Ex Parte Lathrop et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 25, 2012

11343794 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte FREDERICK L. LATHROP, NAZIH H. HAGE, and
CHRISTOPHER W. LARSEN
____________

Appeal 2010-006002
Application 11/343,794
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before KEVIN F. TURNER, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and BRIAN J.
MCNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.

GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of all
pending claims, 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2010-006002
Application 11/343,794

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Invention
The invention is a system comprising a transceiver adapted to receive
signals from any of a plurality of remote controls and logic that operatively
couples to the transceiver. Abstract. The logic enables and disables support
for at least one of the remote controls based on whether an external device
which supports the remote control is coupled to the system. Id.

The Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 13 are independent.
Claims 2-7 and 16 depend from claim 1. Claims 9-12 and 17 depend
directly or indirectly from claim 8. Claims 14, 15, and 18 depend from
claim 13. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A system, comprising:
a plurality of remote controls for controlling the system;
a transceiver; and
logic that operatively couples to said transceiver and that
enables and disables support for signals received from at least
one of said remote controls based on whether an external device
separately controllable by said signals is coupled to said
system.

App. Br. 19 (Claims Appendix).

Appeal 2010-006002
Application 11/343,794

3
Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Kiser US 2004/0181622 A1 Sept. 16, 2004
Ishiguro US 4,751,581 June 14, 1988
Manni US 2004/0027569 A1 March 7, 2002

The Final Rejections
The Examiner made the following final rejections (Ans. 3-10):
1. Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12-18 are obvious over Kiser and Ishiguro,
further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). 35 U.S.C. §
103(a).
2. Claims 6 and 11 are obvious over Kiser and Manni. 35 U.S.C. §
103(a). 1
In rejecting claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12-18, the Examiner relies on Kiser
as teaching a transceiver and logic that enables and disables support for a
remote control. Ans. 3. The Examiner relies on Ishiguro as disclosing logic
that enables and disables support based on whether an external device which
supports at least one remote control is coupled to the system. Id. And the
Examiner relies on AAPA (Spec. ¶[0001], ll.4-6) as disclosing a plurality of
remote controls for controlling the system. Id.
In rejecting claims 6, and 11, the Examiner further relies on Manni as
disclosing logic determining whether an external device is coupled to the

1 Although not explicitly stated by the Examiner, we understand this
rejection to include the Ishiguro and AAPA references applied against
claims 1 and 8, from which these claims depend. This is consistent with
Appellants’ treatment of the claims in their brief, which argues patentability
over all four references. App. Br. 17.
Appeal 2010-006002
Application 11/343,794

4
system by detecting a plug-and-play event associated with the external
device. Ans. 9-10.

Appellants’ Contentions
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-18
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner’s reliance on Ishiguro as
teaching the “logic” limitation of claim 1 and its dependent claims is
misplaced. App. Br. 13. According to Appellants, Ishiguro “teaches
against” logic that “enables and disables support for signals received from at
least one of said remote controls based on whether an external device
separately controllable by said signals is coupled to said system” as is
recited in claims 1-5 and 7. Id. Appellants further contend that according to
Ishiguro disabling a remote control receiver of a monitor when a tuner is
connected to the monitor is described as “undesirable.” Id. at 12.
2. Appellants contend that one of ordinary skill would not combine
Ishiguro with Kiser for that reason. Id. at 13.
3. Appellants further contend that combining Ishiguro with Kiser
would result in logic that prioritizes between simultaneously received
commands as taught by Ishiguro. This differs in operation from the “logic”
described by the claims. Id. at 13-14.
4. Appellants contend that there are several other defects in the
proposed combination of Kiser, Ishiguro, and AAPA. See App. Br. 14-15.
Among these is the contention that the AAPA presents a scenario in which
remote control conflicts can occur due to two transceivers reacting to signals
from a common remote control. Id. at 14. Ishiguro describes this as well,
according to Appellants. Id.
Appeal 2010-006002
Application 11/343,794

5
5. Appellants present additional arguments for claims 2, 8-10, 12, and
13-18. App. Br. 15-17. As to the independent claims (claims 8 and 13)
Appellants’ principal argument is that Ishiguro teaches that disabling a
remote control is undesirable, as in their contention directed to claim 1,
supra. Id. at 15-16.

