Ex Parte Xu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 26, 2016

12491688 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/491,688 0612512009 Rex Xu
34018 7590 08/30/2016
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
77 WEST WACKER DRIVE
SUITE 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
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.
81230.137US1 5870
EXAMINER
HO,RUAYL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2016 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):
j arosikg@gtlaw.com
chiipmail@gtlaw.com
escobedot@gtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte REX XU and CESAR ALVARADO
Appeal2014-007712
Application 12/491,688
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of Claims 1-9, and 12-18. App. Br. 1. Claims
10 and 11 have been withdrawn. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Universal Electronics Inc., as the real party in
interest. Br. 3.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Feb. 26, 2014, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief
(filed July 1, 2014, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed May 9,
2014, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed Sep. 9, 2013, "Final Act."), and the
Specification (filed June 6, 2009, "Spec.") for their respective details.
Appeal2014-007712
Application 12/491,688
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a method to configure a macro command
sequence used by a controlling device to command functions of one or more
target devices.
See App. Br. 2.
Claims 1 and 9 are independent. An understanding of the invention
can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced
below with some formatting added:
1. A method for configuring a macro command sequence
for use by a controlling device having programming for
commanding functions of one or more target devices,
compnsmg:
displaying in a display an image of an original equipment
manufacturer remote control device that is provided with at
least one of the one or more target devices where each
displayed image of the original equipment manufacturer remote
control device includes images of buttons that would be used to
control controllable fi1nctions of a corresponding one of the one
or more target devices;
accepting a first input by which one or more of the
displayed images of buttons of the displayed image of the one
or more of the original equipment manufacturer remote control
devices are selected; and
using the selection of the one or more displayed images
of buttons of the displayed image of the one or more of the
original equipment manufacturer remote control devices to
configure a macro button of the controlling device whereupon
activation of the macro button will cause a transmission of
commands from the controlling device to control controllable
functions of the one or more target devices that correspond to
the selected one or more of the displayed images of buttons of
the displayed one or more images of the original equipment
manufacturer remote control devices.
2
Appeal2014-007712
Application 12/491,688
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Muto et al.
Scott et al.
US 2005/0220038 Al
US 2006/0050142 Al
Oct. 6, 2005
Mar. 9, 2006
The following claims are before us for review:
1. Claims 1--4, 7-9, 12-14, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§102(e) as anticipated by Scott. Final Act. 4--7.
2. Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
obvious over Scott and Muto. Final Act. 7-8.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-9 and 12-18 in light of
i~\1ppellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. Upon consideration of the
arguments presented in the Appeal Brief, we are not persuaded that
Appellants have shown that the Examiner has erred. We provide the
following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and
findings primarily for emphasis.
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1AND9: ANTICIPATION BY SCOTT
OEM remote control
Appellants contend Scott fails to disclose "displaying in a display an
image of an original equipment manufacturer remote control device," as
recited in independent Claims 1 and 9. App. Br. 6-7. Specifically,
Appellants argue Scott discloses a system which displays an image, not of an
3
Appeal2014-007712
Application 12/491,688
OEM remote that "comes with" a device, but of a universal remote control
that is in the process of being configured. App. Br. 7-8. Thus, Appellants
contend Scott does not disclose the exact, claimed invention as is required
under§ 102. Id.
The Examiner interpreted "original equipment manufacturer remote
control device" to mean a remote control that comes with a device such as a
DVD or TV. Final Act. 3; Ans. 7. Appellants have not shown this
interpretation is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the
Specification. We note that Appellants' Specification states "in instances
where exact image data is not available for the particular OEM remote
control associated with the currently selected configured target device, a
closest match image, a generic image, a drop-down list of available
command function names, etc. may be substituted as necessary." Spec. 10.
The plain language of claim 1 is not limited to "exact image data" for an
OEM remote control device, and thus the disputed term is sufficiently broad
also to encompass "a closest match image, a genenc image, [and] a drop-
down list of available command function names," as described in the
Specification. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's reasonable interpretation
of "original equipment manufacturer remote control device."
We also agree that Scott discloses the disputed limitation. Figure 10
shows that in response to selecting the Samsung DVD Transport icon 700"
the Project View window 904 displays an image of DVD controls (DVD
Transport) that come with a DVD device. Final Act. 3 (citing Scott Figs.
10-14); Scott Figs. 9, 10; i-f 45. Moreover, Scott discloses that "the list of
commandable functions for a given appliance to be displayed may be
selected from a drop down list 916." Final Act. 4 (citing Scott Fig. 10, i-f
45).
4
Appeal2014-007712
Application 12/491,688
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Scott
discloses "an image of an original equipment manufacturer remote control
device," recited in Claims 1 and 9. Appellants contend the dependent claims
are patentable for the reasons advanced in favor of the independent claims.
See App. Br. 9--11. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of
Claims 1--4, 7-9, 12-14, 17, and 18. We also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1--4, 7-9, 12-14, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. §103 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).
AFFIRMED
5