Universal Electronics Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 17, 2022

2020006320 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2022)

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. 14/047,072 10/07/2013 Mauro Dresti 81230.71US12 9714 34018 7590 03/17/2022 Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 W. Wacker Drive Suite 3100 CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732 EXAMINER STITT, ERIK V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2145 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/17/2022 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 MAURO DRESTI, PATRICK H. HAYES, ROBERT CAMPBELL, WEIDONG WILLIAM WANG, HAN- SHENG YU, JAMES N. CONWAY JR., SANDRO DAVID KLEIN, INGVALD ALAIN SMITH-KIELLAND, ALEX LOUIE, CHERYL SCOTT, and WAYNE SCOTT Appeal 2020-006320 Application 14/047,072 Technology Center 2100 Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITTA, 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 to reject claims 11 and 12.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Universal Electronics Inc. Appeal Brief filed January 27, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”) at 2. 2 Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are allowed. Final Office Action mailed January 3, 2020 (“Final Act.”). Appeal 2020-006320 Application 14/047,072 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Summary Appellant describes the subject matter of its application as relating generally to “a hand-held electronic device having a remote control application user interface that functions to display operational mode information to a user.” Spec. 2:7-9.3 In particular, the remote-control user interface displays channels based on icons associated with content providers rather than channel numbers. That is, content may be selected using icons having logos such as the ESPN or CNN logos, rather than using arbitrary channel numbers. Id. at 39:1-9, Fig. 17A. In the event the channel allocated to a content provider is changed, the device updates the channel number associated with a particular icon to correspond to the content provider. Id. at 70:3-71:23. Exemplary Claim Claims 11 and 12 are independent. Claim 11, reproduced below with limitations at issue italicized, exemplifies the claimed subject matter: 11. A non-transitory, computer readable media having instructions for displaying information to a user of a hand-held device, the instructions, when executed by a processing device of the handheld device, causing the hand-held device to perform steps comprising: displaying to the user a plurality of iconic representations of sources of programming each having mapped thereto a first channel number usable by the hand-held device to transmit a 3 In addition to the Final Office Action and Appeal Brief noted above, we refer to: (1) the originally filed Specification filed October 7, 2013 (“Spec.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 17, 2020 (“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed September 9, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2020-006320 Application 14/047,072 3 channel tuning command to a home appliance in response to a selection of a one of the plurality of iconic representations; receiving by the hand-held device an electronic program guide having assignments between channel numbers and sources of programming; determining if the electronic program guide includes an assignment of a second channel number to a source of programming represented by at least one of the plurality of iconic representations; and in response to determining that the electronic program guide includes the assignment of the second channel number to the source of programming represented by at least one of the plurality of iconic representations, using the electronic program guide to automatically change the mapping between the channel numbers and the plurality of iconic representations such that the mapping of the channel numbers to the plurality of iconic representations corresponds to assignments of channel numbers to sources of programs within the electronic program guide. Appeal Br. 15-16 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES AND REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 11 and 12 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Baker et al. (US 6,597,374 B1, issued July 22, 2003) (“Baker”), Darbee et al. (US 6,130,726, issued Oct. 10, 2000) (“Darbee”), and Pietraszak et al. (US 6,990,677 B1, issued Jan. 24, 2006) (“Pietraszak”). Final Act. 4-9. OPINION We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in view of Appellant’s arguments and evidence. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Appeal 2020-006320 Application 14/047,072 4 Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). Appellant does not persuade us that the Examiner errs. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner to the extent they are consistent with our analysis herein. Final Act. 4-9; Ans. 3-11. We add the following primarily for emphasis. The Examiner relies on Pietraszak’s discussion of conflict resolution of EPG data received from different EPG loaders to teach or suggest “determining if the electronic program guide includes an assignment of a second channel number to a source of programming represented by at least one of the plurality of iconic representations.” Final Act. 8-9 (citing Pietraszak 8:43-46, 8:35-54, and 8:66-67). Appellant argues that “while Pietraszak may generally disclose ‘conflict resolution’ between EPGs, Pietraszak does not disclose, teach, or suggest determining,” as recited in claim 11. Appeal Br. 7. According to Appellant, Pietraszak merely discloses a system in which one EPG--in its entirety--is used instead of another EPG: More particularly, because Pietraszak discloses a system in which an EPG with a higher priority will simply be used (and always be used) instead of an EPG with a lower priority (without regard to whether or not an assignment of a second channel number to a source of programming represented by at least one of the plurality of iconic representations is determined to be present - as recited in claim 11[)]. Id. This argument is unpersuasive. