.
Claims 4 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zigmond, Krzyzanowski, and Sumida.
Claims 5, 6, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Zigmond, Krzyzanowski, and Thomas.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed Feb. 25, 2016), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Oct.
11, 2016), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Aug. 12, 2016) for
their respective details.
Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issues:
1. Does the Examiner explain how or why Krzyzanowski suggests
modifying Zigmond to arrive at the claimed invention, specifically a remote
control transmitting both a command sequence previously assigned to an
activable key and at least one further command that is determined based
ISSUES
3
Appeal 2017-000942
Application 13/043,848
upon state information associated with an appliance and/or a location in
which the appliance resides?
2. Does the Examiner provide evidence that the combination of
Zigmond and Krzyzanowski teaches using state data to program an
“unpause” key of a remote control with one or more commands, whereupon
a subsequent activation of the unpause button of the remote control will
cause said remote control to transmit commands that were previously
assigned to the unpause button, as well as the programmed unpause
command?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3 and 7-9
Appellants’ remarks are directed exclusively to independent claims 1
and 7, discussed together. We therefore select independent claim 1 as
representative of claims 1—3 and 7—9.
Appellants allege that the Examiner does not explain how or why
Krzyzanowski suggests modifying Zigmond to arrive at the claimed
invention, specifically a remote control transmitting both a command
sequence previously assigned to an activable key and at least one further
command that is determined based upon state information associated with an
appliance and/or a location in which the appliance resides. App. Br. 6. We
find Appellants’ argument to be unpersuasive. The Examiner explains in the
Answer that modifying Zigmond’s system, which provides the ability to
resume playback of video content in a different room with different
equipment, in view of the teachings of Krzyzanowski, which provides the
ability to program a macro that includes parameters to control a large
4
Appeal 2017-000942
Application 13/043,848
number of environmental parameters, “would suggest a remote controller to
capture/store the multimedia information at the moment, and program the
remote controller with a macro command if needed, for example [to] control
the lighting system or other systems.” Ans. 4; see Krzyzanowski || 154—
175.
Appellants contend that the Examiner failed to adduce evidence that
the combination of Zigmond and Krzyzanowski teaches using state data to
program an “unpause” key of a remote control with one or more commands,
whereupon a subsequent activation of the unpause button of the remote
control will cause said remote control to transmit commands that were
previously assigned to the unpause button, as well as the programmed
unpause command. See App. Br. 6. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’
position and we agree with the Examiner that Zigmond’s “unpause”
command, sent to devices in room #2, causes those devices to match the
settings in room #1. “[implementing the remote controller of Zigmond with
the macro command from Krzyzanowski” would yield “the result of
programming the remote controller with a macro command when user
‘pause’ the multimedia which will record the current multimedia position
and light setting of the room. When the user unpause the multimedia, [the
multimedia playback would resume] at the point it was paused and the light
setting of the room.” Ans. 5—6.
Appellants argue that Krzyzanowski may generally suggest providing
to Zigmond the ability to save a macro when the user pauses content, but
that the Examiner fails to explain how or why Krzyzanowski can be said to
suggest modifying Zigmond such that the remote control of Zigmond will
respond to the “unpause” key by transmitting anything other than the
5
Appeal 2017-000942
Application 13/043,848
unpause command which was programmed to the unpause key when the user
paused the content. App. Br. 7. This argument is also unpersuasive. As
stated supra, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that modifying Zigmond
in view of Krzyzanowski would have suggested the ability to control more
criteria than simply the unpausing of multimedia playback.
Last, we do not agree with Appellants that it is unclear how a macro
key in Zigmond that allows the user to set up control of multiple devices via
macro suggests modifying the unpause command of Zigmond to arrive at the
claimed invention. App. Br. 7. As analyzed supra, we agree with the
Examiner that incorporating the teachings of Krzyzanowski suggests the
benefit of “allowing [the] user to control multiple devices via macro, for
example, in user defined order, the number of devices, the combination of
devices, etc.,” and would provide a macro capability that is not limited to
sequences of commands present in the universal remote control’s code
library. See Ans. 7.
We find 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.
6
Appeal 2017-000942
Application 13/043,848
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Examiner explains how or why Krzyzanowski suggests
modifying Zigmond to arrive at the claimed invention, specifically a remote
control transmitting both a command sequence previously assigned to an
activable key and at least one further command that is determined based
upon state information associated with an appliance and/or a location in
which the appliance resides.
2. The Examiner provides evidence that the combination of Zigmond
and Krzyzanowski teaches using state data to program an “unpause” key of a
remote control with one or more commands, whereupon a subsequent
activation of the unpause button of the remote control will cause said remote
control to transmit commands that were previously assigned to the unpause
button, as well as the programmed unpause command.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—12 is affirmed.
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