Ex Parte Murugesan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

13605079 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 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.
13/605,079 09/06/2012 Si vaku mar Murugesan SA120036-US-NP 7130
36738 7590 03/29/2017
ROrTTT7 fr ASSOPTATRS
EXAMINER
750 B STREET RUSHING, MARK S
SUITE 3120
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2017 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):
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
John@rogitz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SIVAKUMAR MURUGESAN, YUKINORI TANIUCHI,
TARO KANEKO, SRIRAM SAMPATHKUMARAN,
ABHISHEK P. PATIL, and BIBHUDENDU MOHAPATRA
Appeal 2016-008064
Application 13/605,079
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
twice rejecting claims 1—19, all the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to “remote controls (RC) for
controlling audio video display devices (AVDD) such as TVs,” and more
particularly to remote controls for video display devices that use “touch
Appeal 2016-008064
Application 13/605,079
gestures as a solution for ease of operation of entertainment devices” (Spec.
1-2).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A remote control (RC) comprising:
computer readable storage medium with instructions
executable by a processor to configure the processor to:
receive a signal representing a touch on a touch surface;
determine a location of the touch on the surface;
transmit a signal representing the location of the touch to
a video device;
invoke a scroll area on a predetermined portion of the
touch surface responsive to receiving a touch at a predetermined area
of the touch surface; and
responsive to a touch on the touch surface meeting a
period length threshold, present on the video device at least one
banner.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Rl. Claims 1—5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Segal et al. (US 6,765,557 Bl, July 20, 2004) and
Christie (US 2008/0165141 Al, July 10, 2008).
R2. Claims 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Segal, Christie, and Mock et al. (US 2011/0254912 Al,
Oct. 20, 2011).
R3. Claims 9 and 11—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Segal and Ramsdell (US 2012/0119873 Al, May
17,2012).
2
Appeal 2016-008064
Application 13/605,079
R4. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Segal, Ramsdell, and Waites (US 2012/0140117 Al, June
7,2012).
Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claims 1 and 9, as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
§41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
Rejection under § 103(a) over Segal and Christie
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Segal and Christie teaches or suggests “responsive to a touch on the touch
surface meeting a period length threshold, present on the video device at
least one banner,” as recited in claim 1?
Appellants contend “[n]o reference teaches presenting a banner
responsive to a touch on the touch surface meeting a period length threshold,
in contrast to Claim 1” (App. Br. 4). Specifically, Appellants contend
“Christie says nothing about any predetermined period” and “Segal says
nothing about period length thresholds” (Id. ).
As an initial matter, we note that claim 1 does not recite a
“predetermined period.” Rather, the claim recites presenting at least one
banner on the video device “responsive to a touch on the touch surface
meeting a period length threshold.” Appellants’ Specification describes the
“type of touch may be a tap, a click characterized by greater finder [sic]
pressure on the surface than a tap, a double tap, a long push characterized by
3
Appeal 2016-008064
Application 13/605,079
pressure against an area of the surface for a period exceeding a threshold
period, or a pinch” (Spec. 2 (emphasis added); see Spec. 7). As such,
Appellants’ Specification provides possible examples of touches including
touches that exceed a threshold period, without providing further limiting
definition for the claimed “period length threshold.” The Examiner finds the
scope of this limitation encompasses any touch applied to the touch pad that
is registered as the “length of time is some length of time greater than zero”
(Ans. 3). We agree with the Examiner.
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Segal teaches
“some predetermined amount of time that a touch is applied to the touch pad
in order for it to be registered” (Id.).
For example, Segal discloses:
When the operator touches a portion of touch pad 12 the panel
closest to the corresponding touched portion of the touch pad is
highlighted. If the operator moves his finger on touch pad 12
from a first panel towards a second panel the second panel is
highlighted as soon as the operator’s finger is closer to the
second panel than to the first panel. To activate a panel the
operator may either press select button 24 a of remote control 13,
press harder on the touch pad 12, depress hard enough to activate
a switch under the touch pad, quickly tap on touch pad, or the
like.
(Segal col. 7,11. 46—55 (emphases added)). In other words, Segal describes
highlighting a panel based on a touch on the touch pad, and activating a
panel based on a touch or tap on the touch pad.
Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument that
Segal’s touch and tap based highlighting and activation of panels does not
teach or suggest a touch that meets a period length threshold to display a
banner. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Segals’ touch and
4
Appeal 2016-008064
Application 13/605,079
tap based highlighting and activation of panels teaches or suggests
“responsive to a touch on the touch surface meeting a period length
threshold, present on the video device at least one banner,” as recited in
claim 1.
For at least these reasons, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, as
well as claims 2—5 and 7, not separately argued, is sustained (see App. Br.
4).
Rejection under § 103(a) over Segal and Rams dell
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Segal and Ramsdell teaches or suggests “the housing supports, in addition to
the touch sensitive surface, a navigation rocker manipulable to move a
screen cursor up, down, left, and right, a home key, a play key, a pause key,
and a guide key,” as recited in claim 9?
Appellants contend that “Segal’s controller has only the touch pad that
allegedly has portions corresponding to some, but not all, of the enumerated
keys” and “Ramsdell is used for a rocker and for no other keys,” and thereby
“Segal not only fails to teach the enumerated keys as claimed, it also fails to
teach that one or more of the relied-upon ‘keys’ on the controller are outside
the touch pad” (App. Br. 5—6).
Appellants’ argument against Segal separately from Ramsdell does
not persuasively rebut the combination made by the Examiner. One cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
5
Appeal 2016-008064
Application 13/605,079
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981).
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that “the Segal
reference reads on all the buttons except for a rocker” and “Ramsdell is
provided to address the rocker limitation” (Ans. 3).
For example, Segal discloses:
In the relative mode, controller 14 moves cursor 18 on display
screen 16 to the location on display screen corresponding to the
location of the touch on touch pad 12 in response to an operator
touching the touch pad. . .
In general, an operator uses touch pad 12 to highlight a selected
portion of display screen 16. The operator then uses control
buttons 24 to select the highlighted portion of display screen 16.
Control buttons 24 include a select button 24a, an on-screen
control button 24b, a main screen button 24c, an electronic
program guide button 24d, a write button 24e, a type button 24f,
a talk button 24g, a volume mute button 24h, and a power button
24/. . .
While viewing the video program on video programming screen
52 the operator may access an on-screen VCR control panel 80
by selecting an on-screen control button 24b of remote control
13. On-screen VCR control panel 80 includes VCR control
buttons 82 such as “PLAY”, “STOP”, and the like ....
(Segal col. 5,11. 6—9; col. 6,1. 64—col. 7,1. 5; col. 9,11. 30-34 (emphases
added)). Ramsdell discloses:
The keys include a learn activation key 307 (and associate IR
receiver), a power key 308, a mode key 309, a mute key 310, a
volume rocker 311 (volume up and down keys), a channel rocker
312 (channel up and down), a settings key 313, a widget key 314,
a back key 315, and a five way navigation control panel 316 (up,
down, left, right and enter keys).
(Ramsdell 131). In other words, Segal describes key functions to navigate a
screen cursor up, down, left, and right, as well as key functions for a home
6
Appeal 2016-008064
Application 13/605,079
key, a play key, a pause key, and a guide key; and Ramsdell describes the
use of a separate rocker to provide key functionality.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Segal’s key
functions, combined with Ramsdell’s rocker providing key functions,
teaches or suggests “the housing supports, in addition to the touch sensitive
surface, a navigation rocker manipulable to move a screen cursor up, down,
left, and right, a home key, a play key, a pause key, and a guide key,” as
recited in claim 9.
For at least these reasons, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 9 is sustained.
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Segal and Ramsdell teaches or suggests “an input key manipulable to cause
a video device in wireless communication with the RC to change a content
input to a display,” as recited in claim 11?
Appellants contend Segal’s “type” key “could just as well mean a key
to command appearance of a keyboard on which to type” and does not
describe “an input key manipulable to cause a video device in wireless
communication with the RC to change a content input to a display” (App.
Br. 6).
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that “the ‘type’ key is used for
‘input selection’” (Ans. 4).
For example, Segal discloses:
In general, an operator uses touch pad 12 to highlight a selected
portion of display screen 16. The operator then uses control
buttons 24 to select the highlighted portion of display screen 16.
Control buttons 24 include a select button 24a, an on-screen
control button 24b, a main screen button 24c, an electronic
7
Appeal 2016-008064
Application 13/605,079
program guide button 24d, a write button 24e, a type button 24f
a talk button 24g, a volume mute button 24h, and a power button
24i....
(Segal col. 6,1. 64—col. 7,1. 5 (emphasis added)). In other words, Segal
describes control buttons to allow for selecting input including writing,
typing, and talking on the display screen.
Appellants’ Specification does not provide any further limiting
definition for “an input key” or “to change a content input to a display” (see
Spec. 9). Appellants do not define whether “to change a content input to a
display” requires changing the displayed content input or changing the input
itself to input a display. Therefore, the broadest interpretation of claim 11
includes an input key that can cause a video device to change content input
displayed. Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument that
Segal’s input keys to select input of writing, typing, or talking on the display
screen does not teach or suggest an input key to cause the video device to
change content input displayed. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding
that Segal’s input keys to select input of writing, typing, or talking on the
display screen teaches or suggests “an input key manipulable to cause a
video device in wireless communication with the RC to change a content
input to a display,” as recited in claim 11.
For at least these reasons, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 11 is sustained.
Issue 4: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Segal and Ramsdell teaches or suggests “a keyboard coupled to the
housing,” as recited in claim 12?
8
Appeal 2016-008064
Application 13/605,079
Appellants contend “Segal fails to describe a keyboard coupled to the
housing of the remote control” (App. Br. 6).
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Segal’s “on-screen
keyboard would be coupled to the housing” (Ans. 4).
For example, Segal discloses the “display screen may include on­
screen keyboards” (Segal col. 2,11. 60-61). In other words, Segal describes
and on-screen keyboard that is electronically coupled to the display screen.
Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument that
Segal’s electronically coupled on-screen keyboard does not teach or suggest
a keyboard coupled to the housing of the remote control. Thus, we agree
with the Examiner’s finding that Segals’ electronically coupled on-screen
keyboard teaches or suggests “a keyboard coupled to the housing,” as recited
in claim 12.
For at least these reasons, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 12 is sustained.
Issue 5: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Segal and Ramsdell teaches or suggests “wherein the touch sensitive surface
on the housing includes a fast reverse key area on a first comer of the
surface,” as recited in claim 15?
Appellants contend “Segal does not mention ‘fast reverse’ but only
the initials ‘REW’, presumable referring to a VCR rewind capability, which
typically did not include a separate fast rewind capability” (App. Br. 7).
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that there “is nothing in the
claim that would give the term fast reverse a meaning that would exclude the
function of the REW key” (Ans. 4—5).
9
Appeal 2016-008064
Application 13/605,079
For example, Segal discloses:
The operator touches a portion of touch pad 12 to highlight the
corresponding VCR control button 82 of on-screen VCR control
panel 80. For example, the operator touches the middle portion
of touch pad 12 to highlight the “REW” VCR control button 82
of on-screen VCR control panel 80. As the operator touches
different portions of touch pad 12 the corresponding VCR
control buttons 82 of on-screen VCR control panel 80 are
highlighted. In response to the operator selecting a VCR control
button 82 the HE device performs the VCR control function
associated with the selected VCR control button 82.
(Segal col. 9,11. 38—48 (emphasis added)). In other words, Segal describes
VCR control functions performed on the display screen in response to VCR
control buttons highlighted on the touch pad, including an exemplary rewind
VCR control function.
Appellants’ Specification describes a “fast reverse key area 140 may
be defined on a first comer... of the surface” and “[rjesponsive to a user
touch in the fast reverse key area 140, the RC processor sends a signal to a
video device to play content currently being played by the video device in
fast reverse” (Spec. 11). Appellants’ Specification does not exclude the
VCR rewind function “REW.” Appellants’ Specification also does not limit
the definition of the relative term “fast” to any particular speed.
As such, Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument
that Segal’s VCR “REW” function does not teach or suggest performing a
fast reverse function by touching a fast reverse area on the touch surface.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Segal’s VCR control
buttons teaches or suggests “wherein the touch sensitive surface on the
housing includes a fast reverse key area on a first comer of the surface,” as
recited in claim 15.
10
Appeal 2016-008064
Application 13/605,079
For at least these reasons, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 15, as well as claim
16, not separately argued, is sustained (see App. Br. 10).
Appellants have provided no separate arguments towards patentability
for claims 13, 14, and 17—19. Therefore, the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection
of claims 13, 14, and 17—19 is sustained for similar reasons as noted supra.
Rejection under § 103 (a) over Segal, Christie, and Mock
Appellants have provided no separate arguments towards patentability
for claims 6 and 8. Therefore, the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 6
and 8 is sustained for similar reasons as noted supra.
Rejection under § 103 (a) over Segal, Rams dell, and Waites
Appellants have provided no separate arguments towards patentability
for claim 10. Therefore, the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 10 is
sustained for similar reasons as noted supra.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections Rl—R4.
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).
AFFIRMED
11