Ex Parte Arling et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2016

12959967 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/959,967 12/03/2010 Paul D. Arling
34018 7590 02/25/2016
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
77 WEST WACKER DRIVE
SUITE 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
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.
81230.145US2 6203
EXAMINER
NAWAZ, TALHAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2016 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):
j arosikg@gtlaw.com
chiipmail@gtlaw.com
escobedot@gtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL D. ARLING, GRAHAM WILLIAMS,
and JEREMY K. BLACK
Appeal2014-003764
Application 12/959,967
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, ADAM J. PYONIN, and NABEEL U. KHAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-21, 23, 25, and 26, which are all the claims pending in this
appeal. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Universal Electronics,
Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-003764
Application 12/959,967
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a 3 D viewing systems, such as 3 D
television sets. Spec. 2:15-19. In particular, the invention relates to a
controlling device, such as a remote control, for controlling an appliance,
such as a 3D television, by using a 3D sync signal to select a command code
set for controlling the appliance. See Abstract. The command codes in the
command code set are assigned to keys of the controlling device which,
when activated, control the functions of the appliance. See Abstract.
Claims 1 and 18 are independent. Independent claim 1 is illustrative
and is reproduced below.
1. A method for configuring a controlling device to control
functional operations of an appliance, comprising:
receiving a 3D sync signal transmitted to synchronize a
wearable 3D viewing apparatus with a device adapted to render
3D media;
using the received 3D sync signal to select from a library
of command codes a command code set appropriate for
controlling functional operations of the appliance; and
causing the command codes within the command code set
selected from the library of command codes to be assigned to
respective keys of the controlling device whereupon a
subsequent activation of one or more of the respective keys of
the controlling device will cause the controlling device to issue a
command transmission via use of one or more of the command
codes within the command code set selected from the library of
command codes to thereby control one or more functional
operations of the appliance.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-13, 17-20, and 25-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Zalewski (US 2010/0007582 Al; Jan. 14, 2010).
2
Appeal2014-003764
Application 12/959,967
2. Claims 14--16, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Zalewski and Jannard (US 2006/0132382 Al;
June 22, 2006).
ANALYSIS
I. Claim 1
Appellants argue "Zalewski does not describe the received sync signal
being used to select from a library of command codes a command code set
that is appropriate for controlling functional operations of an appliance."
App. Br. 5.
The Examiner finds Zalewski discloses using 3D sync signals to select
command codes from a library and assigning the command codes to keys of
a controlling device which can then control the operations of an appliance.
Final Act. 4. In particular, the Examiner finds Zalewski discloses
synchronization signal that includes an initial shutter start time for the 3D
glasses. Ans. 3. The Examiner further finds that Zalewski discloses "using
this information and generating a command set of which frequencies to
switch between for appropriate display. These frequencies are assigned to
buttons and knobs." Ans. 3. As an example of these buttons and knobs, the
Examiner points to element 616 of Zalewski. Final Act. 4 (citing Zalewski
i-f 72); see also Zalewski Fig. 6. The Examiner further points to Zalewski's
disclosure of switching modes to optimize the frames per second of the
device as further functions that are assigned to buttons of the 3D glasses.
See Ans. 3--4.
In response to the Examiner's findings, Appellants argue "Zalewski
expressly describes that the input elements 616 are provided to the glasses to
3
Appeal2014-003764
Application 12/959,967
allow the shuttering frequency of the LCD lenses of the glasses to be
manually adjusted by a user." App. Br. 6. According to Appellants,
"Zalewski does not describe the input elements 616 of the glasses being
assigned command codes from a command code set selected from a library
of command codes where the command code set is selected from the library
of command codes via use of a received 3D sync signal." Id. Appellants
further argue that although Zalewski does disclose that the frames per
second of the device may be optimized, this is accomplished by tracking the
users through motion activated sensors, not through "activable keys" of the
glasses. Reply Br. 4.
We are persuaded by Appellants arguments. With respect to the
Examiner's findings regarding element 616 of Zalewski' s 3D glasses, we
agree with Appellants that Zalewski does not describe the element as being
assigned command codes for controlling functional operations of the
appliance, via the received 3D sync signal. Zalewski explains that the
frequency at which the LCD lens are shuttered can be selected in several
separate ways, including being stored in advance, being transmitted to the
glasses via the 3D sync signal, or by being selected by the user input 616
using a knob. Zalewski i-f 72. These three examples are in the alternative.
See id. Thus, when the frequency is set by the knob, such selection is
independent of, or unrelated to, any 3D sync signal being transmitted to the
glasses.
With respect to the Examiner's finding regarding switching modes to
optimize the frames per second of the device, we agree with Appellants that
Zalewski does not disclose this switching is assigned to keys, buttons, or
4
Appeal2014-003764
Application 12/959,967
knobs of the glasses. Instead, the switching happens based on tracking the
position and number of viewers in the room. See Zalewski i-fi-f 136-138.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on the record at hand, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and, similarly, independent
claim 18. See Final Act. 7-8. We also do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of dependent claims 2-13, 17, 19, 20, and 25-26 for the same
reasons. Finally, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent
claims 14--16, 21, and 23 because Jannard does not cure the deficiency of
Zalewski.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21, 23, 25, and 26 is reversed.
REVERSED
5