Ex Parte Amireh

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 6, 2018

13903568 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/903,568 05/28/2013
131888 7590
Mattel, Inc. - Patent Group
333 Continental Blvd.
El Segundo, CA 90245
04/10/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nicholas AMIREH
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
17177(1) 6689
EXAMINER
COLLINS, DOLORES R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/10/2018 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):
epatents@mattel.com
patricia. deleon @mattel.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NICHOLAS AMIREH
Appeal2017-002797
Application 13/903,568
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and BRENT M.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-12. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Mattel, Inc. See Appeal
Br. 3.
2 Claims 13-20 were withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner. Non-
Final Act. 1.
Appeal2017-002797
Application 13/903,568
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 7 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A module that connects to an electronic device, enabling
the electronic device to control a toy vehicle, comprising:
an input connector capable of connecting the module to an
electronic device and configured for receiving signals from the
electronic device;
a control unit connected to the input connector, the control
unit processes a signal received from the input connector;
an infrared emitter connected to the control unit; and
an output device connected to the control unit and
configured to generate audible outputs;
wherein the control unit sends an emitter control signal to
the infrared emitter.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Griffin
Srivastava
US 6,931,231 B 1 Aug. 16, 2005
US 2013/0157509 Al June 20, 2013
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 4--10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Srivastava.
II. Claims 2, 3, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Srivastava and Griffin. 3
3 Official Notice is not a reference. It is a legal theory. Accordingly, we
address claim 11 with claims 2 and 3, as all of these claims stand rejected as
unpatentable over Srivastava and Griffin.
2
Appeal2017-002797
Application 13/903,568
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Srivastava discloses each and every
limitation of independent claims 1 and 7. Non-Final Act. 3. In rejecting
these claims the Examiner fails to identify any elements in Srivastava that
correspond to the claimed elements and merely directs the reader's attention
to the Abstract, all of the Figures, and paragraphs 18-19 and 29-31 of the
Specification. See id.
Appellant contends that "Srivastava fails to teach or suggest a module
containing the combination of an infrared emitter and an output device
configured to generate audible outputs, as claimed." Appeal Br. 1 7. In
support of this contention, Appellant explains that:
Srivastava is directed to an "apparatus [that] is a remote control
translator implemented as a dongle that plugs into a port
providing a power source (such as a USB port of a set-top
box)," and is configured to convert remote control signals of
one wireless medium via one communication link into signals
of another wireless medium communicated on another
communication link so multiple electronic devices may be
controlled from a single device.
Id. (citing Srivastava i-f 15). Appellant argues that "Srivastava simply never
discloses the generation of audible outputs, especially by the dongle 1 O" and
that "Srivastava never teaches or suggests that the wireless control signals
are ever converted into an audible output." Id. In support of the latter
argument, Appellant notes that "Srivastava only teaches that wireless control
signals are converted into another type of wireless control signal, such as
from Bluetooth® signals to infrared, Zigbee®, or Zwave types of control
signals, none of which are 'audible"' Id. (citing Srivastava i-f 20).
3
Appeal2017-002797
Application 13/903,568
Responding to this argument, the Examiner again directs our attention
to paragraph 18 of Srivastava and also points to paragraphs 15-17. See Ans.
3. The Examiner, however, never identifies what elements in Srivastava
correspond to the claimed infrared emitter connected to the control unit and
the output device (also connected to the control unit) that generates audible
output. See Appeal Br. 24, 25 (Claims App.) As noted by Appellant,
Srivastava does not disclose a control unit that is connected to both an
infrared emitter and an output device. Rather, Srivastava discloses a control
unit that can alternatively be connected to an infrared emitter or another
output device such as a device that outputs an audio signal. Thus, the
Examiner's findings are in error. We further note that audio signals are not
the same as the audible outputs claimed. See, e.g., Spec. i-fi-17, 9, 70.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1 and 7. We, likewise, do not sustain the Examiner's decision
rejecting claims 4--9, which depend from claim 1, and claim 12, which
depends from claim 10 for the same reasons.
Rejection II
The rejection of claims 2, 3, and 11 relies on the same erroneous
findings as the rejection of claims 1 and 7 discussed supra. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2, 3, and 11 for the
same reasons.
4
Appeal2017-002797
Application 13/903,568
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-12 are REVERSED.
REVERSED
5