Ex Parte Guzman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 2012

11820532 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2012)

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. 11/820,532 06/20/2007 Jorge H. Guzman PD-207025 3589 20991 7590 09/26/2012 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION CA / LA1 / A109 2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245 EXAMINER MONTOYA, OSCHTA I ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2421 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte JORGE H. GUZMAN and KIM W. SCHULZE ____________ Appeal 2011-006906 Application 11/820,532 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 4-23 and 25-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2011-006906 Application 11/820,532 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to programming a remote control device with broadcast data (Spec. ¶ [0001]). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative. 1. A method of programming a remote control associated with a set top box comprising: continually broadcasting a remote control configuration database; receiving a first portion of a remote control configuration database at the set top box having a first instruction associated therewith; forming a first screen display in response to the first portion of the remote control configuration database and the first instruction; forming a first selection at the set top box in response to the screen display; thereafter, receiving a second portion of the remote control configuration database at the set top box having a second instruction in response to the first selection; forming a second screen display in response to the second portion of the remote control configuration database and the second instruction; thereafter, displaying programming instructions for the remote control; and operating the set top box with the remote control. Appeal 2011-006906 Application 11/820,532 3 REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4-11, 13-19, 21-23, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Haughawout (US Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0052547 A1, March 8, 2007) and Tessier (US Patent No. 5,629,868, May 13, 1997). The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Haughawout, Tessier, and Hanson (US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0123332 Al, June 24, 2004). The Examiner rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Haughawout, Tessier, and Chiloyan (US Patent No. 6,008,735, Dec. 28, 1999). The Examiner rejected claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Haughawout, Tessier, and Bush (US Patent No. 6,246,400 B1, June 12, 2001). ANALYSIS Appellants contend the claimed invention requires sequential processing. Thus, Appellants assert, the Examiner is incorrect in finding Haughawout discloses receiving a second portion of a remote control configuration database at a set top box having a second instruction in response to the first selection as claimed and that Haughawout sequentially presents options to a user in response to previous instructions. (Ans. 13; App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2). We agree with Appellants that sequential processing is part of the recited claim language as the term “thereafter, . . .” implies as much. That is, claim 1 recites the steps “forming a first selection at the set top box in response to the screen display; thereafter, receiving a Appeal 2011-006906 Application 11/820,532 4 second portion of the remote control configuration database at the set top box having a second instruction in response to the first selection.” Thus the first selection must exist prior to receiving the second portion. (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2). Although Haughawout does disclose some type of sequential inputs it does not disclose receiving a first portion of the remote configuration database in response to the first selection, as claimed (Reply Br. 2-3). We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 21, and claims 4-20, 22, 23, and 25-27, which depend therefrom. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4-23, and 25-27 is reversed. REVERSED tkl