Ex Parte Pouw et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2018

14055452 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 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.
14/055,452 10/16/2013 Olav B.M. Pouw 81230.148US3 7527
34018 7590
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 W. Wacker Drive
Suite 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
03/19/2018 EXAMINER
MONSHI, SAMIRA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/19/2018 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 OLAY B.M. POUW and PATRICK H. HAYES
Appeal 2017-002961
Application 14/055,452
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-11 and 14-20, which constitute all claims pending in this
application.1 App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Universal Electronics Inc.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-002961
Application 14/055,452
Introduction
According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter relates to an
adaptive user interface on a controllable device (104). Spec. 4, Fig. 1. In
particular, upon receiving a transmission from an identifiable controlling
device (100-102), the controllable device (104) displays an electronic
program guide (EPG) associated with the identified controlling device (100-
104). Id. If, on the other hand, the identity of the controlling device is not
readily ascertainable, the controllable device enters into a default one of a
plurality of EPG display operating modes. Id.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 is representative, and reads as follows:
1. A system, comprising:
a controllable device; and
a plurality of controlling devices each adapted to command
one or more functional operations of the controllable device
wherein the plurality of controlling devices each have a
differing number of input elements to thereby provide each of
the plurality of controlling devices with differing input
receiving capabilities;
wherein the controllable device responds to a received
transmission, having a command for causing the controllable
device to display an electronic program guide, originating from
a one of the plurality of controlling devices by attempting to
determine an identity of the one of the plurality of controlling
devices from which the received transmission originated and,
when the identity of the one of the plurality of controlling
devices is capable of being determined, by using the determined
identity to enter into a one of a plurality of controllable device
electronic program guide display operating modes that has been
associated within the controllable device to the determined
identity and, when the identity of the one of the plurality of
controlling devices is incapable of being determined, by
2
Appeal 2017-002961
Application 14/055,452
entering into a default one of the plurality of controllable device
electronic program guide display operating modes.
Prior Art Relied Upon
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-11 and 14-20 stand rejected on the ground of non-statutory
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. application
No. 13/225,635 in view Bahn et al. (US 2003/0066075 Al, published Apr. 3,
2003) and Ryan et al. (US 2003/0084456 Al, May 1, 2003). Final Act. 5-
10.
Claims 1-6, 9-11, 14-16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Bahn and Ryan.
Final Act. 10-22.
Claims 7, 8, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bahn, Ryan, and Matsuo (US 7,631,192 B1 issued Dec. 8,
2009). Final Act. 22-24.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments as they are presented in the
Appeal Brief, pages 5-21, and the Reply Brief, pages 2^1.2
Obviousness Rejections
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Bahn and Ryan teaches or suggests entering a default EPG
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 24, 2016), the Reply Brief (filed
December 9, 2016), and the Answer (mailed November 4, 2016) (“Ans.”)
for the respective details.
3
Appeal 2017-002961
Application 14/055,452
display mode of the controllable device when the identity of a controlling
device is incapable of being determined, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6-8.
In particular, Appellants argue that Ryan’s disclosure of identifying a default
screen configuration when a control device is not readily identifiable fails to
remedy the admitted deficiencies of Bahn. Id. at 7. According to
Appellants, the default screen configuration described by Ryan is one of a
full-screen or a split-screen display configuration, none of which teaches an
EPG. Id. (citing T| 44-50.)
These arguments are persuasive. At the outset, we note that the
Examiner relies upon Ryan’s teaching of displaying a default preference
screen view when the controller ID is not readily ascertainable to cure the
admitted deficiencies of Bahn. Ans. 5 (citing Ryan 44 48). We do not
agree with the Examiner that Ryan’s disclosure would complement Bahn’s
system for displaying a personalized EPG associated with a particular
controller to teach the disputed limitations. Id. Instead, the proposed
combination of Ryan and Bahn would result in a system that displays an
EPG associated with an identified controller, but otherwise displays a default
display mode when the controller ID is not readily ascertainable. As
persuasively argued by Appellants, Ryan specifically requires the user to
select the EPG after the configuration mode has been entered into. App. Br.
7. Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that Ryan’s disclosure of default
display mode does not teach the default EPG when the controller ID is not
known. Because Appellants has shown at least one reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection, we need not reach Appellants’ remaining arguments.
Accordingly, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 1.
4
Appeal 2017-002961
Application 14/055,452
Because claims 2-11 and 14-20, recite the disputed limitations
discussed above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
the cited claims for the same reasons.
Double Patenting Rejection
Appellants reiterate the same arguments regarding Ryan’s failure to
cure the admitted deficiencies of Bahn. App. Br. 10. Because the Examiner
does not rely upon the co-pending application to cure such deficiencies in
Bahn and Ryan, we are similarly persuaded of Examiner error in the
obviousness double patenting rejection.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-11 and 14-20, as
set forth above.
REVERSED
5