Universal Electronics Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 26, 2021

2020000253 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2021)

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.
16/057,544 08/07/2018 Daniel SauFu Mui 81230.708US6 1237
34018 7590 03/26/2021
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 W. Wacker Drive
Suite 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
EXAMINER
BROWN, VERNAL U
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2021 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
clairt@gtlaw.com
jarosikg@gtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL SAUFU MUI

Appeal 2020-000253
Application 16/057,544
Technology Center 2600

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant indicates the real party in interest is Universal
Electronics Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000253
Application 16/057,544
2

BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention relates to an apparatus and method for
relaying key code signals through a remote control device to operate an
electronic consumer device. See Abstract, ¶ 2.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, which is representative of the subject matter of the appeal
and is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, reads as
follows:
1. A universal remote controller that is controllable by a first
remote control, comprising:
at least one memory configured to store program
instructions for universal remote controller operations; and
at least one processor configured to access the at least
one memory and to execute the program instructions, the
program instructions comprising instructions configured to:
receive a first control signal having data indicative of a
first control function that is transmitted by the first remote
control;
use the data indicative of the first control function to
determine at least one other device that is to be controlled to
perform the first control function, the at least one other device
being controllable by at least one other remote control; and
transmit a second control signal for the first control
function to at least one other device, thereby permitting the first
remote control to control the at least one other device without
the first remote control being configured with a command
transmission protocol for controlling the at least one other
device.

Appeal 2020-000253
Application 16/057,544
3

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Yuen US 5,812,931 Sept. 22, 1998
Pope US 5,963,624 Oct. 5, 1999
Freeman et al. (“Freeman”) US 6,828,922 B1 Dec. 7, 2004
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1–3, 5, 8, 9, 11–13, 15, 18, and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Pope. Final Act. 3–5.
Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Pope and Yuen. Final Act. 6.
Claims 6, 7, 10, 16, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Pope and Freeman. Final Act. 6–7.
ANALYSIS
Unpatentability of Claims 1–3, 5, 8, 9, 11–13, 15, 18, and 19
Appellant argues claims 1–3, 5, 8, 9, 11–13, 15, 18, and 19 together as
a group. See Appeal Br. 3–8; Reply Br. 2–5. Consequently, we choose
independent claim 1 as representative of the group. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief, as well as
the Examiner’s Answer. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of
Examiner error. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments
below for emphasis.
The Examiner finds that Pope discloses a universal remote controller
that is controllable by a first remote control and comprising a memory
configured to store program instructions, and at least one processor
configured to execute the program instructions, as required by claim 1, based
Appeal 2020-000253
Application 16/057,544
4

on Pope’s disclosure of a base unit controllable by a handset that includes a
memory and processor. See Final Act. 3 (citing Pope 4:62–5:14, Fig. 3);
Pope Fig. 1. The Examiner further finds that Pope discloses the program
instructions are configured to receive a first control signal for a first control
function that is transmitted by the first remote control, as required by
claim 1, based on Pope’s disclosure of receiving an appliance control code
from the handset. See Final Act. 3 (citing Pope 2:45–52, 3:36–40). The
Examiner finds that Pope discloses the program instructions are further
configured to “determine at least one other device for which the first control
function is directed, the at least one other device being controllable by at
least one other remote control,” as recited in claim 1, based on Pope’s
disclosure that the data included in the control/overhead portion of the data
structure frame is used to determine at least one intended device for the
control function. See id. (citing Pope 4:43–50); Ans. 3–4; Pope Fig. 4.
Appellant argues the Office has failed to present a prima facie case of
anticipation because the Office does not assert that Pope’s base station uses
the data included in the control/overhead portion of the frame to determine
at least one other device that is to be controlled to perform the first control
function. See Appeal Br. 4–5. In support of its argument, Appellant
provides the following definition for the term “determine”: “to settle or
decide by choice of alternatives or possibilities.” Id. at 4. Appellant
contends that Pope instead discloses that the handset determines the
appliance control code that is appropriate for controlling an operation of one
of the plurality of devices from a plurality of appliance control codes stored
in memory. See id. at 5–6 (citing Pope 5:14–21, Figs. 1, 5). Appellant
further contends that Pope’s handset determines the appliance control code
that is to be included in the control/overhead portion of the frame, and
Appeal 2020-000253
Application 16/057,544
5

therefore, when the base unit receives the appliance control code from the
handset, the one of the plurality of devices that is to perform a function has
already been predetermined by the handset. See id. at 6 (citing Pope
5:21–29; Fig. 5); Reply Br. 2. According to Appellant, Pope’s base unit
need only rebroadcast the appliance control code received from the handset
for reception by each of the devices. See Appeal Br. 6 (citing Pope 3:35–41,
Fig. 1; Final Act. 3). Appellant further contends that because Pope’s base
unit merely rebroadcasts the signal received from handset for reception by
all of the devices (i.e., all of the TV, set top box, compact disc player), one
of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that each of the devices will
inspect the signal that was broadcast by the base unit to decide if the signal
was intended for that device, and, therefore, it is the devices that will
determine at least one device that the control function was intended for. See
id. at 6–7 (citing Pope Fig. 1; Final Action 3). According to Appellant,
“[o]ne of skill in the art will appreciate that, within Pope, the base unit 12
does not (and need not) perform any step associated with determining to
which device a control signal should be directed.” Id. at 7.
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection because
Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim
limitations. Appellant’s arguments are premised on claim 1 requiring that
the universal remote controller program instructions use the data indicative
of the first control function to determine at least one device among a
plurality of devices that is to be controlled to perform the first control
function. The limitations of claim 1, however, do not require the universal
remote controller program instructions to determine at least one device
among a plurality of devices. Claim 1 only requires that the universal
remote controller program instructions are configured “to determine at least
Appeal 2020-000253
Application 16/057,544
6

one other device that is to be controlled to perform the first control
function.” The aforementioned limitation of claim 1 may be met by
universal remote controller program instructions using the first control signal
data to determine that the first control signal is intended ultimately for at
least one other device other than the universal remote controller. For this
reason, Pope’s disclosure that once the base unit receives an appliance code
in a control/overhead portion of the data frame, “the base unit will know to
transfer the control code to an appliance” (Pope 4:49–50; see id. 4:34–51,
Figs. 1, 4) discloses the disputed limitation of claim 1.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1–3, 5, 8, 9, 11–13, 15, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by Pope. Therefore we sustain the rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 8,
9, 11–13, 15, 18, and 19.
Unpatentability of Claims 4, 6, 7, 10, 14, 16, 17 and 20
Appellant does not present substantive arguments addressing the
limitations of dependent claims 4, 6, 7, 10, 14, 16, 17, and 20. See Appeal
Br. 4–8; Reply Br. 2–3. Therefore, for the same reasons as those reasons
discussed immediately above addressing claims 1–3, 5, 8, 9, 11–13, 15, 18,
and 19, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4 and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Pope and Yuen, and claims 6, 7,
10, 16, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Pope and
Freeman. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 4, 6, 7, 10, 14, 16,
17, and 20.

Appeal 2020-000253
Application 16/057,544
7

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20. In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 8, 9, 11–
13, 15, 18, 19 102 Pope
1–3, 5, 8, 9, 11–
13, 15, 18, 19
4, 14 103 Pope, Yuen 4, 14
6, 7, 10, 16, 17,
20 103 Pope, Freeman
6, 7, 10, 16, 17,
20
Overall
Outcome 1–20
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED