Universal Electronics Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 26, 20212020000253 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation