Ex Parte Hesdahl et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 29, 2010

10874149 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 29, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte PIET BERNARD HESDAHL and AMIRAM LEVI
______________

Appeal 2009-014610
Application 10/874,149
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN C. MARTIN,
and MAHSHID D. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge MARTIN.
Concurring-in-Part and Dissenting-in-Part Opinion filed by Administrative
Patent Judge HAIRSTON.
MARTIN, 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”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-014610
Application 10/874,149

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-25, which are all of the pending claims.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.

A. Appellants’ invention
Appellants’ invention relates generally to remote controls, and, more
particularly, to relaying remote control codes from one location to another.
Specification 1:5-6.2 The invention addresses the problem that there can be
times when signals from one remote, chosen to operate a first device, will
inadvertently operate an unintended second device (id. at 2:7-8).
Figure 2 of the Application is reproduced below.3

2 Citations herein to Appellants’ Specification are to the Application as filed
rather than to corresponding Patent Application Publication
2005/0280551A1.
3 The drawings reproduced herein are amended drawings filed July 19, 2004
Appeal 2009-014610
Application 10/874,149

3

Figure 2 is a block diagram of an exemplary remote control code
relaying system, remote controls, devices, and their interface (id. at 3:5-6).
Remote control relaying system 100 comprises a local IR (infrared) unit 120
located, for example, in a first room, a remote IR unit 140 located, for
example, in a second room, and a network 130 connecting the two IR units
(id. at 4:4-13). System 100 is intended to relay EM (electromagnetic)
control signals from IR remote control 110 to remote device 150-1 (id. at
4:14-15).
This figure shows the possibility that a remote control device 160 intended
for use in controlling a local device 165 might cause (via paths 115-2 and
145-2) an unintended operation of remote device 150-2 (id. 7:9-26). As
Appeal 2009-014610
Application 10/874,149

4
explained below, Appellants’ invention employs a filtering technique to
avoid this problem.
Figure 1 is reproduced below.

Figure 1 is another block diagram of an exemplary remote control
code relaying system, remote controls, devices, and their interface (id. at
3:5-6). The EM signal 180 emitted by remote control 110 includes a header
181, a device code 182, a function code 183, and a trailer 184 (id. at 5:13-
17). EM signal 180 does not, however, include a code identifying the IR
carrier frequency. Local IR unit identifies the carrier frequency of EM
signal 180 and generates a packet portion 195 that includes “frequency
information” 196 (identifying the carrier frequency), a device code 197, and
Appeal 2009-014610
Application 10/874,149

5
a function code 198 (id. at 5:29-6:4). In an exemplary embodiment, each of
frequency information 196, device code 197, and function code 198 is a
binary representation (id. at 6:7-10).
Packet portion 195 is transmitted via network 130 to remote IR unit
140 (id. at 6:3-4, 22), which transmits an EM remote control signal 170
(consisting of a header 171, a device code 172, a function code 173, and a
trailer 174) to the target remote device 150-1 using the IR carrier frequency
identified by frequency information 196 of packet portion 195 (id. at 6:24-
7:3).
The above-mentioned filtering is accomplished by comparing one or
more of the frequency identification, device code, and function code for the
received remote control code with a database containing either permitted or
prohibited frequency identifications, device codes, and function codes (id. at
11:23-13:2; Fig. 4).
B. The claims
The independent claims before us are claims 1, 21, 22, and 25, of
which claim 1 reads:
1. A method for filtering remote control codes in a
remote control code relaying system, the method comprising
the steps of:
receiving a remote control code;
comparing a portion of the received remote control code
with a corresponding portion of a given one of one or more
stored remote control codes; and
Appeal 2009-014610
Application 10/874,149

6
filtering the received remote control code based on the
comparison and frequency information.
Claims App. (Br. 14).4

C. The references
The Examiner’s rejections are based on the following references:
Amano US 4,999,622 Mar. 12, 1991
Jacobson, Jr. (Jacobson) US 6,424,660 B2 Jul. 23,
2002 Stevenson US 2002/0154024 A1 Oct. 24,
2002

D. The rejections
(1) Claims 1-7, 17, 18, and 21-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) for anticipation by Jacobson. Final Action 2, para. 1.
(2) Claims 1-7 and 15-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Jacobson in view of Amano. Id. at 3, para. 2.
(3) Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Jacobson in view of Amano and Admitted Prior Art. Id.
at 5, para. 4.5
(4) Claims 10-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Jacobson in view of Amano, Stevenson, and Admitted
Prior Art. Id. at 5, para. 3.

