Ex Parte Nguyen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 12, 2018

14256482 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2018)

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.
14/256,482 04/18/2014 Kimthoa Thi Nguyen 81230.89US3 8952
34018 7590
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 W. Wacker Drive
Suite 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
EXAMINER
BOUSONO, ORLANDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2018 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):
chiipmail @ gtlaw .com
escobedot@gtlaw.com
j arosikg @ gtlaw .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KIMTHOA THI NGUYEN1
Appeal 2017-004740
Application 14/256,482
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, TERRY J. OWENS, and BEVERLY A.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 1 as
unpatentable over Brown (US 6,879,351 Bl, issued April 12, 2005) in view
of Salomon (US 2003/0174072 Al, published September 18, 2003, filed
March 11, 2003) and dependent claims 3, 5, 7, and 8 as unpatentable over
1 Appellant is the applicant, Universal Electronics Inc., which is identified as
the real party in interest (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2017-004740
Application 14/256,482
these references in combination with Garr et al. (US 5,341,166, issued
August 23, 1994). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellant claims a non-transient, computer readable media having
instructions which, when executed by a processing device of a universal
controlling device (100) having a configurable input element and a mode
input element, perform steps for commanding functional operations of one
of a plurality of controllable devices (101, 102) comprising the step of using,
by the universal controlling device, user identity data and an activation
signal of the configurable input element to transmit first and second sets of
command codes from a command code set that have been directly mapped
by first and second users to the configurable input element and the step of
activating the mode input element to place the universal controlling device
into an operating mode to transmit command codes to control functional
operations of the controllable devices and to select the command code set
when transmitting either the first or second sets of command codes (claim 1,
Figs. 1—2).
Further details regarding this claimed subject matter are set forth in
claim 1, a copy of which (taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief) appears below.
1. A non-transient, computer readable media having instructions
which, when executed by a processing device of a universal
controlling device, perform steps for commanding one or more
functional operations of one of a plurality of controllable devices, the
instructions performing steps comprising:
2
Appeal 2017-004740
Application 14/256,482
receiving a signal indicative of an activation of a
configurable input element of the universal controlling device;
receiving user identity data into the universal controlling
device; and
using by the universal controlling device the received
user identity data and the received signal indicative of an
activation of the configurable input element of the universal
controlling device to transmit a first set of one or more
command codes from a command code set that have been
directly mapped by a first user of the universal controlling
device to the configurable input element in response to the
received user identity data being representative of the first user
of the universal controlling device and to transmit a second set
of one or more command codes from the command code set
that have been directly mapped by a second user of the
universal controlling device to the configurable input element
in response to the received user identity data being
representative of a second user of the universal controlling
device wherein the first set of the one or more command codes
from the command code set is different than the second set of
the one or more command codes from the command code set;
wherein the instructions receive a signal indicative of an
activation of a mode input element of the universal controlling
device used to place the universal controlling device into a one
of a plurality of operating modes in which the universal
controlling device is operable to transmit command codes to
control functional operations of one or more of the plurality of
controllable devices corresponding to the mode input element
activated and use the signal indicative of an activation of a
mode input element of the universal controlling device to select
the command code set for use by the universal controlling
device when transmitting either the first set of command codes
or the second set of command codes.
Appellant does not present separate arguments specifically directed to
the dependent claims under rejection (see App. Br. 4—8). Therefore, these
dependent claims will stand or fall with their parent independent claim 1.
3
Appeal 2017-004740
Application 14/256,482
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the
Final Office Action, the Answer, and below.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Brown fails to teach the
claim features relating to user identity data involving first and second users
(Final Act. 6) but concludes that it would have been obvious to provide
Brown with such features in view of Salomon {id. at 7).
Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s proposed combination of
Brown and Salomon but rather argues that Brown contains no teaching or
suggestion of certain features recited in the last two clauses of claim 1 (App.
Br. 4—8).
Specifically, Appellant contends that Brown does not teach or suggest
transmitting first and second sets of command codes from the same
command code set as claimed {id. at 5). According to Appellant, Brown
transmits command codes from different command code sets such as a TV
command code set and a cable box command code set {id. at 6).
In response, the Examiner expressly interprets all of Brown’s function
classes (e.g., a power class, a channel change class, a volume change class)
as constituting an overall command code set (Ans. 4). Under this
interpretation, the command codes transmitted by Brown are from the same
overall command code set as required by claim 1. Significantly, Appellant
does not address, and therefore does not show error in, the Examiner’s
interpretation {see, e.g., Reply Br. 2—3). Furthermore, Appellant does not
4
Appeal 2017-004740
Application 14/256,482
explain why the proposed modification of Brown with Salomon would fail
to yield the claim 1 feature of transmitting first and second sets of command
codes mapped by first and second users from the same command code set.
In addition, Appellant references the Examiner’s citation on page 3 of
the Final Office Action to Brown’s disclosure at column 5, lines 13—20, and
argues this disclosure relates to a configuration/programming process rather
than the operating mode feature of claim 1 (App. Br. 5—6).
Contrary to Appellant’s belief, the claimed operating mode feature is
discussed on pages 4—6, not page 3, of the Final Office Action and includes
citations to Brown’s disclosures in column 6, line 64, through column 7, line
13 (Final Act. 5). Appellant fails to explain why these disclosures in
columns 6 and 7 of Brown do not teach the operating mode feature recited in
the last clause of claim 1.
Appellant further contends that “Brown discloses that only a single
command code from a one of the code sets may be assigned to a
‘configurable key’ during the configuration process” (App. Br. 6 (citing
Brown col. 4,11. 53—54)) and that “activating an operating mode key of the
universal remote control [of Brown] while the universal remote control is an
operational state [sic] functions to deselect the command code/command
code set that was otherwise associated with a configurable key during the
configuration process” {id. (citing Brown col. 5,11. 35—37)).
Appellant’s contention lacks persuasive merit. The cited disclosure of
Brown at column 4, lines 53—54, that “the remote control unit is
5
Appeal 2017-004740
Application 14/256,482
programmed for each of the classes once” does not support Appellant’s
proposition that a configurable key of Brown may be assigned only a single
command code. Moreover, Appellant once again fails to explain why the
uncontested modification of Brown with Salomon would not yield the claim
1 feature wherein the configurable input element is assigned first and second
sets of command codes that have been directly mapped by first and second
users to the configurable input element. As for the cited disclosure of
Brown at column 5, lines 35—37, that “pressing any target button deactivates
the programmed association,” this disclosure relates to a temporary
deactivation when needed under certain situations which is explained more
fully in the paragraph bridging columns 5 and 6 of Brown. Such disclosure
in no way undermines the Examiner’s determination that the proposed
modification of Brown with Salomon would have resulted in the features
recited in the last two clauses of claim 1.
For the above-stated reasons and those given by the Examiner,
Appellant fails to reveal error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
The decision of the Examiner 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).
AFFIRMED
6