Claims 6 and 11
Appellants’ contentions as to these claims, which depend from claims
1 and 8, respectively, are similar to those for claim 1, discussed supra. App.
Br. 17. As to Manni, Appellants contend that its teaching of a plug-in-play
technique is not tied to logic that enables and disables support for a remote
control. Id.

ANALYSIS
Kiser
Kiser describes a system for remotely controlling multiple appliances
with a configurable interface for a user. Abstract. A transceiver device
preferably having an infra-red (IR) receiver and transmitters samples and
stores IR remote control signals from a remote control device associated
with an appliance. The transceiver device communicates with a computer
having a user interface program. Id. The user selects an interface and
associates an input action with a sampled IR remote signal so that by
performing the input action, the computer causes the transceiver device to
transmit the sampled signal to the appliance. Id. The system provides the
user with a master remote control system capable of controlling multiple
appliances from a variable, configurable software interface. Id.
Appeal 2010-006002
Application 11/343,794

6

Ishiguro
Ishiguro describes a control system for a television receiver
comprised of a monitor and a tuner that has a plurality of sources of control
commands, such as remote control command receivers, associated with the
television monitor and tuner, respectively. Abstract. A manual control
device or keyboard is associated with the monitor, and a plurality of input
terminals are connected to the control command sources, respectively,
through independent paths. Each input terminal is assigned a predetermined
priority in relation to the other input terminals. Id. The system includes a
controller for selecting one of the control commands in the order of the
predetermined priorities assigned thereto when such control commands are
simultaneously received at the respective input terminals, and for producing
a control signal for the monitor and/or tuner in correspondence with the
selected control command. Id.
Figure 1 of Ishiguro follows.

Appeal 2010-006002
Application 11/343,794

7

Figure 1 of Ishiguro, above, is a schematic block diagram showing a
control system according to an embodiment of the invention and including
television tuner 1; independent television monitor 2; as well as remote
control receiver circuits 3, 8; sensors 4, 9; manual control 10; and remote
control 5. Col. 3, l. 56-col. 4, l. 65.
In describing the prior art under the heading Background of the
Invention, Ishiguro discusses the problem that is caused when a television
monitor and tuner are situated close to each other so that the respective
remote control command receiver circuits are simultaneously within range of
the infra-red light beam from the remote controller. Col. 1, ll. 53-56. In such
situations both remote control command receiver circuits will respond
Appeal 2010-006002
Application 11/343,794

8
simultaneously to a single remote control command. This can cause
interference between the remote control command receiver circuits of the
television tuner and monitor, respectively, and thereby cause difficulties in
affecting remote control television receiver. Id. ll. 57-62.
To avoid this problem, some component-type television receivers
have been provided with a control signal input terminals in the television
monitor designed to be connected to a control signal input from a controller
in the television tuner. In this arrangement, when the control signal input
terminal of the television monitor is connected to the control signal input
terminal of the television tuner, the remote control command receiver circuit
in the television monitor is disabled. Col. 1, l. 64 - col. 2, l. 6. In other
words, remote control of the television monitor through the remote control
command receiver in the television monitor is possible only when the
control signal input terminal of the monitor is disconnected from the control
signal output terminal of the television tuner. Col. 2, ll. 6-12. Also see col.
8, ll. 1-8.

Claims 1-5 and 7
We treat these claims as a group as they are argued together by
Appellants. App. Br. 13-14. We choose independent claim 1 as
representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(1)(vii). The Examiner found each
element of claim 1 in Kiser except the recited “logic,” which the Examiner
found in Ishiguro, and the plurality of remote controls, which the Examiner
found in the AAPA. Ans. 3.
We agree with the Examiner that Ishiguro discloses the claimed logic
that enables and disables support for signals received from a remote control
Appeal 2010-006002
Application 11/343,794

9
based on whether an external device which supports at least one remote
control is coupled to the system as recited in these claims. Ans. 3. As
discussed supra, Ishiguro describes a prior art system wherein the remote
control receiver in the monitor is disabled when the monitor is connected to
a tuner.
The Examiner is correct also in concluding that the mere fact that
Ishiguro presents an alternative to the prior art is not a teaching away as
Appellants contend. See Ans. 11. Also see In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553
(Fed. Cir. 1994): “[I]n general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that
the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely
to be productive of the result sought by the applicant.” (Citations omitted.)
Appellants do not contend that the prior art teaching in Ishiguro of
disabling the remote control receiver of a TV monitor when the monitor is
connected to a separate tuner which includes another remote control receiver
would not yield the same result sought by the claimed invention. Appellants
contend instead that such a technique is described as “undesirable.” App.
Br. 12; Reply Br. 3. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. As the
Examiner correctly observes the Ishiguro reference must be viewed in its
entirety. Ans. 11. We further agree that Ishiguro’s disclosure shows the
conventional way of solving remote control conflicts is by disabling the
remote control command receiver circuit in the television monitor as well as
an alternative to that system using prioritization. Ishiguro col. 8, ll. 8-34.
The fact that Ishiguro refers to the circuits used in the television monitor and
the television tuner in the prior art system as “relatively complicated and
thus expensive” does not amount to a teaching away. Id. col. 2, ll. 14-15.
Nowhere does Ishiguro suggest (and Appellants do not contend) that the
Appeal 2010-006002
Application 11/343,794

10
prior art technique fails to achieve the desired result. See In re Gurley,
supra.
We disagree also with Appellants’ attempt to distinguish Kiser as
lacking the recited plurality of remote controls. App. Br. 14. For this
element of the claims the Examiner relies on the AAPA in Appellants’ own
disclosure, not Kiser. Ans. 3. We are not persuaded by Appellants’
arguments that a person of ordinary skill would not combine Kiser and
Ishiguro. App. Br. 14. We see no error in the Examiner’s reasoning that the
disclosure in Ishiguro of a special circuit for disabling the remote control
receiver in a component television receiver and the AAPA would lead a
person on ordinary skill to combine those teachings with Kiser. Ans. 4. In
summary, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s analysis of these
claims, which is more than adequately supported by the record.

Claims 8-10, 12, and 13-18
For these claims Appellants’ arguments essentially the same as those
presented for claim 1. App. Br. 15-17. For the reasons previously stated we
are not persuaded by those arguments.

Claims 2 and 12
Appellants present an additional patentability argument for these
dependent claims, namely, that the claims define the recited “logic” as a
basic input/output system (BIOS). App. Br. 15, 16. We see no error in the
Examiner’s finding that Kiser teaches a basic input/output system as
claimed. Ans. 15-16. Kiser’s complex programmable logic device (CPLD)
includes a shift register used to store and output the signal pulse patterns of
Appeal 2010-006002
Application 11/343,794

11
the remote controls. Kiser ¶[0015]. In addition the CPLD is connected to an
external memory device and a microprocessor accessing a USB interface to
a personal computer. Id. We therefore agree with the Examiner that Kiser
inherently has a basic input/output function similar to the BIOS of these
claims. Ans. 16.

Claims 6 and 11
Appellants argue that these claims are patentable over the
combination of Kiser, Manni, Ishiguro, and AAPA. App. Br. 17.
Appellants first contend that the claims are patentable for the same reasons
as claims 1 and 8, from which they depend. Id. For the reasons previously
stated we are not persuaded by those arguments. Appellants’ additional
argument is that Manni’s plug-and-play technique is not “tied” to logic that
enables or disables support for a remote control. Id. We are not persuaded
by that argument either, or by the accompanying argument that Kiser does
not teach such logic. Id. The Examiner finds that Ishiguro provides such a
teaching. Ans. 3. Appellants err in treating the references separately. The
relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to those of ordinary skill in light of the combined teachings of those
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).

DECISION

The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-18 is
AFFIRMED.
Appeal 2010-006002
Application 11/343,794

12
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