Ex Parte Van Vleck et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 23, 2016

12541021 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2016)

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.
12/541,021 08/13/2009 Paul Van Vleck 2008-1463 (00525) 2502
82744 7590 11/25/2016
AT&T Legal Department - JW
Attn: Patent Docketing
Room 2A-207
One AT&T Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
EXAMINER
MORTELL, JOHN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/25/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL VAN VLECK, STEVEN M. BELZ, GREGORY
EDWARDS, and JAMES PRATT
Appeal 2015-007601
Application 12/541,0211
Technology Center 2600
Before MARC S. HOFF, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 20—24. Claims 5, 6, 8,
11, 13, 16, 17, and 19 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending
rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify AT&T Intellectual Property I, L.P., as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2015-007601
Application 12/541,021
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to
programming a universal remote control (URC) to operate with a remote-
controlled device. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for configuring a universal remote control,
comprising:
receiving a remote control configuration request;
displaying a menu, wherein the menu includes a plurality
of selectable objects representing a plurality of remote-
controlled devices wherein the menu includes a plurality of
pages, each of the pages in the menu corresponding to a
different type of device;
receiving user input selecting one of the plurality of
selectable objects from the menu, wherein an identity of a
selected remote-controlled device represented by the selected
object is determined;
obtaining, from a database local to a client of a
multimedia content distribution network, programming codes
for the selected remote-controlled device;
programming, using the client, the universal remote
control with the obtained programming codes to control the
selected remote-controlled device;
sending a confirmation to a mobile communications
device originating the remote control configuration request,
wherein the confirmation indicates that the universal remote
control was successfully programmed.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1—4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 20—24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haughawout et al. (US
2
Appeal 2015-007601
Application 12/541,021
7,653,212 B2, issued Jan. 26, 2010), Arling et al. (US 6,788,241 B2, issued
Sept. 7, 2004), and Murphy et al. (US 7,822,325 B2, issued Oct. 26, 2010).
(Final Act. 2—17.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs present the following issue:2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Haughawout, Arling, and Murphy teaches or suggests the independent
claim 1 limitations, “each of the pages in the menu corresponding to a
different type of device, [and] sending a confirmation to a mobile
communications device originating the remote control configuration request,
wherein the confirmation indicates that the universal remote control was
successfully programmed,” and the similar limitations recited in independent
claims 10 and 18. (App. Br. 5—14.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments the Examiner erred. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’
arguments, and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 2—17) and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the findings of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Dec. 20, 2014, corrected
Mar. 4, 2015); the Reply Brief (filed Aug. 17, 2015); the Final Office Action
(mailed July 7, 2014); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed June 15, 2015)
for the respective details.
3
Appeal 2015-007601
Application 12/541,021
the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief (Ans. 2—13). We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by
the Examiner, and emphasize the following.
In finding Haughawout, Arling, and Murphy teach or suggest the
limitations at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Haughawout of
providing an image of a device to be controlled to an image recognition
system which accesses a database of control information, resulting in
appropriate programming of a universal remote control device. (Final Act.
3^4; Haughawout Abstract.) Haughawout further discloses use of a cell
phone to acquire and provide the image of the device to be controlled, and
also discloses, in response to receiving the images, of the use of menus in
the form of pages depicting potential matching devices, allowing selection
from the menus of the device to be controlled. (Id.; Ans. 5, 10-13;
Haughawout Figs. 7, 8, col. 4,1. 62—col. 5,1. 2, col. 6,11. 5—9, col. 6,1. 49-
col. 6,1.3.)
The Examiner also relies on the disclosure in Arling of a remote
control device that monitors keystroke usage and correlates a command key
to a target device based on the keystrokes, and which displays different
menu pages for different types of devices — e.g., one menu page for a
satellite system and another menu page for a television. (Final Act. 5;
Arling Figs. 2a—2c, col. 4,1. 63—col. 5,1. 13.) The Examiner further relies
on the disclosure in Murphy of remotely programming a controller in a
device (a water heater in the illustrative embodiment) via a wireless
handheld device, and responding with a confirmation signal. (Final Act. 5—
6; Murphy col. 3,11. 51—58, col. 5,1. 59—col. 6,1. 38.)
4
Appeal 2015-007601
Application 12/541,021
Appellants argue the Examiner improperly ignores the claim
requirement, “each of the pages in the menu corresponding to a different
type of device,” based on the Examiner’s statement that, because the
Specification lists several alternative menu arrangements, the claimed
arrangement is optional and thus, according to the Examiner, “does not have
any criticality for the claimed invention and is not further limiting.” (App.
Br. 5—6; Final Act. 4.) However, taken as a whole, the Examiner’s Final
Action does not in fact ignore this claim limitation — the Examiner goes on
to rely on the above discussed disclosures of menu pages in Haughawout
and Arling as teaching or suggesting “each of the pages in the menu
corresponding to a different type of device.” (Final Act. 3—5.)
In regard to this aspect of the Examiner’s rejection, Appellants’
opening Brief ignores the Examiner’s reliance on Arling.3 Further,
Appellants argue Haughawout does not teach or suggest “a menu in which
each selectable object is associated with a corresponding device type.”
(App. Br. 6—7.) However, the claims were amended to drop this limitation,
and so this argument is not pertinent. (See 4/15/14 Claim Amendments.) In
addition, Appellants argue Haughawout does not disclose “a page
organization solution in which each page displays a single brand of a single
type of equipment.” (Reply Br. 4.) Again, the claims require each page to
3 In the Reply, Appellants argue for the first time that there is no motivation
to combine Arling and Haughawout. (Reply Br. 5—6.) In the absence of
showing of good cause explaining why the argument could not have been
presented in the principle Brief, we decline to consider the argument and
deem it waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2)(2014); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d
1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that an argument not first raised in the
brief to the Board is waived on appeal).
5
Appeal 2015-007601
Application 12/541,021
correspond to a different type of device, not to a “single brand.” In sum, we
are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding Haughawout, Arling, and
Murphy teach or suggest “each of the pages in the menu corresponding to a
different type of device.”
In regard to the limitation, “sending a confirmation to a mobile
communications device originating the remote control configuration request,
wherein the confirmation indicates that the universal remote control was
successfully programmed,” Appellants argue Murphy discloses confirmation
of receipt of a programming request, rather than the required confirmation of
successful programming. (App. Br. 7.) To the contrary, as the Examiner
finds, Murphy does in fact disclose confirmation of successful programming.
(Ans. 7—9; Murphy col. 6,11. 27—38.) Appellants also argue the Examiner’s
reliance on Haughawout is in error, because the Examiner relies on a
disclosure in Haughawout of an embodiment in which a user manually
submits a configuration request. (App. Br. 8.) However, as Appellants
acknowledge, the Examiner also relies on the above discussed use of a cell
phone to submit a request, and this latter disclosure is sufficient, in
combination with the disclosure of Murphy, to teach or suggest the
limitation at issue. (App. Br. 8, Final Act. 3; Ans. 11.)
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the obviousness rejections of
independent claims 1,10, and 18. We also sustain the obviousness
rejections of claims 2-4, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, and 20-24, which rejections are not
argued separately with particularity. (App. Br. 8.)
6
Appeal 2015-007601
Application 12/541,021
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14,
15, 18, and 20-24.
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
7