Ex Parte Javvaji et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 23, 2017

13542418 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2017)

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.
13/542,418 07/05/2012 Shashikiran Javvaji P2008-07-0013.1 4993
84577 7590 01/25/2017
T owe frraham Tones; PT T .P
EXAMINER
701 Fifth Avenue HUYNH, AN SON PHI
Suite 4800
Seattle, WA 98104 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/25/2017 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):
patentdocketing@lowegrahamjones.com
IPDEPT @echostar.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHASHIKIRAN JAVVAJI and WILLIAM J. IVANICH
Appeal 2016-002491
Application 13/542,418
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, ERIC B. CHEN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE and enter a NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Appeal 2016-002491
Application 13/542,418
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to selecting a media channel. Spec.
3^4. Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of operating a media control system comprising:
detecting a first numeric user input, wherein the first
numeric user input is defined by an amount of time that the first
numeric user input is pressed;
determining that the first numeric user input corresponds
to a first numeral when the amount of pressed time of the first
numeric user input is less than a predetermined amount of time;
determining that the first numeric user input corresponds
to a first set of alphabetic letters when the amount of pressed time
of the first numeric user input is at least equal to the
predetermined amount of time;
processing the first numeric user input to identify the first
set of alphabetic letters in response to determining that the first
numeric user input corresponds to the first set of alphabetic
letters;
selecting a first plurality of media channel names based on
the identified first set of alphabetic letters, wherein each of the
first plurality of media channel names begins with a first
alphabetic letter corresponding to one of the alphabetic letters of
the identified first set of alphabetic letters;
generating a first signal configured to drive a display,
wherein the display presents at least the first plurality of media
channel names;
detecting a second numeric user input after detecting the
first numeric user input;
2
Appeal 2016-002491
Application 13/542,418
determining that the second numeric user input
corresponds to a second set of alphabetic letters and does not
correspond to a second numeral associated with the second set
of alphabetic letters responsive to determining the first numeric
user input corresponds to the first set of alphabetic letters',
processing the second numeric user input to identify the
second set of alphabetic letters associated with the second
numeric user input;
selecting a second plurality of media channel names from
the first plurality of media channel names, wherein each of the
second plurality of media channel names have a first alphabetic
letter that corresponds to the first set of alphabetic letters
followed by a second alphabetic letter that corresponds to one of
the alphabetic letters of the second set of alphabetic letters; and
generating a second signal configured to drive a second
display, wherein the second display presents at least the second
plurality of media channel names.
REJECTIONS1
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Robarts et al. (US 2005/0278741 Al; published Dec. 15,
2005) (“Robarts”), either Goodman (US 2003/0023420 Al; published Jan.
30, 2003) or Wen (US 4,825,464; issued Apr. 25, 1989), and Jellicoe (US
2005/0062619 Al; published Mar. 24, 2005). Final Act. 5—19.
1 In the Final Action, the Examiner rejects claims 1—20 on the grounds of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1—23 of Javvaji et al. (US 8,225,356 B2 (issued July 17, 2017)).
Final Act. 20—21. Although the Examiner has not withdrawn this rejection
in the Answer (see Ans. 2), we note Appellants filed a terminal disclaimer
on April 3, 2015, which was approved on April 8, 2015. Accordingly, we do
not address this rejection.
3
Appeal 2016-002491
Application 13/542,418
ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Robarts,
either Goodman or Wen, and Jellicoe teaches or suggests “determining that
the second numeric user input corresponds to a second set of alphabetic
letters and does not correspond to a second numeral associated with the
second set of alphabetic letters responsive to determining the first numeric
user input corresponds to the first set of alphabetic letters,” as recited in
independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 11
and 13?
Issue 2\ Has the Examiner shown the combination of Robarts, either
Goodman or Wen, and Jellicoe teaches or suggests “a remote control,
comprising ... a remote control interface configured to ... ; and a remote
control processing system configured to ... , wherein the remote control
processing system is further configured to . . . transmit the first signal from
the remote control. . . transmit the second signal from the remote control; a
media control system, comprising: a receiver configured to receive the first
signal and the second signal from the remote control,” as recited in
independent claim 13? Appellants contend the combination, as proposed by
the Examiner,
results [in] a system which has a variety of input modes (the
‘alpha’ key mode of Wen, plus the single-tap or multiple tap
mode of Goodman, plus the toggle period of Jellicoe)[, but this
modified Robarts system] still does not provide a mode of
operation wherein a second user input is identified as a second
set of alphabetic letters [if the first user input has been actuated
(pressed) for at least the predefined amount of time, thereby
designating the first user input as an alphabetic letter, and not a
numeral]. That is, the further modified Roberts system does not
determine that the second user input is an alphabetic letter in
4
Appeal 2016-002491
Application 13/542,418
response to determining that the first user input corresponds to
the first set of alphabetic letters[.]
App. Br. 12—13. Appellants argue “the phrase ‘responsive to’ defines an
essential cause/response relationship between a stimulus and a response.”
Id. at 14. Therefore, according to Appellants:
after the cause/response relationship has occurred (wherein the
pressed time of the first numeric user input exceeds the
predetermined amount of time so as to determine that the first
numeric user input corresponds to a first set of alphabetic letters),
the second numeric user input is then automatically known to be
the second set of alphabetic letters.
Id. at 15.
The Examiner finds Jellicoe teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation. Ans. 19; Final Act. 9. The Examiner also finds the combination
of Robarts with Goodman or Wen teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation. Ans. 19, 21—22; Final Act. 8.
Robarts describes an electronic program guide (“EPG”) that allows a
viewer to enter data from a keypad for both channel numbers and letters.
Robarts 1105. When the viewer presses individual keys, the EPG does not
know if the viewer intends to press a number or letter. Id. at 1106. For
each key pressed, the EPG constructs a query which interprets the data as
possibly representing a number or one of the letters associated with the
numeric key and executes the query to identify any EPG data item that
satisfies the query. Id. As the viewer continues to enter data, the EPG
constructs and executes queries to continuously narrow the list. Id.; see id.
at 1122 (after the viewer presses the “2” key, “[t]he EPG constructs a query
for all EPG items in the first list having a next digit beginning with ‘2,’ ‘A,’
‘B,’ or‘C.’”).
5
Appeal 2016-002491
Application 13/542,418
Goodman describes using numeric keys on a keypad to enter a
number sequence corresponding to a word. Goodman 125. For each letter
the user wishes to enter, the user presses the numeric key corresponding to
the letter. Id. The device employs a word-determining logic, which is
designed to determine the word or words corresponding to the numeric key
input. Id. For example, the sequence “43556” may correspond to the word
“hello.” Id.
Wen describes two types of data entry in a telephone device, TYPE A
and TYPE B. Wen col. 3:12—col. 5:58. In TYPE A, the entry selection is
performed by using a “circulatory” input method, whereby when only
numerals are used, each key is pressed one time. Id. at col. 3:58—61.
However, when alphabetical letters and numerals are to be entered at the
same time, each letter marked key is pressed one or several times to
respectively represent the letters and numbers in sequence. Id. at col. 3:61—
65. In TYPE B, only alphabetical letters are entered. Wen col. 4:33—35.
Wen also describes a function ALPHA key, for use with entry of
alphabetical letters and numerals. Id. at col. 4:58—68.
Jellicoe describes a keypad on an electronic device and use of a
“toggle period” to determine whether entry of a number or a character is
intended. Jellicoe 138. If the switch is held for less than the toggle period,
a number associated with the switch is entered. Id. If the switch is held for
longer than the toggle period, a character associated with the switch is
entered. Id.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not sufficiently
explained how the combination of references teaches or suggests the
determination is responsive to determining the first numeric user input
6
Appeal 2016-002491
Application 13/542,418
corresponds to the first set of alphabetic letters. The inputs described in the
portions of Robarts, Goodman, and Wen relied upon by the Examiner, are
independent of each other and are not responsive to a prior input. Likewise,
the input in Jellicoe is responsive to the toggle period and independent of the
prior input.
In addition, with respect to independent claim 13, Appellants contend
the Final Office Action did not expressly reject certain features in claim 13.
App. Br. 17. Specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner has not shown
“wherein the determination is made at a remote control, wherein signals
corresponding to a numeral or a set of alphabetic letters are communicated
from the remote control to a media control system having a receiver
configured to receive the transmitted signals.” Id. We agree with
Appellants. Specifically, the Examiner has not set forth with specificity
where Robarts teaches “a remote control, comprising ... a remote control
interface configured to ... ; and a remote control processing system
configured to ... , wherein the remote control processing system is further
configured to . . . transmit the first signal from the remote control. . .
transmit the second signal from the remote control; a media control system,
comprising: a receiver configured to receive the first signal and the second
signal from the remote control.”
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claims 1,11, and 13, for the foregoing reasons.
Because claims 2—10, 12, and 14—20 depend from claims 1,11, and 13, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of those claims
for the same reason.
7
Appeal 2016-002491
Application 13/542,418
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
The following new grounds of rejection are entered pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Claims 1, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Robarts and Jellicoe.
For the new grounds of rejection, we adopt the Examiner’s findings
regarding Robarts and Jellicoe (Final Act. 5—19, Ans. 2—27) and supplement
the Examiner’s findings as follows. We find Jellicoe teaches or suggests
“determining that the second numeric user input corresponds to a second set
of alphabetic letters and does not correspond to a second numeral associated
with the second set of alphabetic letters responsive to determining the first
numeric user input corresponds to the first set of alphabetic letters,” as
recited in independent claims 1 and commensurately recited in independent
claims 11 and 13. Jellicoe describes “[ajnother letter-by-letter input scheme
involves predicting a next letter of a word based on any previously entered
letters and the present keypress. For example, if ‘F’ and ‘O’ have already
been entered, pressing the ‘7’ key may result in an ‘R’ on the display.”
Jellicoe 19. Based on such disclosure, we find Jellicoe teaches or suggests
“determining that the second numeric user input [(“7”)] corresponds to a
second set of alphabetic letters [(“P, Q, R, or S”)] and does not correspond to
a second numeral associated with the second set of alphabetic letters [(“7”)]
responsive to determining the first numeric user input [(“6”)] corresponds to
the first set of alphabetic letters [(“M, N, O”)] as recited in claim 1, and the
commensurate limitations in claims 11 and 13.
We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 9—10) that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to further modify Robarts with the teachings of Jellicoe in order to yield
8
Appeal 2016-002491
Application 13/542,418
predictable results, such as to reduce the number of keypads added to user
input devices and to reduce costs. See Jellicoe Tflf 1, 12. Moreover, we
determine it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to incorporate Jellicoe’s described
predictive functionality into Robarts’ query in order to produce the
predictable result of simplifying and narrowing the query. See Robarts ]Hf
18,24.
Accordingly, we newly reject claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Robarts and Jellicoe.
In addition, with respect to independent claim 13, we supplement the
Examiner’s findings as follows for the disputed limitations:
A system comprising:
a remote control (Robarts 162 (“remote control handset”), 1143 (“the
viewer enters the data using the 10-key keypad on the remote control
handset”), 1145 (“remote control handset”), Jellicoe 11 (“[t]his disclosure
relates generally to reduced key-pads for devices such as fixed telephones,
mobile telephones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), and remote
controllers”)), comprising;
a remote control interface configured to (Jellicoe 141
(“Preferably, this flowchart is implemented in software of the
electronic device.”), Fig. 5; Robarts 1 62 (“remote control handset 68),
Fig. 5) receive and process a first numeric user input from a pressed
first numeric key residing on the remote control that is received for a
pressed amount of time (Robarts Tflf 62, 104—145; Jellicoe H 21, 30,
36-41, Figs. 1, 5—7), and to subsequently receive a second numeric
user input from a pressed second numeric key residing on the remote
9
Appeal 2016-002491
Application 13/542,418
control after the first numeric user input is received (Robarts H 62,
104—145; Jellicoe H 21, 24, 28, 30, 36-41, Figs. 1, 5-7); and
a remote control processing system configured to (Jellicoe 141
(“Preferably, this flowchart is implemented in software of the
electronic device.”), Fig. 5; Robarts 1 62 (“remote control handset 68),
Fig. 5) process the first numeric user input and the second numeric
user input, wherein the remote control processing system is further
configured to: (Jellicoe 141 (“Preferably, this flowchart is
implemented in software of the electronic device.”), Fig. 5.)
determine that the first numeric user input corresponds to
a numeral when the amount of pressed time of the first numeric
user input is less than a predetermined amount of time (Jellicoe
1121, 30, 36-41, Figs. 1,5-7);
determine that the first numeric user input corresponds to
a first set of alphabetic letters when the amount of pressed time
of the first numeric user input is at least equal to the
predetermined amount of time (Jellicoe 1121, 30, 36-41, Figs.
