Ex Parte Meijer

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 11, 2018

13761387 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 131761,387 02/07/2013 Gerben Meijer 34018 7590 05/15/2018 Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 W. Wacker Drive Suite 3100 CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 81230.162US1 6667 EXAMINER LUBIT, RYAN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2696 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/15/2018 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 escobedot@gtlaw.com j arosikg@gtlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GERBEN MEIJER Appeal2018-000632 Application 13/761,387 Technology Center 2600 Before LARRY J. HUME, CATHERINE SHIANG, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's non-final rejection of claims 2-9 and 19, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to the Appeal Brief, Universal Electronics Inc. is the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal2018-000632 Application 13/761,387 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction According to the Specification, the present invention relates to using a controlling device having multiple surfaces to control navigational functions of an appliance. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 19 is exemplary: 19. A method for providing axis orientation compensation in a system in which movement of a controlling device is used to control navigational functions of a target appliance, comprising: determining which one of plural sides of the controlling device is an active side of the controlling device; and causing a navigational function of the target appliance made relative to an X axis of the target appliance to be controlled by a movement of the controlling device made relative to a one of a B axis and a C axis of the controlling device as a function of which one of the plural sides of the controlling device is determined to be the active side of the controlling device, causing a navigational function of the target appliance made relative to a Y axis of the target appliance to be controlled by a movement of the controlling device made relative to a one of the B axis and a C axis of the controlling device as a function of which one of the plural sides of the controlling device is determined to be the active side of the controlling device, and causing a navigational function of the target appliance made relative to a Z axis of the target appliance to be controlled by a movement of the controlling device made relative to a one of an A axis and the C axis of the controlling device as a function of which one of the plural sides of the controlling device is determined to be the active side of the controlling device. References and Rejection Claim 2-9 and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Friedman (US 2011/0090407 Al; publ. Apr. 21, 2011) and Hatambeiki (US 2011/0279223 Al; publ. Nov. 17, 2011). 2 Appeal2018-000632 Application 13/761,387 ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellant's arguments, and agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions in (i) the Non-Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken (Non-Final Act. 3-12) and (ii) the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-7) to the extent they are consistent with our analysis below. 2 teach Obviousness On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 19. Appellant contends Friedman and Hatambeiki do not collectively causing a navigational function of the target appliance made relative to an X axis of the target appliance to be controlled by a movement of the controlling device made relative to a one of a B axis and a C axis of the controlling device as a function of which one of the plural sides of the controlling device is determined to be the active side of the controlling device, causing a navigational function of the target appliance made relative to a Y axis of the target appliance to be controlled by a movement of the controlling device made relative to a one of the B axis and a C axis of the controlling device as a function of which one of the plural sides of the controlling device is determined to be the active side of the controlling device, and causing a navigational function of the target appliance made relative to a Z axis of the target appliance to be controlled by a movement of the controlling device made relative to a one of an A axis and the C axis of the controlling device as a function of which one of the plural sides of the controlling device is determined to be the active side of the controlling device, 2 To the extent Appellant advances new arguments in the Reply Brief without showing good cause, Appellant has waived such arguments. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.41(b)(2). 3 Appeal2018-000632 Application 13/761,387 as recited in claim 19. See Substitute Appeal Brief, filed July 21, 2017 ("Appeal Br.") 3-7; Reply Br. 2---6. In particular, Appellant argues: in Friedman, a movement of the controlling device made relative to each of an A axis of the controlling device, a B axis of the controlling device, and a C axis of the controlling device (e.g., motions 502, 510, and 516 shown in Fig. 5 cited to in the Office Action) will always control the same navigational function made relative to an X axis of the target device, a Y axis of the target device, and a Z axis of the target device (e.g., the "remote control context" 528 action of scrolling up or down, scrolling left or right, and page flipping as shown in Fig. 5 cited to in the Office Action) .... Appeal Br. 4 (emphases omitted); see also Appeal Br. 3-5. Hatambeiki also fails to disclose, teach, or suggests modifying Friedman such that a navigational function made relative to an X axis of the target device, a Y axis of the target device, and a Z axis of the target device is controlled in response to a one of plural different movements of the controlling device made relative to an A axis of the controlling device, a B axis of the controlling device, and a C axis of the controlling device where the one of the plural different movements is determined as a function of which one of the plural sides of the controlling device is determined to be the active side of the controlling device as claimed. Appeal Br. 7 (emphases omitted); see also Appeal Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 2--4. Appellant has not persuaded us of error. The Examiner finds-and Appellant does not dispute-Friedman teaches causing a navigational function of the target appliance made relative to an X axis of the target appliance to be controlled by a movement of the controlling device made relative to a one of a B axis and a C axis of the controlling device ... [,] causing a navigational function of the target appliance made relative to a Y 4 Appeal2018-000632 Application 13/761,387 axis of the target appliance to be