Ex Parte Anglin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 21, 2013

12433235 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
12/433,235 04/30/2009 Howard Neil Anglin AUS920080803US1 8659
46129 7590 05/21/2013
IBM CORPORATION
C/O DARCELL WALKER, ATTORNEY AT LAW
P. O. Box 25048
HOUSTON, TX 77265
EXAMINER
HAIEM, SEAN N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/21/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte HOWARD NEIL AGLIN, KANDAGATIA CHAITANYA,
EMILY JANE RATLIFF, ELIZABETH SILVIA, and YVONNE MARIE
YOUNG
____________________

Appeal 2012-009349
Application 12/433,235
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES,
and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-009349
Application 12/433,235

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-8 and 10-20 (App. Br. 2). Claim 9 has been canceled (id.). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a network enabled remote control
system having controls that detect the physical movements of the remote
control devices, including a primary remote control device and one or more
secondary remote control devices that have motion-sensing capabilities
which detects motion of the control device (Abstract).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for selection of tuning control options from a
remote control device capable of detecting remote control movements
that correspond to tuning option selections comprising:

creating a remote control device profile for each secondary
remote control device, the profile defining control limitations for each
remote control device;

detecting a movement of a secondary remote control device;

determining whether the detected movement is for a command
for a tuning option selection;

when the determination is that the movement is for a command
for a tuning option selection, determining whether the movement is
for a channel access request;
Appeal 2012-009349
Application 12/433,235

3
when the determination is that the movement is for a channel
access request, determining whether the channel access request is a
for a specifically identified channel;

when the determination is that the access attempt is for a
specific channel, identifying the specific secondary remote control
device making the access attempt;

identifying the program channel that is the target of the access
attempt; and

determine whether the secondary remote control device making
the access is allowed to access the program channel that is the target
of the access attempt.

C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Marvit US 2005/0212911 A1 Sep. 29, 2005
Hoffberg US 2007/0053513 A1 Mar. 8, 2007
Pittard US 2008/0297369 A1 Dec. 4, 2008

Claims 1-8 and 10-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Pittard in view of Marvit and Hoffberg.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of Pittard, Marvit, and Hoffberg teaches or
would have suggested “determining whether the secondary remote control
Appeal 2012-009349
Application 12/433,235

4
device making the access is allowed to access the program channel that is
the target of the access attempt” (claim 1, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Pittard
1. Pittard discloses a remote control system having satellite
control devices (30, 32, 34, 36, and 38) that communicate with a central
remote control 20 (¶¶ [0013]-[0014]).
Hoffberg
2. Hoffberg discloses a device for identifying a program in
response to user preference data and program control information; wherein,
a user may defining ‘like’ and ‘dislike’ preferences to avoid or filter
unwanted program content (¶ [1212]). In addition, the device may user this
data for censoring or parental screening (id.).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1-8 and 10-20
Appellants contend that “there is no suggestion or teaching that the
combined references of Pittard, Marvit and Hoffberg will produce the
limitation of determining whether the secondary remote control device
making the access is allowed to access the program channel that is the target
of the access attempt” (App. Br. 6).

Appeal 2012-009349
Application 12/433,235

5
However, the Examiner notes that he “relied on Hoffberg for the
parental access control to a channel (to be combined with Pittard)” (Ans. 3).
Accordingly, the Examiner finds that “[t]he combination of the ‘parental
control access to channels taught by Hoffberg’ and the ‘primary and
secondary remote controls’ disclosed by Pittard” disclose all claimed
limitations of the claims (Ans. 4).
Pittard discloses a remote control system having satellite control
devices that communicate with a central remote control (FF 1). We find that
satellite control devices represent the secondary remote control devices.
In addition, Hoffberg discloses a device that identifies a program in
response to a user preference data and program control information;
wherein, the user preference data and program control information may be
used to prevent the viewing of censored programming (FF 2). We find that
the device’s feature which uses this user preference data and program
control information includes a step of determining whether a remote control
device attempting to access a program channel has the access rights to watch
the program channel.
Accordingly, we find that the combination of Pittard, Marvit, and
Hoffberg at least suggests providing a method for selection of turning
control options from a remote control device including the step of
“determining whether the secondary remote control device making the
access is allowed to access the program channel that is the target of the
access attempt” (claim 1).
We therefore find that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pittard in view of
Marvit and Hoffberg. Further, independent claims 12 and 17 having similar
Appeal 2012-009349
Application 12/433,235

6
claim language and claims 2-8, 10, 11, 13-16, and 18-20 (depending from
claims 1, 12, and 17) which have not been argued separately, fall with claim
1.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

pgc