Ex Parte Smith

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 18, 2018

14507923 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/507,923 10/07/2014
26833 7590 10/22/2018
ROBERTS. SMITH
1131-0 TOLLAND TURNPIKE
SUITE 306
MANCHESTER, CT 06042
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Maurice Smith
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.
SK10382 9779
EXAMINER
KHALID, OMER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/22/2018 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):
smithlaw@cox.net
smithlaw3@gmail.com
smith@i-p-counsel.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAURICE SMITH
Appeal2018-002967
Application 14/507 ,923 1
Technology Center 2400
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims
1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's invention relates to a universal remote control for a television.
Spec. 1: 13-14.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Maurice Smith. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-002967
Application 14/507,923
Claims 1 and 1 7 are independent. Claim 1 is representative and is
reproduced below.
1. A remote control assembly comprising:
a base unit configured to support a television;
a base processor coupled to said base unit;
a base transceiver coupled to said base unit, said base
transceiver being operationally coupled to said base processor;
an input coupled to said base unit, said input being
operationally coupled to said base processor, said input being in
communication with a signal source;
an output coupled to said base unit, said output being
operationally coupled to said base processor, said output being
in communication with the television such that the television
receives a signal from the signal source;
an optical drive, said optical drive being coupled to a front side
of an outer wall of said base unit, said optical drive being
electrically coupled to said base processor;
a remote unit;
a remote processor coupled to said remote unit;
a remote transceiver coupled to said remote unit, said remote
transceiver being in communication with said base transceiver;
a plurality of actuators coupled to said remote unit, said
actuators being operationally coupled to said remote processor
such that said actuators are configured to issue a plurality of
commands to said remote processor; and
a display coupled to said remote unit, said display being
operationally coupled to said remote processor such that said
display is configured to issue a plurality of commands to said
remote processor when a user touches said display, said remote
processor communicating the commands to said base processor
2
Appeal2018-002967
Application 14/507,923
such that the television responds to the commands, said display
displaying programming options with respect to the television
such that the user may observe the programming options
without interrupting a program displayed on the television.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hardacker (US 2008/0186410 Al; published Aug. 7, 2008) and
Widmer (US 2010/0053876 Al; published Mar. 4, 2010). Final Act. 2-10.
Issue
Appellant's arguments present us with the following issue: Did the
Examiner err in finding the combination of Hardacker and Widmer teaches or
suggests an optical drive coupled to the base unit and electrically coupled to the
base processor, as required in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites "an optical drive, said optical drive being coupled to a front
side of an outer wall of said base unit, said optical drive being electrically coupled
to said base processor." App. Br. 16, Claims App'x.
The Examiner finds that Hardacker teaches a remote control assembly with a
charging station (base unit) and a CPU (base processor) in communication with a
television and peripheral devices. Final Act. 2--4, 10-11; Ans. 2--4, 10; Hardacker
Figs. 1, 2, 4, 7; see also Hardacker ,r,r 26, 33. The Examiner finds that Hardacker
does not explicitly teach "an optical drive, said optical drive being coupled to a
front side of an outer wall of said base unit, said optical drive being electrically
coupled to said base processor," as recited in claim 1, but relies on Widmer for
teaching a docking module containing an optical drive. Final Act. 4; Ans. 4.
3
Appeal2018-002967
Application 14/507,923
According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious in view of Widmer to add
an optical drive to Hardacker's charging station to provide the user with an
accessible option of playing a CD or DVD. Final Act. 4; Ans. 4, 10. The
Examiner also cites Yasumura (US 2013/0121124 Al; published May 16, 2013) as
evidence to support the finding that an optical drive could be electrically coupled
via USB as a peripheral device to Hardacker's charging station. Adv. Act. 2;
Ans. 10; see Yasumura ,r 18.
Appellant contends there is no support for the Examiner's finding that
Widmer teaches "an optical drive, said optical drive being coupled to a front side
of an outer wall of said base unit, said optical drive being electrically coupled to
said base processor." App. Br. 10. Appellant's argument is unpersuasive because
it only addresses Widmer, whereas the Examiner relies on a combination of
Widmer and Hardacker for teaching this limitation. Appellant cannot establish
nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on
a combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner finds that connecting Widmer' s optical drive as a peripheral
device electrically coupled via USB to the base processor in Hardacker' s base unit
teaches or suggests "an optical drive, said optical drive being coupled to a front
side of an outer wall of said base unit, said optical drive being electrically coupled
to said base processor." Final Act. 4; Ans. 10. Appellant's conclusory statement
that Widmer does not disclose the recited optical drive does not address the
Examiner's proposed combination of Hardacker and Widmer, further supported by
Yasumura. Moreover, we note that Hardacker Figure 1, relied upon by the
Examiner, teaches peripheral devices that "may include, but are not limited to,
various types of video cameras, digital still cameras, personal digital assistants
4
Appeal2018-002967
Application 14/507,923
(PD As), portable audio player devices, cellular telephones, portable video players,
and laptop computers." Hardacker ,r 28 (emphasis added); see also Hardacker
,r,r 26, 27, Fig. 1. As such, Hardacker teaches optical drives. Accordingly,
Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Hardacker and Widmer teaches or suggests "an optical drive, said optical drive
being coupled to a front side of an outer wall of said base unit, said optical drive
being electrically coupled to said base processor," as required in claim 1.
Appellant further contends the Examiner's obviousness conclusion is based
on speculation and not evidence. App. Br. 13. Rejections based on obviousness
must be supported by "some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398,418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to combine Widmer's teaching of an optical drive with Hardacker's
system to provide the user with the option of an optical drive if the primary device
does not have one. Final Act. 4; Ans. 4. The Examiner further concludes the
combination would have been obvious because it produces predictable results.
Ans. 11. We find the Examiner's statements to be sufficient reasoning with
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness because a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the benefits that an
optical drive provides to a user, i.e., the ability to play media stored on DVDs and
CDs. When the teachings of the references are combined as proposed by the
Examiner, the combination would do no more than yield predictable results of an
optical drive coupled to a base unit and electrically coupled to a base processor.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Because Appellant has not addressed the Examiner's
articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to combine the references or
5
Appeal2018-002967
Application 14/507,923
shown why the combination would not produce predictable results, Appellant has
not demonstrated Examiner error.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of error and sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1. Independent claim 17 recites similar limitations
as claim 1, and Appellant presents the same arguments for it. See App. Br. 10.
Claims 2-16 depend from claim 1. App. Br. 16-19, Claims App'x. Appellant
does not present separate arguments for claims 2-16. App. Br. 6. Thus, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-17 for the same reasons as set forth above for
claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-17 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