Ex Parte OLIVAR

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 13, 2018

14436903 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/436,903 04/20/2015 26231 7590 07/17/2018 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DA) P.O. BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR DANTE RAMEL OLIVAR 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. 43740-0002US1 2375 EXAMINER KHALID, OMER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2422 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/17/2018 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): P ATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DANTE RAMEL OLIVAR Appeal 2018-002101 Application 14/436,903 1 Technology Center 2100 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CATHERINE SHIANG, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Dante Olivar. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2018-002101 Application 14/436,903 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction According to the Specification, the present invention relates to a remote controller having a rotary selector switch to change channels or to increase and decrease the volume of the television or video player. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A remote controller for televisions and/or video recorders/players, comprising a housing having an upper shell and a lower shell, said upper shell being provided with a plurality of different slots adapted to receive different sizes of push buttons, a printed circuit board with electronic parts disposed inside said housing, and a circular channel adjustment control and a volume adjustment control traversing respective slots on said upper shell, each of said circular channel and volume adjustment control being mounted pivotally to a respective cylindrical shaft on said upper shell of said housing apart from the printed circuit board, and each being provided with an opposing forward lug and rear lug protruding outwardly from a periphery thereof, the lugs oriented to selectively contact contact members of said printed circuit board when the respective circular channel and volume adjustment control is pivoted to signal changing the channel or volume and limiting the extent of the pivoting of the respective adjustment control. References and Rejection Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (US 2005/0162397 Al; July 28, 2005), Inkster (CA 2 263 774 Al; Jan. 3, 1999), Badameh (WO 03/030092 Al; Oct. 4, 2003), and Badameh II (WO 03/090008 A2; Oct. 30, 2003). 2 Appeal 2018-002101 Application 14/436,903 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant's contention that the Examiner erred in finding the cited prior art portions teach "each of said circular channel and volume adjustment control being mounted pivotally to a respective cylindrical shaft on said upper shell of said housing apart from the printed circuit board," as recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added). 2 See App. Br. 3; Reply Br. 4. Initially, the Examiner cites Kwon's Figure 3 for teaching the italicized limitation, but does not specifically map that limitation. See Non- Final Act. 7. Nor does the Examiner explain why Kwon's Figure 3 teaches the italicized limitation. 3 In response to Appellant's argument that the Examiner has not adequately mapped the italicized limitation, the Examiner cites Badameh's Figures 6a---6c and page 12, lines 8-20, but again does not specifically map the italicized limitation. See Ans. 15. Nor does the Examiner explain why the cited Badameh portions teach the italicized limitation. We have reviewed the cited Kwon and Badameh portions, and they do not describe or show "each of said circular channel and volume adjustment control being mounted pivotally to a respective cylindrical shaft on said upper shell of said housing apart from the printed circuit board," as 2 Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments. 3 In the same Non-Final Office Action, the Examiner inconsistently finds Kwon does not teach "on said upper shell of ... apart from the printed circuit board," but does not cite an alternative reference for teaching that limitation. See Non-Final Act. 7-8. 3 Appeal 2018-002101 Application 14/436,903 required by claim 1 ( emphasis added). Absent further explanation from the Examiner, we do not see how the cited Kwon and Badameh portions teach the italicized claim limitation. Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We also reverse the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent claims 2-8, which depend from claim 1. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8. REVERSED 4