Ex Parte Pope et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2018

13240378 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/240,378 09/22/2011 Steven M. Pope
34018 7590 06/04/2018
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.
81230.721US4 4612
EXAMINER
NORTON, JENNIFER L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2126
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2018 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 STEVEN M. POPE, RAYMOND 0. CHOCK, and
NORMAN G. SHERIDAN 1,2
Appeal2017---007614
Application 13/240,3783
Technology Center 2100
Before MARC S. HOFF, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JENNIFER L. MCKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Our Decision makes reference to Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.,"
filed April 21, 2017), and Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed January 11, 2017),
and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," dated February 24, 2017) and Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," dated August 24, 2016).
2 Appellants identify Universal Electronics Inc. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
3 This application was previously before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
in Appeal No. 2013-001372. In that Decision, dated May 4, 2015, the
adverse decision of the Examiner was affirmed.
Appeal2017-007614
Application 13/240,378
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 11.4 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The claimed subject matter relates to a system for control of electronic
consumer devices (ECDs). Spec. ,r 2.
Claim 1, the only independent claim, is reproduced below, with
relevant portions italicized.
1. A system for control of electronic consumer device
(ECD) functions, the system comprising:
a device having a first communication interface, a
second communication inteiface, a third communication
interface, and a fourth communication interface, wherein the
device is programmed to use the first communication
interface to communicate with an ECD device for receiving
from the ECD device a device identifier data, to use the
second communication interface to communicate with an ECD
function information database to obtain a function information
for the ECD via use of the device identifier data, to create a
signal for controlling a functional operation of the ECD using
the function information for the ECD obtained from the ECD
function information database via the second communication
interface, and to use the third communication interface to
transmit to the ECD the signal for controlling the functional
operation of the ECD in response to a corresponding
command being received by the fourth communication
interface from a controlling device; and
4 Claims 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10 were previously cancelled in an amendment filed
June 26, 2015.
2
Appeal2017-007614
Application 13/240,378
a single line bus communications cable that places the
first communication interface in communication with the
ECD.
REJECTION AT ISSUE5
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Nakajima (US 2003/0095211 Al, published May
22, 2003) and Hardacker (US 2008/0231762 Al, published September 25,
2008). Final Act. 10-17.
ISSUES
Issue 1 - Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Nakajima and Hardacker teaches a single device including four
communication interfaces, and in particular, the third interface, as required
by independent claim 1?
Issue 2 - Did the Examiner err in combining Nakajima and
Hardacker to include the third interface to reject independent claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Claim 1 requires a device programmed to perform different tasks
using first, second, third, and fourth interfaces. App. Br. 9. The first
interface receives identifier data from an ECD, while the third interface
transmits signals back to control the ECD's functional operation. Id.
5 The rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35
U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement, were withdrawn. Ans. 10-11.
3
Appeal2017-007614
Application 13/240,378
The Examiner finds Hardacker teaches a device (325) connected
to an ECD (370) with first, second, and fourth interfaces (336, 335, 20,
respectively). Final Act. 11-12; see also Hardacker, Figs. 1, 4, and ,r,r 41-
42. The first interface performs two tasks; it receives identifier data from
the ECD and transmits signals back to the ECD. Final Act. 11-12;
Hardacker ,r,r 11, 42, 46.
34tl~ Figure 4
335 336 ·
300
)
345~1/JERNH .
·, '· --'l'lo --- . __,.-350
.iJiJ PRDCBSOR IIDWOHK 1/F lfflMl t---,.------iffDMI OYll
351
HISPUtY
·315 355
HDMl PVR
356--
Hill sm .,-360
36!--
HOME am
HDMI THEAJER
371- SYSTEM
305\
315
't..
310··
Hardacker Figure 4 illustrates ECD (370) and device (325) with first,
second, and fourth interfaces (respectively, 336, 335, and at the dashed
arrow, where the device is in communication with RF transmitter 310 on
controlling device 305). Hardacker ,r,r 41--42.
As seen in Figure 4 (above), Hardacker lacks a separate, third
interface for transmitting signals back to the ECD. For the missing
interface, the Examiner finds Nakajima teaches a device (102) having a
separate third interface (infrared medium 122), which transmits signals (222,
received at fourth interface 114) to an ECD (108). Final Act. 10; Nakajima
,r,r 21-25, Figs. 1, 2.
4
Appeal2017-007614
Application 13/240,378
Appellants point out (App. Br. 6), and we note here, that Nakajima's
device, shown below, also has a first interface ( cabling medium 128), which
receives ECD identifier data (220) and transmits the signals to the ECD. See
Nakajima ,r,r 22, 26, 31, 35, Fig. 2.
FIGURE 1
Nakajima's Figure 1 illustrates ECD (108) and device (102) having first,
third, and fourth interfaces (128, 122, and 114, respectively). Nakajima
,r,r 22-23.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to combine
the teachings of Nakajima and Hardacker (1) to obtain loss-less transmission
and reduce signal degradation in communication transmission, as taught by
Nakajima, and (2) to incorporate the four interfaces, and their respective
functionalities, into a single device, as it involves only routine skill in the
art. Final Act. 13; Ans. 19.
ISSUE 1 -Appellants argue that the combination does not teach four
interfaces. First, Appellants argue that Nakajima's device lacks the third
interface. In particular, Appellants argue that Nakajima's device has only a
first interface cabling (128), which both receives ECD identifier data and
may transmit signals back to the ECD. See App. Br. 6, citing Nakajima
5
Appeal2017-007614
Application 13/240,378
,r 31. Thus, Appellants argue Nakajima's third interface is not separate but
is the same element as the first interface. Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that
Nakajima teaches a device "coupled" to the ECD via two separate interfaces,
to wit, the cabling (128) and the infrared medium (122). Ans. 13, citing
Nakajima ,r,r 22-23. We further agree that, like the claimed third interface,
the infrared medium transmits signals from the device to the ECD. Id. at
13-15; Nakajima ,r,r 21-25. Paragraph 31 ofNakajima, cited by Appellants,
states that "it would not be necessary" for an ECD to accept signals through
the infrared medium, because the signals "may be relayed back" using the
cabling. Based on this paragraph, we agree that, in selected embodiments,
signals may be relayed back via the first interface, rendering a third interface
unnecessary. Nakajima i-f26, 31. However, we do not agree that signals
must be relayed back via the first interface in all embodiments. Because the
term "may" also implies "may not," Nakajima teaches signals may or may
not be relayed back using the first interface. In embodiments where the
device does not use the first interface to relay back signals, we agree with
the Examiner's above findings, i.e., that Nakajima's device includes and
uses the third interface to transmit signals to the ECD.
Second, Appellants argue that Hardacker lacks the third interface.
App. Br. 7. Because the Examiner relies on Nakajima (not Hardacker) as
teaching the third interface (Final Act. 10; Ans. 16-17), Appellants'
argument does not address the Examiner's rejection and is, therefore,
unpersuasive.
6
Appeal2017-007614
Application 13/240,378
Lastly, Appellants argue that the combination of Nakajima and
Hardacker does not teach a single device using all four interfaces.
App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3--4.
As discussed above, Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner
erred in finding that Nakajima's device uses the third interface or that
Hardacker's device uses first, second, and fourth interfaces. Furthermore,
Appellants do not provide sufficient evidence or argument to demonstrate
error with respect to the Examiner's conclusion that incorporating the four
interfaces into "a single device" was known and involved only routine skill
in the art. Final Act. 13; Ans. 18-19. Thus, Appellants have not persuaded
us that the Examiner's proposed combination of Nakajima and Hardacker
does not teach a single device using the four interfaces.
Based on the forgoing, Appellants have not demonstrated that the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Nakajima and Hardacker
teaches a device including all four interfaces, as required in claim 1.
ISSUE 2 -Appellants further assert that the combination of Nakajima
and Hardacker is improper. Specifically, Appellants argue that "nothing
within Hardacker" suggests modifying Nakajima to include a third interface.
App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. As correctly pointed out by the Examiner, the
rejection does not modify Nakajima with a third interface. Ans. 16. Rather,
the Examiner finds Nakajima already includes and uses the third interface.
Id.; Final Act. 10. As further pointed out by the Examiner, the suggestion to
combine, i.e., to obtain loss-less transmission and reduce signal degradation,
is found within Nakajima, not Hardacker. Ans. 19. Accordingly,
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive because it does not address the
Examiner's rejection.
7
Appeal2017-007614
Application 13/240,378
For all of the reasons stated above, we are not persuaded of error and
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. We further sustain
the rejection of claims 3, 4, 7, 8, and 11, which depend from claim 1 and are
not argued separately. App. Br. 3-8.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Nakajima
and Hardacker teaches a single device including and using four
communication interfaces, and in particular, the third interface, as required
by independent claim 1.
The Examiner did not err in combining Nakajima and Hardacker to
include the third interface to reject independent claim 1.
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 11 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8