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that “Pietraszak teaches determining if local EPG data, such as [a] channel number is conflicted with [source] EPG data, such as [a] channel number” and that “[t]his is equivalent [sic: synonymous] to determining if a second Appeal 2020-006320 Application 14/047,072 5 channel number assigned to a source of programming within an electronic program guide is different than a first channel number.” Ans. 8 (citing Pietraszak 7:65-66, 8:35-67, 6:12-18, and 15:1-4). Although Appellant is correct that Pietraszak relates to resolving conflicts in EPG data provided by EPG loaders that collect EPG data from multiple providers, Pietraszak’s disclosure is not limited to only resolving conflicts based on a higher priority being assigned to certain EPG loaders. See Appeal Br. 8. In an alternative embodiment cited by the Examiner, Pietraszak describes that the “conflict resolution criteria includes giving each EPG loader equal priorities, and . . . giving precedence to EPG data that is received most recently.” Pietraszak 15:1-4. Appellant, therefore, does not show error in the Examiner’s finding that Pietraszak teaches or suggests determining if the electronic program guide includes an assignment of a second channel number to a source of programming, as recited in claim 11. Ans. 8. The Examiner relies on Darbee to teach or suggest “in response to determining that the electronic program guide includes the assignment of the second channel number to the source of programming represented by at least one of the plurality of iconic representations,” as recited in claim 11. Final Act. 8-9 (citing Darbee 8:43-46, 8:35-54, and 8:66-67). Appellant argues that “Darbee -which discloses a system in which old data is merely overwritten with new data simply when the new data is complete -does not, and cannot be said to disclose” the limitation at issue. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Darbee relates to a remote control having a memory buffer that continuously or intermittently receives blocks of EPG data such as channel assignments for different time-slots. Appeal 2020-006320 Application 14/047,072 6 Darbee 9:14-16. 17:3-12 18:51-53, and Fig. 12. “Thus, Darbee teaches periodically receiving EPG (electronic program guide) data and determining channel updates (assignments) of channel data to multiple existing channels.” Ans. 4. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner’s finding that “Darbee teaches selective updating of program guide channel data, not completely overwriting it.” Ans. 5. Because Darbee discloses overwriting channel data in response to determining whether the channel data has changed, we agree with the Examiner that Darbee teaches or at least suggests the limitation at issue. Darbee 9:14-16, 17:3-12 ,18:51-53, and Fig. 12. Appellant next argues the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to Darbee: because it has not been explained nor is it evident how Darbee illustrating in Fig. 5 “the EPG menu with a plurality of mappings of channel numbers and logos to a content source . . .” (OA, pg. 5) factually supports the conclusion that Darbee discloses the claimed step of “in response to determining . . .” (which it does not), it cannot be said that a prima facie case of obviousness has been presented. Appeal Br. 6. This argument is not persuasive because Appellant argues Darbee’s Figure 5 in isolation without addressing the Examiner’s other findings from Darbee. Next, Appellant argues for the first time in its Reply Brief that the Examiner “fails to provide any explanation as to how or why Darbee . . . would lead one of skill in the art to modify Baker to arrive at the claimed element of ‘in response to determining that the electronic program guide . . .’ with respect to claim 11.” Reply Br. 4. Appeal 2020-006320 Application 14/047,072 7 This argument is untimely. “Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner’s answer, . . . will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Here, Appellant raises this argument for the first time in the Reply Brief and Appellant has not shown that the argument is responsive to any particular finding or reasoning raised in the Answer. We, therefore, consider the argument waived because the Examiner has not been provided a chance to respond and Appellant has provided no such showing of good cause. We nonetheless consider this improperly raised argument for the sake of advancing prosecution, and we find that this argument does not alter our decision. That is, this argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner articulated a reason to combine the teachings of Baker and Darbee that is rational on its face and supported by evidence drawn from the record. Final Act. 5. And Appellant’s argument does not address the reason identified by the Examiner. Reply Br. 4. For the reasons discussed above, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 11. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, as well as the rejection of independent claim 12, which Appellant does not argue separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 10-11. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2020-006320 Application 14/047,072 8 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 11, 12 103(a) Baker, Darbee, Pietraszak 11, 12 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED