Universal Electronics Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 10, 2022

2020006705 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2022)

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. 16/279,095 02/19/2019 Arsham Hatambeiki 81230.142US3 4791 34018 7590 03/10/2022 Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 W. Wacker Drive Suite 3100 CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732 EXAMINER TRUONG, NGUYEN H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2691 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/10/2022 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 clairt@gtlaw.com jarosikg@gtlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte ARSHAM HATAMBEIKI, JEFFREY KOHANEK, and PAMELA EICHLER KEILES ________________ Appeal 2020-006705 Application 16/279,095 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JASON V. MORGAN, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-6 and 8-11. Claim 7 is canceled. Appeal Br. 5. This appeal is related to appeal number 2014-005267 (application number 12/645,037, decided Apr. 4, 2016), appeal number 2019-000458 (application number 12/645,037, decided Oct. 4, 2019), appeal 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Universal Electronics Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-006705 Application 16/279,095 2 number 2020-002026 (application number 15/902,007, decided July 2, 2020). Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to a controlling device that responses to activation of one of a plurality of switches, caused by movement of a touch sensitive panel resulting from input on a touch sensitive surface, by transmitting a signal to an appliance. Abstract. In particular, the motion and pressure of a user’s finger is translated into navigation commands to be transmitted to the target controlled-device. Spec. 2. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references (only the first named inventor of each reference is listed): Name Reference Date Griesau US 6,507,306 B1 Jan. 14, 2003 Meijer US 2008/0235406 A1 Sept. 25, 2008 Hotelling US 2009/0273573 A1 Nov. 5, 2009 Fisher US 2010/0149127 A1 June 17, 2010 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1-6 and 8-11 as follows: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Citation 1-3, 8-11 103(a) Fisher, Meijer Final Act. 3-7 4-5 103(a) Fisher, Meijer, Hotelling Final Act. 7-9 6 103(a) Fisher, Meijer, Griesau Final Act. 9-10 Appeal 2020-006705 Application 16/279,095 3 ANALYSIS Claim 1, which is representative with respect to claims 1-6 and 8-11, is reproduced below (disputed limitations emphasized and bracketing added). 1. A remote control system for remotely controlling one or more devices and/or a user interface, the remote control system comprising: [1] a remote control comprising: a plurality of user input buttons, at least one of the user input buttons configured to receive a user input event and comprising at least one metal dome and a printed circuit board; a plurality of sensors being coupled to the at least one of the user input buttons of the plurality of user input buttons, the plurality of sensors configured to generate sensor data in response to a user input event being received at the at least one of the user input buttons of the plurality of user input buttons; a memory storing a plurality of command values; and user input event detection logic configured to receive the sensor data and identify whether the user input event received at the at least one of the user input buttons of the plurality of user input buttons was a click event or a touch event, wherein the user input event detection logic identifies that the user input event is the click event based on receiving sensor data indicating that the at least one metal dome is depressed such that it forms an electrical connection on the printed circuit board; and [2] command selection logic configured to include a first one of the plurality of command values in a first control command transmission in response to determining that the user input event received at the at least one of the user input buttons of the plurality of user input buttons was the click event and to include a second one of the Appeal 2020-006705 Application 16/279,095 4 plurality of command values in a second control command transmission in response to determining that the user input event received at the at least one of the user input buttons of the plurality of user input buttons was the touch event. Appeal Br. 10-11 (Claims App.). In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Fisher’s touch pad, which can detect touch events that can be used, for example, to scroll through a list of items, teaches or suggests the command logic of recitation [2]. Final Act. 4 (citing Fisher ¶¶ 38, 42, 130, 132, 138, 140, 141, 153, Figs. 3, 26-29). The Examiner acknowledges that in Fisher this command logic is part of computing device 2542 rather than being part of a remote control, as required by recitation [1]. Id.; Ans. 3. Thus, the Examiner relies on Meijer’s teaching of a controlling device that retrieves command data from memory on the controlling device to transmit to an intended target appliance to teach or suggest moving the command logic from computing device 2542 to Fisher’s input device 2540 (i.e., to a remote control). Final Act. 5 (citing Meijer ¶¶ 14-17, Fig. 2); Ans. 5. The Examiner concludes that modifying Fisher in this manner would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill as a way of enabling “the input device to control an intended target appliance among multiple appliances.” Ans. 5; see also Final Act. 5 (“[t]he motivation would have been in order to enable the remote control to command an appliance in response to [a] touch/click event”). Appellant contends the Examiner erred because rather than disclose generating a command data in response to a detected movement of a touch upon [a] touch pad, Fisher expressly describes that the touch pad can provide location information for an object, such as a finger, in contact with or in proximity to the the touch pad and that this information can be Appeal 2020-006705 Application 16/279,095 5 used in combination with information provided by a movement indicator to generate a single command associated with the movement of the touch pad and, when