Ex Parte Arling et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 4, 2015

12206181 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PAUL D. ARLING and PATRICK H. HAYES
__________

Appeal 2013-003565
Application 12/206,181
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MARK NAGUMO, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1–15. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method of storing and using
information received from a controllable device (Claim 1). The
Specification describes that the method can be used for setting up a favorite
channels list using a remote control (Spec. 13:17–23). The method includes
two-way communication between a controlling device (i.e., a remote
controller) and a controlled appliance (e.g., a television or set-top box). The
user may select a particular function on the controlling device, such as
Appeal 2013-0003565
Application 12/206,181

2
favorite channels function, which sends a signal to the controlled appliance.
The controlled appliance, in response to the signal from the controlling
device, sends a signal indicating the “media tuning state of the controlled
appliance” at the time of the request by the controlling device. The “media
tuning state data” may include, inter alia, channel number, channel
identification, CD track, DVD chapter, an internet media stream, a radio
stream, or radio station (Spec. 18). The controlling device receives the media
tuning state data and stores the media tuning state data in the memory of the
controlling device (claim 1). The stored data is later used to transmit from
the controlling device to the controlled appliance a media tuning command
for causing the controlled appliance to replicate the media tuning state
(claim 1).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for storing and using information received from a
controllable appliance in a controlling device, comprising:
detecting an activation of a key of the controlling device;
in response to the detected activation of the key of the controlling
device, transmitting a request signal from the controlling device to the
controlled appliance for the purpose of retrieving from the controlled
appliance data associated with a media tuning state of the controlled
appliance wherein the media tuning state is reflective of media being tuned
to by the controlled appliance at a time that the request signal transmitted
from the controlling device is received by the controlled appliance;
receiving at the controlling device from the controlled appliance the
media tuning state data;
storing in a memory of the controlling device the media tuning state
data; and
using the media tuning state data stored in the memory of the
controlling device to transmit from the controlling device to the controlled
appliance a media tuning command for causing the controlled appliance to
replicate the media tuning state.

Appeal 2013-0003565
Application 12/206,181

3

Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 6, and 8–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being unpatentable over Hayes et al. (US 2005/00242226 A1,
published Feb. 3, 2005) (hereinafter “Hayes”).
2. Claims 3–5, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hayes in view of Adolph et al. (US 5,959,539,
issued Sept. 28, 1999) (hereinafter “Adolph”).
3. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Hayes in view of Saito et al. (US 5,657,078, issued Aug. 12,
1997) (hereinafter “Saito”).

ISSUE
Did the Examiner reversibly err finding that Hayes discloses the steps
of “receiving at the controlling device from the controlled appliance the
media tuning state data,” “storing in a memory of the controlling device the
media tuning state data” and “using the media tuning state data stored in the
memory of the controlling device” as recited in claim 1? We decide this
issue in the affirmative.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES
As a threshold issue, we construe the meaning of the claim phrase
“media tuning state data.” The Specification describes that media tuning
state data may include television channel identification, television channel
number, or identifiers associated with other forms of media, such as CD
Appeal 2013-0003565
Application 12/206,181

4
track, DVD chapter, an internet media stream, or a radio station (Spec.
18:11–15). The Specification describes on page 18, lines 17–20, that the
channel identification and programming features may be offered with the
download and display of channel logos and/or program guides as disclosed
in US application 11/823,739, which issued as US Patent 8,863,184 B2 to
Arling et al. Patent 8,863,184 describes that the program guide includes
television programs, radio broadcast information, webcasts, etc. (Arling col.
6, ll. 43-50). Claim 1 recites that “media tuning state” is “reflective of
media being tuned to by the controlled appliance at a time that [a] request
signal transmitted from [a] controlling device is received by the controlled
appliance.” From these disclosures and the plain language of the claims, we
construe “media tuning state data” as data that reflects a channel, station or
site that an appliance is tuned to at a time when the request signal is
transmitted from the controlling device.
Appellants argue that Hayes teaches a system where functional
capability definitions (FCD) are communicated from an appliance to a
remote controller in response to a request signal (App. Br. 4). Appellants
contend that FCD is not data indicative of the media tuning state of the
controllable appliance. Id. Appellants further argue that Hayes’ paragraph
77 relied upon by the Examiner does not disclose that media tuning state
data retrieved from the controlled appliance is stored in the memory of the
controlling device or using such stored media tuning data to transmit from
the controlling device to the controlled appliance a media tuning command
for causing the controlled appliance to replicate the media tuning state (App.
Br. 5–6).
Appeal 2013-0003565
Application 12/206,181

5
As we understand from Hayes, functional capability definitions are
indicators of the capabilities of each device to be controlled (Hayes ¶¶ 5, 7,
51, 52). Hayes exemplifies such functionalities as a “‘[v]olume [u]p,’”
“‘[v]olume [d]own,’” “‘[p]lay,’” and “‘[s]top’” features that are
communicated from the appliance to the remote control (Hayes ¶¶ 53, 61).
The Examiner has not established that Hayes’ functional capability
definitions constitute media tuning state data as that term is construed.
Although the Examiner finds that in paragraph 77 Hayes discloses that
controlled devices transmit the channel identification (e.g., ESPN) to the
remote control, such information is transmitted in response to the user
entering the channel number (e.g., 17). As argued by Appellants (Reply Br.
3–4), Hayes does not disclose storing in a memory of the controlling device
media tuning state data retrieved from the controlled appliance and then
using that stored data to transmit from the controlling device to the
controlled appliance a media tuning command causing the controlled
appliance to replicate the media tuning state as required by claim 1 . The
Examiner finds that when the channel number (e.g., 17) is entered in Hayes
it is stored temporarily, with the set top box then displaying the channel
information on the remote control (Ans. 5–6). The Examiner’s finding does
not address the claim limitation that requires that the media tuning state data
is stored on the controlling device memory and then using that stored media
tuning state data to access the channel again (i.e., “causing the controlled
appliance to replicate the media tuning state”) as required by the claimed
method.
The Examiner’s citation to paragraphs 8 and 62 of Hayes as teaching
to retrieve, store and use the media tuning state data is erroneous. Rather,
Appeal 2013-0003565
Application 12/206,181

6
Hayes’ paragraphs 8 and 62 concern setting up the device using the
functional capabilities definition in the controlled device that are transmitted
to the controlling device (i.e., remote control) (Final Act. 3). The Examiner
further finds that Hayes as paragraphs 72-74 discloses that the data driven
interaction (DDI) may be used, which allows parameter passing and
interaction between devices (Ans. 3). However, Hayes’ paragraph 74
discloses that the DDI information allows the target device to specify to the
controlling device a complete user interface including exact icons to display
for each function, indicias for functions, data and status displays, etc. The
Examiner’s citation to Hayes does not involve retrieving, storing and using
media tuning state data as that claim phrase is properly construed. Instead,
the functional capabilities definitions are transmitted to the remote controller
to permit the user to set up whatever functional capabilities are transmitted
by the controlled device to the controlling device (i.e., remote control). The
DDI data is used to customize the display (e.g., particular icons) for the
remote controller for the various functions of that appliance.
Because the Examiner has not established that the Hayes teaches the
subject matter of claim 1 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection. We further reverse the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections where the Examiner similarly relies on Hayes and
does not rely on Adolph and Saito to cure the deficiencies noted above with
regard to Hayes.

Appeal 2013-0003565
Application 12/206,181

7
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.

ORDER
REVERSED

cdc