Ex Parte Anglin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 21, 201312433235 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2013) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation