Ex Parte Moses et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

13334625 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/334,625 12/22/2011
23696 7590 11/02/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Daniel Moses
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
111343 5138
EXAMINER
AKHTER, SHARMIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL MOSES, KALIN M. ATANASSOV,
SERGIU R. GOMA, and MILIVOJE ALEKSIC
Appeal2015-007959
Application 13/334,625
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-007959
Application 13/334,625
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1--44. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to "control[ling] a user
interface on a remote control" (Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A method of displaying a user interface on a remote
control, the method comprising:
sending a first command to a multifunction device,
wherein the multifunction device comprises a multimedia
ser\rer, and \'I/herein the first command results in the device
leaving a first functional mode and entering a second
functional mode;
rece1vmg a second command from the
multifunction device, wherein the second command
identifies a first remote control user interface to be
displayed on the remote control from among a plurality of
remote control user interfaces selectable by the
multifunction device, the first remote control user
interface operative to control features of the multifunction
device unique to the second functional mode; and
displaying the first remote control user interface on
an electronic display of the remote control.
2
Appeal2015-007959
Application 13/334,625
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
Claims 1-10, 12-18, and 20-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Roberts (US 2011/0304778 Al; Dec. 15,
2011 ). Final Act. 2.
Claims 11 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Roberts in view of Lau (US 2010/0333135 Al; Dec. 30,
2010). Final Act. 12.
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that
Roberts discloses:
receiving a second command from the multifunction device,
wherein the second command identifies a first remote control
user interface to be displayed on the remote control from among
a plurality of remote control user interfaces selectable by the
multifunction device, the first remote control user interface
operative to control features of the multifunction device unique
to the second functional mode,
as recited in claim 1.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer, Advisory Action,
and Final Action and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding that Roberts
anticipates the limitation of "receiving a second command," as recited in
claim 1. Particularly, Appellants contend that:
3
Appeal2015-007959
Application 13/334,625
a plain reading of Roberts reveals that the disclosures of
paragraph [0028] do not relate to the disclosures of paragraph
[0029] as the former paragraph is directed to features described
within the specific context of Figure 2 . . . whereas the latter
paragraph is directed to describing features in the specific
context of Figure 3 ... -that is, two entirely different contexts
(App. Br. 18).
We do not agree with Appellants' argument. The Examiner finds, and
we agree, that Roberts teaches that:
the requested content may include additional instructions that
may be used to adapt particular key functions, of the remote
control 100, to the requested content. The remote control 100
may receive the instructions to remap particular key functions to
provide a customized remote control interface for the requested
application
(Final Act 3, citing Roberts i-f 28) and that "remote control 100 may include
a touch screen display which may be configured to display images of control
buttons and to receive a user input \'l1hen the user touches the touch screen
display" (Final Act 3, citing Roberts i-f 29; Para. 32). Appellants' argument
that the disclosures of Roberts paragraph 28 "do not relate to" the
disclosures of paragraph 29 are unpersuasive because paragraph 28 begins
with the statement "[i]n implementations described herein," which does not
limit the teachings to only paragraph 28. App. Br. 18. Roberts teaches in
paragraphs 28 and 28 how the remote control 100 is customizable.
Further, we find the Examiner has identified disclosures of Roberts
that relate to each other and are applicable to the remote control shown
in Figure l~ as both paragraphs 28 and 29 reference remote control 1000
See Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC, 683 F.3d 1356,
1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding that, although a prior art reference
4
Appeal2015-007959
Application 13/334,625
discloses a number of different cm11binations of con1pounds for a
che\ving gum composition, one of the combinations anticipates the
challenged claim \vhen the combinations are all meant to be used in a
'---'
single product).
Accordingly, the Exarniner's findings show that the cited portions
of Roberts disclose the limitations of ciairn 1 "without any need for
picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related
to each otheL" In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (Fed. Cir. 1972). We do
not find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, or
independent claims 7, 13, 21, 27, 32, 35, and 40 and dependent dairns 2-6,
8-12, 14-20, 22-26, and28-31, 33, 34, 36-39, 41-44, not separately argued with
particularity 0
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Roberts discloses:
receiving a second command from the multifunction device,
wherein the second command identifies a first remote control
user interface to be displayed on the remote control from among
a plurality of remote control user interfaces selectable by the
multifunction device, the first remote control user interface
operative to control features of the multifunction device unique
to the second functional mode,
as recited in claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--44 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)(l )(iv).
5
Appeal2015-007959
Application 13/334,625
AFFIRMED
6