1, 5-7);
generate a first signal corresponding to the first set of
alphabetic letters (Robarts 162 (“A remote receiver 148 is also
coupled to the I/O adapter 140 for receiving signals from the
remote cordless keyboard 66 and remote control handset 68 in
an IR or RF format. . .”), Fig. 5);
transmit the first signal from the remote control (Robarts
1 62 (“A remote receiver 148 is also coupled to the I/O adapter
140 for receiving signals from the remote cordless keyboard 66
10
Appeal 2016-002491
Application 13/542,418
and remote control handset 68 in an IR or RF format. . Fig.
5);
in response to receiving the second numeric user input
after receiving the first numeric user input, determine that the
second numeric user input corresponds to a second set of
alphabetic letters in response to determining that the first
numeric user input corresponds to the first set of alphabetic
letters (Jellicoe 19);
generate a second signal corresponding to the second set
of alphabetic letters (Robarts | 62 (“A remote receiver 148 is
also coupled to the I/O adapter 140 for receiving signals from
the remote cordless keyboard 66 and remote control handset 68
in an IR or RF format. . .”), Fig. 5); and
transmit the second signal from the remote control
(Robarts 162 (“A remote receiver 148 is also coupled to the I/O
adapter 140 for receiving signals from the remote cordless
keyboard 66 and remote control handset 68 in an IR or RF
format. . .”), Fig. 5);
a media control system (Robarts 17 (set-top box), 119, Fig. 5),
comprising:
a receiver configured to receive the first signal and the second signal
from the remote control (Robarts Fig. 5, remote receiver 148, | 62 (“A
remote receiver 148 is also coupled to the I/O adapter 140 for receiving
signals from the remote cordless keyboard 66 and remote control handset 68
in an IR or RF format. . .”); and
11
Appeal 2016-002491
Application 13/542,418
a display interface (Robarts interface to television/monitor, Figs. 3, 5)
configured to transfer the first signal to drive a first display of at least a first
plurality of media channel names, and configured to transfer the second
signal to drive a second display of at least a second plurality of media
channel names (Robarts H 104—145),
wherein the first plurality of media channel names is identified based
on the identified first set of alphabetic letters, and wherein each of the first
plurality of media channel names begins with a first alphabetic letter
corresponding to one of the identified alphabetic letters of the identified first
set of alphabetic letters (Robarts H 104—145), and
wherein the second plurality of media channel names is identified
from the first plurality of media channel names based on the identified
second set of alphabetic letters, and wherein each of the second plurality of
media channel names has a first alphabetic letter that corresponds to the first
set of alphabetic letters followed by a second alphabetic letter that
corresponds to one of the identified second set of alphabetic letters (Robarts
11 104—145).
We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 9—10) that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to further modify Robarts with the teachings of Jellicoe in order to yield
predictable results, such as to reduce the number of keypads added to user
input devices and to reduce costs. See Jellicoe H 1, 12. Moreover, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to incorporate Jellicoe’s described predictive functionality into
Robarts’ query in order to produce the predictable result of simplifying and
narrowing the query. See Robarts H 18, 24.
12
Appeal 2016-002491
Application 13/542,418
Accordingly, we newly reject claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Robarts and Jellico.
Although we have rejected claims 1,11, and 13 under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b), we have not reviewed the remaining claims to the extent
necessary to determine whether these claims are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103. We leave it to the Examiner to determine the appropriateness
of any further rejections based thereon.
DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1—20 is
reversed.
We enter NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(b), rejecting claims 1, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Robarts, Goodman or Wen, and Jellico.
Section 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to
this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” Section
41.50(b) also provides:
When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the appellant, within
two month s from the date of the decision, must exercise one of the following
two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination
of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or
both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the
prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection
is binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new Evidence not
13
Appeal 2016-002491
Application 13/542,418
previously of Record is made which, in the opinion of the examiner,
overcomes the new ground of rejection designated in the decision. Should
the examiner reject the claims, appellant may again appeal to the Board
pursuant to this subpart.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
41.52 by the Board upon the same Record, The request for rehearing must
address any new ground of rejection and state with particularity the points
believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new
ground of rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing is
sought.
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01.
REVERSED; 37 C.F.R, $ 41.50(b)
14
00
'S