Arsham Hatambeiki et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2019

14461928 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2019)

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.
14/461,928 08/18/2014 Arsham Hatambeiki 81230.163US5 6778
34018 7590 10/01/2019
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 W. Wacker Drive
Suite 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
EXAMINER
HICKS, CHARLES N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2019 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 ARSHAM HATAMBEIKI and PAUL D. ARLING1
____________

Appeal 2017-011237
Application 14/461,928
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 This case is captioned by inventor name according to PTAB convention.
The Applicant, Appellant, and real-party-in-interest is Universal Electronics
Inc. (See App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2017-011237
Application 14/461,928

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 6–11, and 15–20, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
The application is directed to “[s]ensing interfaces associated with a
home entertainment system [that] are used to automate a system response to
events which occur in a viewing area associated with the home
entertainment system.” (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, exemplifies
the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for collecting information indicative of usage of at
least one component device in a home entertainment system
comprised of a plurality of component devices, comprising:
capturing via a networked device interface associated with the
home entertainment system user event data wherein the user
event data captured via the networked device sensing inter-
face comprises data indicative of a change in a number of net-
work capable devices determined to be in [sic] communica-
tively coupled to the networked device interface;
capturing via the networked device interface associated with the
home entertainment system appliance event data;
capturing via at least one of the plurality of component devices
in the home entertainment system content event data;
formatting the captured user event data, the captured appliance
event data, and the captured content event data into a respec-
tive one of user event record class, an appliance event record
class, and a content event record class; and
providing one or more advertisement or content dissemination
services access to information contained within the user event
Appeal 2017-011237
Application 14/461,928

3
record class, the appliance event record class, and the content
event record class to allow for an analysis of user viewing
habits and preferences;
wherein the appliance event data comprises data indicative of a
command being provided to at least one of the plurality of
component device from a network capable device communi-
catively coupled to the networked device interface and
wherein the command comprises a command to change a state
of the at least one of the plurality of component devices in the
home entertainment system.

THE REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Karaoguz et al. US 2005/0232210 A1 Oct. 20, 2005
Sekimoto et al. US 2009/0019394 A1 Jan. 15, 2009
Christensen et al. US 2009/0205000 A1 Aug. 13, 2009
Chai et al. US 2012/0060176 A1 Mar. 8, 2012

THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 6–11, and 15–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Christensen, Chai, and Sekimoto. (See Final
Act. 4–9.)
2. Claims 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Christensen, Chai, Sekimoto, and Karaoguz. (See Final
Act. 9–11.)

Appeal 2017-011237
Application 14/461,928

4
ANALYSIS
Appellant’s claims are directed to a method that collects, in a home
entertainment system, “user event data,” “appliance event data,” and
“content event data,” formats the data into three corresponding “classes,”
and makes the data available to “advertisement or content dissemination
services.” The user event data includes data “indicative of a change in a
number of network capable devices . . . communicatively coupled to the
networked device interface,” and the appliance event data includes data
“indicative of a command,” from a network device to a component device,
to “change a state” of a component device.
The Examiner found that Christensen discloses formatting data for
transmission to a third party. (See Final Act. 4.) The Examiner further
found that Chai discloses capturing user event data indicative of a change in
the number of devices and making data available to an advertisement or
content dissemination service. (See id. at 4–5.) The Examiner then found
that Sekimoto discloses capturing appliance event data indicative of a
command to change the state of a device, and content data. (See id. at 5–6.)
The Examiner concluded that “[a]ll of the elements are known and could be
combined by known methods to produce a predictable result wherein
module client terminal devices can communicatively coup[le] to [a] main
device to exchange and request content for display” and that, “[t]herefore[,]
the invention would [have been] obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention.” (Id. at 6.)

Appeal 2017-011237
Application 14/461,928

5
Appellant’s Argument Regarding Data Types
Appellant first argues that “because Christensen admittedly does not
disclose capturing via a networked device interface associated with the home
entertainment system user event data . . . the appliance event record class,
and the content event record class, Christensen cannot disclose, teach, or
suggest “a method for collecting information indicative of a usage of at least
one component device, comprising: formatting captured user event data, the
captured appliance event data, and the captured content event data into a
respective one of user event record class, an appliance event record class,
and a content event record class” as asserted and relied upon in rejecting the
claims at issue.” (App. Br. 4.)
This argument is not persuasive because, as explained above, the
examiner relies on Chai and Sekimoto, not Christensen, for the teachings
regarding the three types of data. The combination involves formatting (as
described in Christensen) user event data, appliance event data, and content
data (as described in Chai and Sekimoto).
Appellant’s Argument Regarding Formatting
Appellant next argues that “because Christensen and Chai admittedly
fail to disclose capturing [appliance event data and content event data],
Christensen and Chai must also fail to disclose, teach, or suggest formatting
captured appliance event data and captured content [event] data into a
respective one of an event record class and a content event record class and
providing the appliance event record class and content event record class to
one or more advertisement or content dissemination services.” (App. Br. 5.)
This argument is not persuasive because it does not address the
Examiner’s finding that it would have been obvious in view of Christensen
Appeal 2017-011237
Application 14/461,928

6
to format appliance event data and content event data such as that disclosed
in Sekimoto. Christensen and Chai need not disclose capturing appliance
and content data because the Examiner found that Sekimoto discloses those
kinds of data.
Sekimoto
Appellant additionally argues that “while Sekimoto may disclose . . .
allowing a user to interact with a customized menu that is presented on a
client device to thereby cause a server device to transfer data, e.g., video
content, for presentation on a display device,” Sekimoto “does not disclose,
teach, or suggest that any information is captured by a device during this
process, let alone a networked device interface associated with the home
entertainment system capturing appliance event data.” (App. Br. 6.)
Appellant argues this is particularly true “where the captured appliance
event data comprises data indicative of a command to change a state of the
at least one of the plurality of component devices in the home entertainment
system that is provided to [a] component device from a network capable
device communicatively coupled to the networked device interface, or at
least one of the plurality of component devices in the home entertainment
system capturing content event data.” (App. Br. 6.)
The Examiner responds that “Sekimoto (paragraph 201) discloses user
input being recognized by the system when the user makes a menu selection
of content or changes the display state of a networked terminal device.”
(Ans. 11.)
We agree with the Examiner. Paragraph 201 of Sekimoto describes
how “[i]f the user operation is a decision . . . , the selected item and
parameter . . . are . . . transmitted to the server” and the server “executes a
Appeal 2017-011237
Application 14/461,928

7
function program corresponding to the content/function selection menu and
presents the execution process and the corresponding content to the display
device.” (Sekimoto ¶ 201.) As part of that process, the network device (the
server) would “capture” data that would be indicative of a command to
change a state of a component device (the display device) that would be
provided to the component device the network device. Although Appellant
asserts that Sekimoto does not meet the claim limitation, it fails to
specifically address the Examiner’s analysis. Appellant also does not argue
for a construction of “capture” that would avoid what is shown and
described in Sekimoto.
Appellant additionally argues that “because Sekimoto does not
disclose [appliance event] data being captured in the first instance, it is
respectfully submitted that Sekimoto must also fail to disclose, teach, or
suggest formatting this particular captured data into a correspond[ing] record
class as additionally claimed.” (App. Br. 6.) This argument is not
persuasive because, as noted, the Examiner relies on Christensen, not
Sekimoto, for the formatting.
Other Arguments
In the Reply, Appellant argues (1) Chai does not disclose or suggest
“all of ‘providing . . . advertisement or content dissemination services access
to information contained within [the three classes]’”; (2) Chai does not
disclose or suggest “all of ‘capturing via a networked device interface
associated with the home entertainment system user event data wherein the
user event data captured via the networked device sensing interface
comprises data indicative of a change in a number of network capable
devices determined to be in communicatively coupled to the network device
Appeal 2017-011237
Application 14/461,928

8
interface’”; (3) the Examiner engaged in “impermissible use of hindsight
reasoning”; and (4) the rejection lacks “articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning as is required to support a legal conclusion of
obviousness.” (App. Br. 4–6.)
These arguments were not made in the Appeal Brief, and Appellant’s
failure to timely raise them deprived the Examiner of a chance to respond
and deprived the Board of the benefit of the Examiner’s expertise.
Accordingly, and in the absence of a showing of good cause for the delay,
we find these arguments to be waived. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d
1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an
opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal
brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”); 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2) (2015) (“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.”).

DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 6–11, and 15–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED