Ex Parte Arul

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 28, 2005

09736941 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 28, 2005)

1 The record contains an amendment filed pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.116 on December 15, 2003, but does not indicate whether it
was ever considered by the examiner. Normally, we would remand
the application to the examiner to resolve this discrepancy;
however, in this case we have proceeded to consider the appeal on
its merits since the amendment merely proposes an obvious
correction to the dependency of claim 7 and does not affect the
issues presented for review. This matter should be resolved upon
the return of the application to the technology center.
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT
APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte SENTHIL G. ARUL
_______________
Appeal No. 2005-0276
Application No. 09/736,941
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, FRANKFORT, and MCQUADE, Administrative Patent
Judge.
MCQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Senthil G. Arul appeals from the final rejection of claims 1
through 10, all of the claims pending in the application.1
Appeal No. 2005-0276
Application No. 09/736,941
2
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to “portable electronic devices,
including hand-held remote control units, and the like, and, in
particular, to such a device having a power storage/supply
utilizing a super or ultra-capacit[or]” (specification, page 1).
Representative claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A device for wirelessly controlling an appliance
comprising:
a hand-held enclosure having a plurality of operator
controls supported thereon;
a wireless control signal generator;
electronic circuitry interconnecting the operator controls
to [the] wireless control signal generator, the circuitry causing
the generator to transmit a wireless signal in response to the
operator controls so as to affect the operation of the appliance;
a source of electrical energy within the enclosure to power
the circuitry, the source of electrical energy consisting
essentially of a supercapacitor or ultracapacitor; and
an input to receive externally applied energy to recharge
the supercapacitor or ultracapacitor.
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Croy et al. (Croy) 6,040,829 Mar. 21, 2000
Tiemann et al. (Tiemann) 6,291,900 Sep. 18, 2001
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Croy in view of Tiemann.
Appeal No. 2005-0276
Application No. 09/736,941
3
Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (Paper
Nos. 8 and 10) and the answer (Paper No. 9) for the respective
positions of the appellant and the examiner regarding the merits
of this rejection.
DISCUSSION
Croy, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a hand-
held remote control unit for controlling the operation of
electronic devices such as televisions and video cassette
recorders (see column 3, lines 6 through 10; and column 9, lines
16 through 18). As shown in Figure 2, the remote control unit
200 includes an interface 210 for communicating with a base
station 100 which itself electrically communicates with a
television 140 or a video cassette recorder 142, a microcomputer
220, a memory 222, a power supply 224, a selection device 230
having an array of keys for user input and commands, a display
device 240 and a speaker 250. The power supply 224 consists of
batteries which can be recharged through electrical contact with
charging circuits 134 in the base station 100 (see column 4,
lines 4 through 8 and 47 through 62). Figure 3A shows the unit
200 “removably inserted and electrically coupled into the base
station 100” (column 7, lines 25 and 26), i.e., docked
Appeal No. 2005-0276
Application No. 09/736,941
4
to the base station. Croy describes the remote control function
of the unit as follows:
Referring now to FIGS. 52 and 53, other menu displays
illustrate the operation of the present invention for
controlling a television monitor and/or a video
cassette recorder (VCR). In FIG. 52, various menu
items are displayed in first display area 1210 and
second display area 1215. These menu items correspond
to standard functions provided on conventional VCRs.
Any of these functions can be selected using function
keys 310 or 311 provided on remote device 200. As a
result of the activation of one of these menu items,
remote device 200 emits well-known infrared coded
signals to invoke the selected function in the VCR.
Similarly as illustrated in FIG. 53, menu items
corresponding to standard functions in a conventional
television set are displayed in first display area 1210
and second display area 1215. These functions may also
be selected using function keys 310 or 311. In similar
fashion, the remote device 200 emits IR signals to the
television receiver corresponding to the selected
function. In this manner, remote device 200 can be
used to control a standard VCR or television set
[column 19, line 53, through column 20, line 4].
It is not disputed that Croy teaches, or would have
suggested, a remote control device responsive to all of the
limitations in independent claim 1 except for those requiring the
source of electrical energy to consist essentially of a
supercapacitor or ultracapacitor. As indicated above, the source
of electrical energy in Croy’s remote control unit consists of
rechargeable batteries. To account for this difference, the
examiner looks to Tiemann.
Appeal No. 2005-0276
Application No. 09/736,941
5
Tiemann pertains to manually powered devices that generate,
convert and utilize electrical energy. One of the devices listed
as exemplary by Tiemann is a wireless electronic remote control
device (see column 3, lines 14 through 17; and column 9, lines 61
through 65). In general, these devices include a mechanism for
inputting mechanical energy, a generator for converting the
mechanical energy to electrical energy, in some cases an
electrical energy storage device, and an electrical load
depending on the type of device. The electrical energy storage
device may comprise rechargeable batteries or capacitors (see
column 7, line 66, through column 8, line 11). Tiemann describes
one storage capacitor arrangement as follows:
As shown in FIG. 18, an ultracapacitor circuit 900
uses an ultracapacitor 940 to supply power to
electrical load 960. In this embodiment, a mechanical
energy input device 910 is directly coupled to a
generator 920. In one embodiment, the mechanical
energy input device 910 includes a crank 912. In other
embodiments, the mechanical energy input device 910
comprises, for example, a ratchet crank and a foot
crank. The direct coupling allows the mechanical
energy supplied to the generator 920 to directly
produce a charge voltage. It should be appreciated
that the charge voltage is proportional to the
mechanical energy that is input to the generator from
the crank 912.
The generator 920 is connected to the
ultracapacitor 940. . . .
In operation, the generator 920 produces a charge
voltage that is proportional to the mechanical energy
input from the mechanical energy input device 912.
. . .
Appeal No. 2005-0276
Application No. 09/736,941
6
Ultracapacitor 940 is used in this disclosure to
describe a class of capacitors that have several
designations in the art such as super capacitor,
electrochemical capacitor, and electrochemical double
layer capacitor. . . . It should also be appreciated
that the use of an ultracapacitor 940 provides an
energy storage for a wide range of appliances and/or
electronics, and the ultracapacitor 940 stores energy
with less weight less bulk than a mechanical spring
drive. In one embodiment, an ultracapacitor 940
provides several orders of magnitude higher storage
density than mechanical spring drives [column 11, line
29, through column 12, line 45].
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure
of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention
must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
In the present case, Tiemann’s teachings that rechargeable
batteries and ultracapacitors/supercapacitors are art-recognized
alternatives for use as electrical energy storage devices in
wireless remote control devices and that the use of
ultracapacitors/supercapacitors in this environment affords
certain physical and operational advantages would have provided
the artisan with ample motivation or suggestion to substitute an
ultracapacitor or supercapacitor for the batteries in Croy’s
Appeal No. 2005-0276
Application No. 09/736,941
7
remote control unit, thereby arriving at the subject matter
recited in independent claim 1. Hence, the appellant’s
contention that the proposed reference combination rests on
impermissible hindsight is not convincing.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Croy in
view of Tiemann.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 6 and 8 as being unpatentable over Croy in
view of Tiemann.
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and further defines the input
to receive externally applied energy as an electrical input. The
combined teachings of Croy and Tiemann, and particularly Croy’s
disclosure of an electrical input for receiving externally
applied energy to recharge the remote control unit, would have
suggested this subject matter.
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and requires that the appliance
being controlled by the device, or a unit in electrical
communication with the appliance, include a docking station to
receive the device. The combined teachings of Croy and Tiemann,
and particularly Croy’s disclosure of a base station which (1)
has a docking area for receiving a remote control unit and (2) is
Appeal No. 2005-0276
Application No. 09/736,941
8
in electrical communication with a television or video cassette
recorder to be controlled, would have suggested this subject
matter.
Finally, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 2 through 5, 7, 9 and 10 as being
unpatentable over Croy in view of Tiemann since the appellant has
not challenged such with any reasonable specificity, thereby
allowing these claims to stand or fall with their respective base
claims (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525,
1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 10
is affirmed.
Appeal No. 2005-0276
Application No. 09/736,941
9
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
) APPEALS AND
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT ) INTERFERENCES
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JOHN P. MCQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JPM/kis
Appeal No. 2005-0276
Application No. 09/736,941
10
JOHN G. POSA, ESQ.
GIFFORD, KRASS, GROH, SPRINKLE
ANDRESON & CITKOWSKI, P.C.
280 N. OLD WOODWARD AVENUE
SUITE 400
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009