4 Appeal Brief filed March 13, 2008.
5 The subject matter of the Admitted Prior Art is discussed infra.
Appeal 2009-014610
Application 10/874,149

7
Appellants stated in the Reply Brief that they “hereby withdraw the
appeal” of claims 14 and 18 (Reply Br. 5, points D and E). The rejections of
these claims are therefore summarily sustained.

THE §102(b) REJECTION (CLAIMS 1-7, 17, 18, AND 21-24)
A. The Jacobson disclosure
Jacobson discloses a multi-room wireless (e.g., IR) remote control
system.
Figure 1 is reproduced below.

Appeal 2009-014610
Application 10/874,149

8
Figure 1 is a block diagram illustrating multiple rooms of a residence
each including one of wireless reception devices 110, 112, 114, 116, and
118, which are connected via communication lines 122 to a system
controller 120 (col. 2, ll. 29-41), which is connected to the controlled
devices (not shown) by a communication line 124 (col. 5, ll. 15-30).
Figure 2 is reproduced below.

Figure 2 is block diagram illustrating one of the wireless reception
devices (col. 2, ll. 3-5). Receiver identifier storage medium 206 stores an
identifier or address of the reception device (col. 3, ll. 39-42). In response to
a remote control signal 222, transmit logic 204 transmits both the receiver
identifier and the received command code to system controller 120 via
communication lines 122 (col. 3, ll. 38-44).
Figure 3 is reproduced below.
Appeal 2009-014610
Application 10/874,149

9

Figure 3 is a block diagram of an embodiment 300 of system
controller 120 of Figure 1 (col. 4, ll. 59-62). Receiver 304 receives, from a
reception device 200, signals including a command code identifying the
requested function and the identifier of the reception device (col. 5, ll. 1-4).
When control logic 302 determines that one or more commands are to be
transmitted to one or more components in response to the received request,
control logic 302 forwards the command(s) to transmit logic 306, which
transmits the command(s) to the appropriate component(s) (col. 5, ll. 15-20).
Command database 310 maintains one or more records identifying which
actions, if any, are to be carried out by system controller 300 based on the
received commands (col. 5, ll. 37-39). For example, control logic 302 can
search command database 310 to find a record or records having the same
Appeal 2009-014610
Application 10/874,149

10
receiver identifier and command code as that received from reception device
200 (col. 5, ll. 44-48).
System controller 120 also can provide a verification function.
Figure 5 is reproduced below.

Figure 5 is a flowchart illustrating the steps followed by a system
controller according to one embodiment (col. 6, ll. 48-50). When system
controller 120 receives a request and a receiver identifier from a reception
device (step 505), system controller 120 can optionally identify the location
Appeal 2009-014610
Application 10/874,149

11
of the request (step 510) (e.g., bedroom, living room, etc.) (col. 6, ll. 50-59).

If system controller 120 uses only the receiver identifier to check which
actions are to be performed, step 510 is not necessary (id.). In either case,
system controller 120 checks whether the request is verified (step 515) by
verifying that the qualifications for the request, if any, have been satisfied
(col. 6, ll. 60-63). If the request is not verified, it is ignored (step 520); if it
is verified, system controller 120 issues the command corresponding to the
request to the appropriate component in the identified location (step 525)
(col. 6, ll. 63-67). System controller optionally can issue additional
commands to other components based on the request and the location of the
request (col. 7, ll. 1-3). These additional commands can include, for
example, powering off other components or dimming lights in the same
location as the request or in different locations (col. 7, ll. 3-6).
Regarding all of the subject matter in claim 1 except for “filtering the
received remote control code based on . . . frequency information” (emphasis
added), the Examiner, without challenge by Appellants, finds that “[t]he
incoming . . . remote control code is compared to a database at the controller
120, the remote control code is verified step 515 (inherently by comparison)
and commands ‘not verified’ are filtered based on the comparison and
discarded or ignored.” Final Action 2-3. Regarding the claimed
requirement for “filtering the received remote control code based on . . .
frequency information,” the Examiner found that “[s]ince the receiver listens
for the remote control code on the desired frequency band (IR), the filtering
Appeal 2009-014610
Application 10/874,149

12
only occurs when the remote control code exists on the desired frequency
band and therefore, the filtering additionally occurs based on the frequency
of the desired signal.” Id. at 2, para. 1. We understand the Examiner’s
position to be that Jacobson’s IR receiver 202 inherently provides filtering
based on frequency because it will not respond to at least one frequency that
is different from the frequency it is intended to receive.
Appellants concede that the claim term “frequency information” is not
limited to a “binary representation” of the carrier frequency, as is employed
in the exemplary embodiment described at page 6, lines 7-14 of the
Specification (Br. 6).6 Rather , they assert that “‘information’ is defined as
‘data at any stage of processing’ (See, dictionary.com; emphasis added)”
and argue that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret
‘frequency information’ as data regarding frequency.” (Br. 6.) However,
the quoted definition of “information” on which Appellants rely specifically
refers to a “computer” environment:
8. Computers .
a. important or useful facts obtained as output from a computer by
means of processing input data with a program: Using the input
data, we have come up with some significant new information.
b. data at any stage of processing (input, output, storage,
transmission, etc.).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/information (emphasis altered) (last
visited Sept. 24, 2010). This definition is unduly narrow as applied to

6 The Examiner is therefore incorrect to characterize this interpretation as
(Continued on next page.)
Appeal 2009-014610
Application 10/874,149

13
claim 1, which does not require that the recited “filtering” to the extent
“based on . . . frequency information” be performed by a computer or that
the “frequency information” be used by a computer or in a computation.
We therefore sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1. For the
same reasons, we are sustaining the anticipation rejection of (a) independent
claims 21 and 22, which likewise recite “frequency information” and as to
which Appellants repeat their claim 1 arguments, and (b) dependent claims
2-7, 17, 23, and 24, which are not separately argued. In re Nielson, 816 F.2d
1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The anticipation rejection of claim 18 is
summarily sustained because Appellants have withdrawn the appeal as to
that claim.

THE § 103(a) REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-7 AND 15-25
(JACOBSON IN VIEW OF AMANO)
In rejecting the claims for obviousness over Jacobson in view of
Amano, Final Action 4, the Examiner interprets “frequency information” to
mean a measured frequency value, which is similar to Appellants’ proposed
interpretation of “frequency information” to mean “data regarding
frequency.” Specifically, the Examiner explains that “[f]or this rejection, the
interpretation of claim 1 is more closely tied to the interpretation of claim
19, where the frequency of the received remote control signal impacts the
frequency as a measured value.” Id. Claim 19 recites, in relevant part,

Appellants’ argued interpretation (Answer 7).
Appeal 2009-014610
Application 10/874,149

14
“comparing the received frequency information with frequency information
in the given stored remote control code.”
Figure 3 of Amano is reproduced below.

Figure 3 is a schematic diagram showing remote control signal
formats of various manufacturers. Amano, col. 3, ll. 50-51. This figure
shows, for example, that the control signal of manufacturer A is formed as a
digital signal of 32 bits and that the control signal of manufacture B is
formed as a signal having a constant frequency that is different for each
operation (col. 3, ll. 51-55).
Amano’s Figure 5 is reproduced below.
Appeal 2009-014610
Application 10/874,149

15

Figure 5 is a perspective view illustrating the initial setting state of an
embodiment of Amano’s multi-commander, whose operation is represented
by the flowchart of Figure 6 (col. 5, ll. 28-33). In describing the learning
mode of the multi-commander 20, Amano explains that
the operator (user) places the light emitting portion of the TV
commander 37 toward the front of the light receiving element 34
[Fig. 4] of the multi-commander 20 and depresses a power key 39
of the TV commander 37. Thereupon, the operation of the multi-
commander 20 proceeds to steps 104 to 106, wherein the
manufacturer and the category (TV or VTR [video tape recorder7])
of the apparatus to be controlled are identified by the code pattern
of the control signal corresponding to [switch-0N operation].

7 Amano, col. 2, ll. 52-53.
Appeal 2009-014610
Application 10/874,149

16
Col. 6, l. 63-col. 7, l. 4.8 As explained in describing the multi-commander
circuit details depicted in Figure 4 (not reproduced herein), a light receiving
element 34 converts infrared rays of the TV commander and the VTR
commander into an electrical signal, which is supplied to the central
processing unit 21 through a detecting circuit 35 and an input register 36
(col. 6, ll. 35-39). Thus, when the TV or VTR remote is from manufacture B
and thus emits a signal having a constant frequency that is different for each
operation (col. 3, ll. 51-55), the multi-commander will measure the
frequency.
The Examiner finds that “the universal remote control [of Amano]
measures the frequency and also determines the remote control code from a
teaching remote control signal.” Final Action 4. Based on this finding, the
Examiner concluded that
it would have been obvious . . . to have measured the frequency of
the incoming remote control signal in the Jacobson system to
determine if the incoming remote control signal can be verified in
the verification step of Jacobson since Jacobson wants to repeat
only signals that can be repeated.
Id. We understand the Examiner’s position to be that it would have been
obvious in view of Amano to modify Jacobson so as to measure the carrier
frequency of the received IR remote control signal and to use the carrier
frequency value as one of the verification parameters.

8 In the quotations herein from the references, bolding of the reference
numerals is omitted.
Appeal 2009-014610
Application 10/874,149

17
Appellants deny that combining the reference teachings in the manner
proposed by the Examiner will result in filtering that is based on “frequency
information.” According to Appellants (Br. 6), “[n]either Jacobson nor
Amano, however, disclose or suggest frequency information, as defined in
the present disclosure, or disclose or suggest filtering the received remote
control code based on the comparison and frequency information.”
Appellants have not explained why the recited “frequency information,”
when interpreted to mean “a measured frequency value” (the Examiner’s
definition) or “data regarding frequency” (Appellants’ similar definition),
does not read on Amano’s multi-commander 20 or on Jacobson as modified
so as to “measur[e] the frequency of the incoming remote control signal . . .
to determine if the incoming remote control signal can be verified in the
verification step.” Final Action 4.
For the above reasons, we will sustain the obviousness rejection with
respect to: (a) claim 1; (b) independent claims 21 and 22, which Appellants
treat as standing or falling with claim 1; and (c) dependent claims 2-7, 15-
17, 23, and 24, which are not separately argued. Nielson, 816 F.2d at 1572.
The obviousness rejection of claim 18 is summarily sustained because
Appellants have withdrawn the appeal as to that claim (Reply Br. 5).
Appellants separately argue dependent claims 19 and 20 and
independent claim 25. Claim 19, which specifically calls for comparing
“frequency information,” reads as follows:
19. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step
of receiving frequency information, wherein the step of
Appeal 2009-014610
Application 10/874,149

18
comparing further comprises the steps of:
comparing the received frequency information with
frequency information in the given stored remote control code;
and
when a match occurs between the received frequency
information and the frequency information in the given stored
remote control code, comparing the portion of the received
remote control code with the corresponding portion of the given
stored remote control code.
(Emphasis added.)
Appellants argue that even if the frequency of the incoming remote
control signal is measured, there would be no requirement for frequency
information in the given stored remote control code, let alone any
requirement for comparing the frequency of the incoming remote control
signal with the frequency information in the given stored remote control
code. (Reply Br. 6.) This argument is unpersuasive because using the
carrier frequency value as a verification parameter implies that the detected
carrier frequency value with be compared with one or more stored carrier
frequency values. The rejection of claim 19 is therefore sustained.
Claim 20 reads as follows:
20. The method of claim 1, wherein:
the step of comparing further comprises the step of
comparing the portion of the received remote control code with
a corresponding portion of each of the one or more stored
remote control codes and determining there is no match
between the portion of the received remote control code and a
corresponding portion of each of the one or more stored remote
control codes; and
Appeal 2009-014610
Application 10/874,149

19
the step of filtering the received remote control code
based on the comparison further comprises the steps of:
determining whether the remote control code
should be output or discarded; and
adding the new remote control code to the one or
more stored remote control codes based on the determination of
whether the remote control code should be output or discarded.
(Emphasis added.)
As correctly pointed out by Appellants (Br. 10), the Final Action does
not provide any specific comments regarding the rejection of this claim. The
Examiner’s discussion of claim 20 at pages 15-16 of the Answer merely
repeats the reasoning relied on in the discussion of claim 19 at pages 14-15
of thereof and thus does not specifically address the “determining” and
“adding” steps of claim 20. We therefore are not sustaining the rejection of
claim 20.
Independent claim 25, which reads as follows, recites learning codes
from a user rather than reciting “frequency information”:
25. A method for filtering remote control codes in a
remote control code relaying system, the method comprising
the steps of:
receiving a remote control code;
comparing a portion of the received remote control code
with a corresponding portion of a given one of one or more
stored remote control codes utilized for filtering, wherein said
stored remote control codes are learned from a user; and
filtering the received remote control code based on the
comparison.
(Emphasis added.)
Appeal 2009-014610
Application 10/874,149

20
In identifying the support in their Specification for stored remote
control codes that are learned from a user, Appellants (Br. 7) cite the last
sentence of the following paragraph:
If desired, two sets of stored remote control codes may be
used, where one set defines those remote control codes that should
be output to the network 130, while another set defines those
remote control codes that should be discarded. Remote control
codes that are not in either set could be output to the network 130
or discarded. Additionally, the system 100 could enter a learning
mode and have the user determine whether the remote control
code not in either set should be output or discarded.
Specification 8:20-25 (emphasis added).
In the Final Action (at 7), the Examiner found that “since the user [in
Amano] aligns the appropriate (a chosen) teaching remote controller as an
input to the universal remote controller, then the user is responsible for
which teaching controller is used and therefore, the remote control codes are
learned from a user.” Appellants argue that “the information learned by the
universal remote controller comes from the ‘teaching remote controller’ and
not the user” (Br. 7). We agree with the Examiner’s position and therefore
will sustain the rejection of claim 25.
In the interest of completeness, we will also address the Examiner’s
alternative position that Jacobson in the following sentence teaches stored
remote control codes learned from a user: “The command database 310 is
user-programmable, allowing individual users to store in database 310 the
actions they would like to have occur given a particular request in a
particular room.” (Answer 8-9 (citing col. 4, ll. 59-67)). As an example,
Appeal 2009-014610
Application 10/874,149

21
Jacobson explains that command database 310 can indicate that when a
request to turn on the television is received in a particular room, the lights
are also to be dimmed in that same room (col. 6, ll. 13-16). Appellants argue
that “[a] remote control code is distinguished from the actions that are
performed by execution of the code, as would be apparent to a person of
ordinary skill in the art” (Reply Br. 4). This argument is unpersuasive
because the claim language “wherein said stored remote control codes are
learned from a user” is broad enough to read on learning from a user only a
portion, such as a function code, of a stored remote control code. The
rejection of claim 25 is therefore also sustained on this alternative ground.

THE § 103(a) REJECTION OF DEPENDENT CLAIMS 8 AND 9
(BASED ON JACOBSON, AMANO, AND ADMITTED PRIOR ART)
The rejection of claim 8 is sustained because it is not separately
argued and thus falls with parent claim 1, whose rejection for obviousness is
being sustained. Nielson, 816 F.2d at 1572.
Claim 9 reads as follows:
9. The method of claim 1, wherein:
the step of comparing further comprises the steps of:
comparing the portion of the received remote
control code with a corresponding portion of each of the one or
more stored remote control codes; and
determining that no match exists between the
portion of the received remote control code and a corresponding
portion of each of the one or more stored remote control
code[s]; and
Appeal 2009-014610
Application 10/874,149

22
the step of filtering further comprises the step of
outputting the received remote control code based on the
determination that no match exists.
(Emphasis added.) The Examiner concedes that Jacobson and Amano
compare received signals with a list of permitted signals (and thus require a
match). Final Action 5, para. 4. However, the Examiner found that
Appellants have not traversed the “[Examiner’s] previously taken official
notice that it is equally common in the art that comparison for validation can
compare with a list of permitted codes or alternatively compare with a list of
prohibited list of codes that might be shorter and therefore less time
consuming” and held that that subject matter is now considered to be
Admitted Prior Art pursuant to MPEP § 2144.03(C) (8th ed., rev. 7, July
2008). Final Action 5-6. Appellants’ argument that they “have not admitted
nor validated that the Official Notice is prior art” (Br. 8) is unpersuasive
because they have shown that they “specifically point[ed] out the supposed
errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed
fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art,” as
is required to successfully traverse a taking of official notice. MPEP
§ 2144.03(C).
Appellants also argue that the references and Admitted Prior Art fail
to disclose or suggest outputting the received remote control code based on
the determination that no match exists, as required by claim 9. (Br. 8.) This
argument is unpersuasive because it is clear that the Admitted Prior Art, by
Appeal 2009-014610
Application 10/874,149

23
comparing received codes with a list of prohibited codes, will output the
received code when no match exists.
Appellants, in the Reply Brief (at 5), argue that “a system that only
discards codes that match a prohibition list is not necessarily less time
consuming, even in a system that has a lot of permissible codes (as would be
apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art).” This argument against the
Examiner’s taking of official notice is entitled to no consideration because it
was not necessitated by a new point in the Answer and thus should have
been made in the opening Brief. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473,
1473-74 (BPAI 2010) (“informative”9) (absent a showing of good cause, the
Board is not required to address an argument newly presented in the Reply
Brief that could have been presented in the principal Brief on Appeal).
The rejection of claim 9 is therefore sustained.

THE § 103(a) REJECTION OF DEPENDENT CLAIMS 10-14
(BASED ON JACOBSON, AMANO, STEVENSON,
AND ADMITTED PRIOR ART)
The rejection of claims 10-14 will be sustained because claims 10-13
are not separately argued and thus fall with parent claim 1, whose rejection
for obviousness is being sustained. Nielson, 816 F.2d at 1572. The rejection
of claim 14 is summarily sustained because Appellants have withdrawn the
appeal as to that claim.

9 Designated as an “Informative Opinion” at the following Board website:
http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/decisions/inform/index.jsp.
Appeal 2009-014610
Application 10/874,149

24
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-7, 17, 18, and 21-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) for anticipation by Jacobson is sustained.
All of the rejections of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are
sustained except the rejection of claim 20.
The Examiner’s decision that claims 1-25 are unpatentable over the
prior art is accordingly affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(v) (2009).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Appeal 2009-014610
Application 10/874,149

25
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge, Concurring-in-Part and
Dissenting-in-Part.
I agree with the majority that the obviousness rejection of claim 20
should be reversed, and that the obviousness rejection of claim 25 should be
affirmed. I do not, however, agree with the majority as to any of the other
rejections of record.
The primary reference to Jacobson merely accepts a remote control
signal, adds a command code to the received remote control signal, and then
performs a verification (presumably a filtering) step on the remote control
signal. Jacobson is completely silent as to any type of filtering based on any
type of frequency data or frequency information.
I do not “understand the Examiner’s position to be that it would have
been obvious in view of Amano to modify Jacobson so as to measure the
carrier frequency of the received IR remote control signal and to use the
carrier frequency value as one of the verification parameters” as indicated
supra.
The secondary reference to Amano is directed to programming a
universal remote, and nothing more. Stated differently, Amano, like
Jacobson, is completely silent as to any type of filtering based on any type of
frequency data or frequency information.
With respect to the obviousness rejections that rely on Jacobson and
Amano, the Examiner contends (Final Rej. 4) that Amano teaches that a
universal remote that operates on particular frequencies (e.g., IR) cannot be
programmed by another remote that operates on another type of frequency
Appeal 2009-014610
Application 10/874,149

26
(e.g., RF), and the universal remote will, therefore, not accept the RF signal
from the incompatible RF remote. I believe that the Examiner proposes to
add an Amano-type filter on the front end of Jacobson, and not let any
incompatible remote control signals enter the Jacobson remote control
system “since Jacobson wants to repeat only signals that can be repeated”
(Final Rej. 4).
Appellants argue (App. Br. 6) that independent claims 1, 21, and 22
require filtering based upon two things: (i) a comparison of the received
remote control code with a stored remote control code, and (ii) frequency
information; and that neither Jacobson nor Amano discloses or suggests such
filtering.
Inasmuch as Jacobson as modified by Amano would only teach or
suggest rejecting certain signal frequencies, and would not perform any
comparison based on “stored remote control codes,” I agree with Appellants’
very brief, but accurate argument.

gvw

Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP
Suite 205
1300 Post Road
Fairfield, CT 06824