controlled by a movement of the controlling device made relative to a one of the B axis and a C axis of the controlling device ... [,]and causing a navigational function of the target appliance made relative to a Z axis of the target appliance to be controlled by a movement of the controlling device made relative to a one of an A axis and the C axis of the controlling device, as recited in claim 19. See Non-Final Act. 4--5 (citing Friedman Figs. 1, 5, and i147). The Examiner further finds Hatambeiki teaches activating certain functions "as a function of which one of the plural sides of the controlling device is determined to be the active side of the controlling device." See Non-Final Act. 5---6; Hatambeiki i120 ("only a single input surface (e.g., one of command function and navigation surface 202 or alphanumeric keyboard surface 204 currently facing a user) be enabled, i.e., be active, for receipt of user input at any one point in time ... the operational software of exemplary controlling device 100 may implement some or all of the methods described below to determine which surface is to be considered as being currently active"), i124 ("the operational software of controlling device 100 may utilize accelerometer derived data to track the orientation of controlling device 100 and enable whichever surface is currently facing generally upward"). Because Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's rationale for combining the teachings of Friedman and Hatambeiki set forth in the Non- Final Office Action (Non-Final Act. 6-7), the Examiner correctly concludes Friedman and Hatambeiki collectively teach or suggest causing a navigational function of the target appliance made relative to an X axis of the target appliance to be controlled by a movement of the controlling device made relative to a one of a 5 Appeal2018-000632 Application 13/761,387 B axis and a C axis of the controlling device as a function of which one of the plural sides of the controlling device is determined to be the active side of the controlling device, causing a navigational function of the target appliance made relative to a Y axis of the target appliance to be controlled by a movement of the controlling device made relative to a one of the B axis and a C axis of the controlling device as a function of which one of the plural sides of the controlling device is determined to be the active side of the controlling device, and causing a navigational function of the target appliance made relative to a Z axis of the target appliance to be controlled by a movement of the controlling device made relative to a one of an A axis and the C axis of the controlling device as a function of which one of the plural sides of the controlling device 1s determined to be the active side of the controlling device, as recited in claim 19. See Non-Final Act. 4--7. In response to the Examiner's further statements in the Answer, Appellant contends: in the invention claimed, the function of transmitting a X, Y, or Z navigation command is not disabled and enabled. Rather, in the claimed invention, one of two different inputs (i.e., movements) are used to cause the transmission of a X, Y, or Z navigation command depending upon which surface is facing upward while the transmission of X, Y, and Z navigation commands continues to be enabled without regard to which one of the sides of the controlling device is determined to be the active side of the controlling device . . . . the disclosure within Hatambeiki directed to causing certain input elements to be enabled would not lead one of skill in the art to modify Friedman such that a specific operation is performed in response to a one of two possible inputs being provided to the controlling device, i.e., a specific navigation command being transmitted in response to one of two possible movements of the controlling device, wherein the one of two possible inputs that will cause the performance of the specific operation is determined as a function of which one of the plural 6 Appeal2018-000632 Application 13/761,387 sides of the controlling device is determined to be the active side of the controlling device as results from the invention claimed. Reply Br. 4--5 (emphases omitted). 3 Appellant's arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Appellant has not shown the disputed limitations require "the transmission of X, Y, and Z navigation commands continues to be enabled without regard to which one of the sides of the controlling device is determined to be the active side of the controlling device" (emphasis added), as Appellant asserts (Reply Br 4--5). Nor has Appellant shown the disputed limitations require a specific navigation command being transmitted in response to one of two possible movements of the controlling device, wherein the one of two possible inputs that will cause the performance of the specific operation is determined as a function of which one of the plural sides of the controlling device is determined to be the active side of the controlling device as results from the invention claimed, as Appellant asserts (Reply Br. 4--5). Further, the Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Friedman and Hatambeiki. See Non-Final Act. 6-7. As discussed above, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's rationale for the combination set forth 3 Appellant has not shown the proposed claim construction (Reply Br. 6) constitutes the broadest reasonable interpretation of the disputed limitations. Appellant does not provide adequate analysis to support the proposed claim construction, and does not show why the disputed limitations require the additional language Appellant adds to the disputed limitations ("where one of B or C is used for the control input" and "where one of A or C is used for the control input" (Reply Br. 6) (emphases omitted)). 7 Appeal2018-000632 Application 13/761,387 in the Non-Final Office Action (Non-Final Act. 6-7). Therefore, Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in concluding Friedman and Hatambeiki collectively teach claim 19. In addition, the Examiner's findings and conclusion are reasonable because the skilled artisan would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle" since the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420-21 (2007). Appellant does not present adequate evidence that the resulting arrangements would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that applying Hatambeiki's technique in Friedman's method would have predictably used prior art elements according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 19. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent claims 2-9, as Appellant does not advance separate substantive arguments regarding those claims. 8 Appeal2018-000632 Application 13/761,387 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2-9 and 19. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 9