the touch pad is not moved, that the signals produced by the touch pad can direct movement on the display screen in a direction similar to the direction of the finger as it may be moved across the surface of [the] touch pad. Appeal Br. 5-6. Appellant’s arguments are not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection and therefore are not persuasive. As the Examiner acknowledges, Fisher sends tracking and movement signals from input device 2540 to computing device 2542, which processes the signals to produce command data. Ans. 3. As discussed above, however, the Examiner further relies on Meijer to show that it would have been obvious to move the processing of the signals to input device 2540. Final Act. 5; Ans. 5. Appellant cannot show error in the Examiner’s rejection, based on the combined teachings and suggestions of Fisher and Meijer, by attacking Fisher individually. Appellant further argues that “in Fisher, the program storage area (i.e., memory) is included in the computing device, i.e., the alleged controllable device, instead of being included in the input device, i.e., the alleged remote control.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant contends that it would not have been obvious, in light of the teachings and suggestions of Meijer, to modify Fisher by moving the program storage area from the computing device to the input device because with this modification “computing device 2542 . . . would not recognize [the] transmitted command.” Id. at 4. That is, Appellant contends that because the resulting modification of the input device 2540 of Fisher would render the system described in Fisher inoperable (absent a corresponding modification to the computing device 254[2] Appeal 2020-006705 Application 16/279,095 6 which modification the Office has neither proposed nor alleged is suggested by the prior art), it is respectfully submitted that no motivation exists for modifying Fisher in the manner that is being proposed in the rejection of claim 1. Id. at 5. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because the Examiner specifically concludes that, in light of the teachings and suggestions of Meijer, it would have been obvious to move the functionality of interpreting raw data from computing device 2542 to input device 2540 such that computing device 2542 would receive command data rather than raw data. Ans. 5 (“[a] command value corresponding to a touch event or click event would be transmitted from the input device to the computing device via the communication interface 2554”). As the Examiner correctly finds, computing device 2542 is capable of processing command data. Id. (citing Fisher ¶¶ 145-46, Fig. 29). For example, Fisher teaches that “program storage 2562 can be configured to store information for controlling how the tracking and movement signals generated by the input device may be used . . . to generate an input event command, such as a single button press.” Fisher ¶ 150. Thus, rather than merely interpreting tracking and movement signals, Fisher is also capable of interpreting (i.e., processing) an input event command (i.e., command data). Thus, the Examiner’s findings show that it would have been obvious to modify Fisher so that the command data is generated externally (e.g., by input device 2540) rather than internally (e.g., through use of information stored in program storage 2562). Therefore, contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner’s proffered modification of Fisher would not have rendered Fisher inoperable. Appeal 2020-006705 Application 16/279,095 7 Appellant further argues it is unclear why one of skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the input device 2540 of Fisher to control an intended target appliance among multiple appliances . . . . when it is considered that the input device described in Fisher is already fully capable of being used to control the media player to which it is coupled. Reply Br. 6. We disagree with Appellant that the ability of Fisher’s input device to control a single device undermines the Examiner’s proposed reason for the combination that modifying Fisher’s input device based on the teachings and suggestions of Meijer would have made Fisher’s input device more capable by enabling it to control multiple devices. Ans. 5. The Examiner’s reason has a rational underpinning and is supported by the teaching in Meijer that the functionality added to a controlling device is “for use in commanding the functional operations of one or more appliances.” Meijer ¶ 15 (emphasis added). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the proposed modification of Fisher would have been obvious in light of the teachings and suggestions of Meijer. Appellant also argues that Meijer - at best - would suggest to one of skill in the art that Fisher could be modified such that a first click event would be corresponding to a first command value and a second click event would be corresponding to a second command value as Meijer discloses, teaches, and suggests “an activation for each function key would be corresponding to a particular command value.” Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 7. We are not persuaded of error. Prior art may be read for all that it teaches. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing KSR Appeal 2020-006705 Application 16/279,095 8 Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-21 (2007)). Appellant narrowly construes what would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in light of the teachings and suggestions of Fisher and Meijer. But Appellant does not provide persuasive arguments or evidence to support what Appellant posits are the limits of what would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill. Such speculation does not rebut the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, discussed above, showing that the recitations of claim 1 would have been obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’ 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-6 and 8-11, which Appellant does not argue separately. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 8-11 103(a) Fisher, Meijer 1-3, 8-11 4-5 103(a) Fisher, Meijer, Hotelling 4-5 6 103(a) Fisher, Meijer, Griesau 6 Overall Outcome 1-6, 8-11 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED