Ex Parte Park et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 12, 2016

12039020 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/039,020 02/28/2008
23373 7590 08/16/2016
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joo-hoon Park
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.
Ql05331 6744
EXAMINER
BARAKAT, MOHAMED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2016 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
sughrue@sughrue.com
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOO-HOON PARK and m-HYUN K0 1
Appeal2014-007928
Application 12/039,020
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1---6, 8-12, 14, and 15. Claims 7 and 13 are canceled.
App. Br. 16, 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-007928
Application 12/039,020
Invention
Appellants disclose a remote controller that displays a menu of one of
a plurality of external apparatuses according to a sensed gripping direction
of the remote controller. Spec. i-f 2.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
representative:
1. A remote controller for controlling a plurality of external
apparatuses, the remote controller comprising:
a display having a touch screen panel;
a sensor, including a geomagnetic sensor and a gravity
sensor, which detects a gripping direction of the remote
controller in which a fore end of the remote controller faces;
a storage unit which stores a control menu, respectively,
for each one of the plurality of external apparatuses;
a controller which extracts, from the storage unit, and
displays on the display, a control menu of one of the plurality of
external apparatuses that corresponds to the gripping direction
of the remote controller sensed from the sensor,
wherein the external apparatus corresponding to the
gripping direction is operated by transmitting control signals,
which are input from the extracted control menu displayed on
the controller, to the external apparatus,
wherein the gripping direction is one of a plurality of
predetermined rotation degrees of movement of the remote
controller with respect to a vertical axis of the remote
controller.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 8, 11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Matsui (US 2004/0121725 Al; June 24, 2004). Final
Act. 2-3.
2
Appeal2014-007928
Application 12/039,020
The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsui and David (GB
2146813 A; Sept. 6, 1983). Final Act. 4--7.
The Examiner rejects claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Matsui and Ouchi (US 2007 /023 63 81 A 1; Oct. 11, 2007).
Final Act. 8
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Matsui discloses a controller that
detects a gripping direction and displays
a control menu of one of the plurality of external apparatuses
that corresponds to the gripping direction of the remote
controller sensed from the sensor . . . wherein the gripping
direction is one of a plurality of predetermined rotation degrees
of movement of the remote controller with respect to a vertical
axis of the remote controller,
as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Matsui's sensor, which
detects the direction of remote control device 500 based on a direction of
gravity and geomagnetism, discloses a controller that detects a gripping
direction (i.e., the direction of remote control device 500). Final Act. 2
(citing Matsui i-f 129). The Examiner further finds Matsui' s construction of
an operation screen for a target apparatus discloses the display of a control
menu of one of a plurality of external apparatuses that corresponds to the
gripping direction of the remote controller sensed from the sensor (i.e., the
target apparatus). Final Act. 3 (citing Matsui Figs. 8A-B, i-fi-172, 129). And,
the Examiner finds Matsui' s detection of the facing direction of remote
control device 500 discloses wherein the gripping direction is one of a
3
Appeal2014-007928
Application 12/039,020
plurality ofpredetermined rotation degrees of movement of the remote
controller with respect to a vertical axis of the remote controller. Final Act.
3 (citing Matsui Figs. 6A-B, i-f 132).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because "Matsui is concerned
with the positional relationship between the remote controller and the
external device being controlled. But the claimed invention is concerned
with the rotational movement of the remote controller with respect to itself."
App. Br. 10. Appellants acknowledge "Matsui controls a device in the
direction where the head of a remote controller faces" (id. (emphasis added))
and that "Matsui determines which apparatus is closest and within an area of
a predetermined angle of the remote controller" (id. at 11 (citing Matsui Fig.
10; emphasis added)). However, Appellants argue "[t]his is completely
different from the claimed invention which controls a device based on how
the controller is gripped." App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 5. We do not
find Appellants' arguments persuasive.
Matsui detects the direction of remote control device 500 based on
gravity and geomagnetism. Matsui i-f 129. Matsui determines which
apparatus is being controlled by identifying the closest apparatus within a
predetermined angle e of the facing direction of remote control device 500.
Matsui i-f 132, Fig. 10. Angle e is depicted in Matsui's Figure 10,
reproduced below:
4
Appeal2014-007928
Application 12/039,020
APPARATUS Y 503
APPAAATUS X 502
Matsui' s Figure 10 depicts remote control device 500, having
predetermined angle e extending outward from the facing direction of the
remote control device, apparatus X 502 being within predetermined angle e,
and apparatus Y 503 being outside predetermined angle e. Matsui i-fi-f 127,
130, 132, 134.
Matsui' s predetermined angle e is based on the facing direction of
remote control device 500 (id. i-f 132), which includes the rotation of remote
control device 500 around its vertical axis (see, e.g., id. Fig. 6A (the rotation
of remote control device 100 around its vertical axis affects which controlled
devices are pointed to by the facing direction of the remote control device)).
Therefore, the rotation of Matsui' s remote control device 500 around the
device's vertical axis limits the apparatuses within Matsui' s predetermined
angle e.
Appellants argue Matsui' s "predetermined angle relates to the relative
position of the external apparatus and the remote." Reply Br. 5; see also
App. Br. 11. However, Appellants' argument is not commensurate with the
5
Appeal2014-007928
Application 12/039,020
scope of the claimed invention, which does not preclude the position of the
claimed remote controller from being used as part of the extraction of a
control menu and which is note limited by an explicit definition in the
Specification of a "gripping direction." Rather, claim I merely recites that
"one of the plurality of external apparatuses ... corresponds to the gripping
direction" and "the gripping direction is one of a plurality of predetermined
rotation degrees of movement of the remote controller with respect to a
vertical axis of the remote controller." Claim 1 does not require that the
same gripping direction always corresponds to the same apparatus, nor that
the corresponding apparatus be "predetermined." To the contrary, the only
element that needs to be "predetermined" in claim 1 is the "rotation degrees
of movement." Thus, the predetermined rotation degrees of movement in
Matsui may vary as the relative position of the remote changes with respect
to external apparatuses. See Matsui i-f 132, Figs. 6A-B. In particular, at any
given location, and for any given longitudinal rotation and lateral axis
rotation of Matsui' s device, the rotation degrees of movement with respect
to the vertical axis of the remote controller that will correspond with a
particular closest apparatus will be predetermined. Therefore, Appellants
have not sufficiently persuaded us of any error in the Examiner's finding
that Matsui discloses the claimed use of predetermined rotation degrees of
movement of the remote controller with respect to a vertical axis of the
remote controller. See, e.g., Matsui i-fi-1128 ("The remote control device 500
... includes a sensor that detects a direction that a head of the case faces."),
129, Fig. 6A; Ans. 12-13.
6
Appeal2014-007928
Application 12/039,020
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that under the broadest
reasonable interpretation, Matsui discloses a controller that detects a
gripping direction and displays
a control menu of one of the plurality of external apparatuses
that corresponds to the gripping direction of the remote
controller sensed from the sensor . . . wherein the gripping
direction is one of a plurality of predetermined rotation degrees
of movement of the remote controller with respect to a vertical
axis of the remote controller,
as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 3 5 U.S. C. § 102(b) rejection
of claim 1, and claims 8, 11, and 14, which Appellants do not argue
separately. Appellants do not raise any additional arguments with respect to
the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections. Therefore, we also sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 2---6, 9, 10, 12, and 15.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8-12, 14,
and 15.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
7