Ex Parte Ha et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 1, 2016

12051618 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/051,618 03/19/2008
22908 7590 04/05/2016
BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
TEN SOUTH WACKER DRIVE
SUITE 3000
CHICAGO, IL 60606
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wai-leung Ha
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.
011398.00047 1860
EXAMINER
BHATIA,AJAYM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/05/2016 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):
eofficeaction@bannerwitcoff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WAI-IEUNG HA, KAIRY KAI LEI, and GORDON QIAN
Appeal2014-003915 1
Application 12/051,618
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-5, 7-8, and 10-23. Appeal Br. 4.
Claims 6 and 9 are cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify Computime, Ltd. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-003915
Application 12/051,618
A. The Invention
BACKGROUND
Appellants' invention is directed to "the control of a plurality of
controlled devices" using a "remote controller." Abstract. Independent
claims 1 and 22 are representative and reproduced below, with emphasis
added to the disputed elements:
1. An apparatus comprising:
an accelerometer configured to sense motion of the
apparatus;
a transmitter;
a receiver cooperatively coupled to the transmitter to
operate as a transceiver;
a processor configured to:
select a first selected device from a plurality of controlled
devices;
receive a received signal with a first predetermined
command list containing a plurality of commands from the first
selected device through the receiver of the apparatus over a
two-way communications channel, wherein the plurality of
commands are supported by the first selected device to control
the first selected device;
map a plurality of user actions with the plurality of
commands in the first predetermined command list;
receive accelerometer information from the
accelerometer;
determine a first orientation of the apparatus from the
accelerometer information;
determine a user action applied to the apparatus by a user
from the accelerometer information, wherein the user action is
one of the plurality of user actions; and
2
Appeal2014-003915
Application 12/051,618
convert the user action to a first command for the first
selected device, wherein the first command is included in the first
predetermined command list; and
the transmitter electrically coupled to the processor and
configured to transmit a transmitted signal containing command
information indicative of the first command to the first selected
device, wherein the first selected device is controlled by the
apparatus.
22. An apparatus comprising:
a transceiver configured to receive a signal from a remote
controller and to send configuration data to the remote controller;
a processor configured to:
determine whether the remote controller is in a learning
mode;
indicate when a match occurs between the remote
controller and the apparatus;
when the match occurs and the remote controller is in
the learning mode, send a predetermined command list
contained in the configuration data to the remote controller
through the transceiver of the apparatus, wherein the
predetermined command list includes a plurality of commands
for controlling the apparatus; and
perform a command from the remote controller when the
command is one of the plurality of commands from the command
list.
Appeal Br. 31, 36 (Claims App.).
B. The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-2, 4--5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-21, and 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rosenberg
(US 2006/0241864 Al; publ. Oct. 26, 2006), in view ofWikipedia
3
Appeal2014-003915
Application 12/051,618
( Wikipedia -Remote Play,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Remote_Play&oldid=l97747814)
(last visited June 14, 2012), further in view of Wilson
(US 2009/0198354 Al; publ. Aug. 6, 2009), and further in view of
Wilson798 (US 2010/0138798 Al; publ. June 3, 2010). Final Act. 2-16.
The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rosenberg, Wikipedia, Wilson, Wilson798, and further in
view ofRosenberg583 (US 2007/0273583 Al; publ. Nov. 29, 2007). Final
Act. 16-17.
The Examiner rejects claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rosenberg, Wikipedia, Wilson, Wilson798, and further in
view of Rabin (US 2008/0291160 Al; publ. Nov. 27, 2008). Final Act. 17.
The Examiner rejects claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wikipedia.2 Final Act. 18.
ANALYSIS
A. Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-12, and 14--21
Appellants argue that the combination of Rosenberg, Wikipedia,
Wilson, and Wilson798 fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitation,
"receive a received signal with a first predetermined command list
containing a plurality of commands from the first selected device through
the receiver of the apparatus over a two-way communications channel,
wherein the plurality of commands are supported by the first selected device
to control the first selected device," as recited in independent claim 1, and
2 Wikipedia is identified as "Remote Play" in the Final Office Action. Final
Act. 18.
4
Appeal2014-003915
Application 12/051,618
similarly recited in independent claims 14 and 18. Appeal Br. 17, 19-23.
More specifically, Appellants argue that, while Wikipedia discusses sending
instructions from a PlayStation Portable ("PSP") to a PlayStation 3 ("PS3")
to be executed on the PS3, Wikipedia fails to teach or suggest sending a
command list from the PS3 to the PSP, where the commands are executed
on the PS3. Appeal Br. 19, 21, 23.
We do not find Appellants' argument persuasive. The Examiner
found Wikipedia teaches that a PSP receives an encoded video/audio stream
of an output image from a PS3, where the output image is an image of a
command list, and where the command list includes a plurality of commands
are supported by the PS3 to control the PS3. Final Act. 4; Ans. 2-3 (citing
Wikipedia 1 ). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of
Appellants' Specification, a "received signal with a first predetermined
command list containing a plurality of commands" includes a signal with
image data describing an image of a predetermined command list containing
a plurality of commands. Appellants' Specification supports this
construction as it describes an embodiment involving a two-way
communication channel between a remote controller and a controlled device,
where the controlled device can send configuration information (e.g., a
command list supported by the control device) to the remote controller.
Spec. i-f 19. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Wikipedia's feature of
receiving a video/audio stream containing image data that defines an image
of a command list containing commands supported by the PS3 to control the
PS3 teaches the aforementioned claimed limitation.
5
Appeal2014-003915
Application 12/051,618
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of independent
claims 1, 14, and 18, and claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-12, 15-17, and 19-21, not
argued separately.
B. Claim 22
Appellants argue that Wikipedia fails to teach or suggest the claimed
limitation, "when the match occurs and the remote controller is in the
learning mode, send a predetermined command list contained in the
configuration data to the remote controller through the transceiver of the
apparatus, wherein the predetermined command list includes a plurality of
commands for controlling the apparatus," as recited in independent claim 22.
Appeal Br. 24. More specifically, similar to Appellants' arguments
regarding independent claims 1, 14, and 18, Appellants argue that Wikipedia
fails to teach or suggest sending a command list from the PS3 to the PSP.
Appeal Br. 26. Additionally, Appellants argue that the Examiner concedes
that Wikipedia fails to expressly teach a processor configured to determine
whether a remote control is in a learning mode, and further fails to cite any
prior art references that teach or suggest the aforementioned feature. Id.
Regarding Appellants' argument that Wikipedia fails to teach or
suggest sending a command list from the PS3 to the PSP, we do not find this
argument persuasive for the reasons described above with respect to
independent claims 1, 14, and 18. Regarding Appellants' argument that
Wikipedia fails to teach or suggest a "learning mode," we do not find this
argument persuasive either. Appellants' Specification describes an
embodiment where, in a "learning mode," a remote control receives a
command list from a controlled device. Spec. i-f 30. Thus, under the
6
Appeal2014-003915
Application 12/051,618
broadest reasonable interpretation in light of Appellants' Specification, a
"learning mode" can be a mode where a remote controller receives data from
a controlled device. We agree with the Examiner that Wikipedia teaches
that the PSP employs a mode (characterized by the Examiner as a "listening
mode") where the PSP receives data (i.e., the audio/video stream) from the
PS3. Ans. 4. Thus, we agree that Wikipedia teaches the claimed "learning
mode." Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 22.
C. Claim 13 3
Appellants argue that the combination of Rosenberg, Wikipedia,
Wilson, and Wilson798 fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations,
"determine an amount of acceleration from the accelerometer data," and
"adjust a level of the first command based on the amount of acceleration," as
recited in claim 13. Appeal Br. 26-27. More specifically, Appellants argue
Wilson merely discusses a matching process that compares gestures in terms
of speed and amplitude to match a sequence to a command, and, thus: (a)
Wilson teaches determining speed, not acceleration, and one of ordinary
skill in the art would appreciate that acceleration is different from speed; and
(b) Wilson fails to teach or suggest anything about a level of a command,
much less about adjusting a level of the command based on an amount of
3 Claim 13 recites "the accelerometer data." However, there is no
antecedent basis for "accelerometer data." We find that one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand "the accelerometer data" to be the
"accelerometer information" from independent claim 1. Should there be
further prosecution of claim 13, Appellants may wish to amend the claim to
clarify. Similar antecedent basis issues appear in claims 11, 16-17, and 20-
21.
7
Appeal2014-003915
Application 12/051,618
acceleration. Appeal Br. 27 n.2. We are persuaded by these arguments.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13.
D. Claim 23
Appellants argue that the combination of Rosenberg, Wikipedia,
Wilson, and Wilson798 fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations,
"select a second selected device from the plurality of controlled devices" and
"receive a second predetermined command list from the second selected
device through the receiver, wherein the second predetermined command list
is different from the first predetermined command list," as recited in claim
23. Appeal Br. 27. More specifically, Appellants argue that: (a) Rosenberg
merely discusses storing functionality information about other electronic
devices in a local memory; (b) Rosenberg fails to suggest that a data file
from a source electronic file contains anything about "a second
predetermined command list," much less suggest that a second
predetermined command list is received from a second selected device; and
(c) the combination of Rosenberg, Wikipedia, Wilson, and Wilson798 fails
to suggest "a first predetermined command list," much less a "second
predetermined command list." Appeal Br. 29; Reply Br. 6.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner that Rosenberg teaches selecting a desired device from a plurality
of devices. Final Act. 15; Ans. 5. Selecting a second selected device from
the plurality of devices is merely a repetition of the known selection
functionality disclosed in Rosenberg and is not, therefore, a patentable
distinction. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671(CCPA1960) (holding that
that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a
8
Appeal2014-003915
Application 12/051,618
new and unexpected result is produced). Thus, we agree that the claimed
limitation "select a second selected device from the plurality of controlled
devices" would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention, in light of the combination of Rosenberg, Wikipedia,
Wilson, and Wilson798. Final Act. 15. Further, as described above with
respect to independent claims 1, 14, and 18, we agree with the Examiner that
Wikipedia teaches receiving a predetermined command list. Final Act. 4;
Ans. 2 (citing Wikipedia 1 ). Receiving a second predetermined command
list is merely the repetition of the receiving functionality disclosed in
Wikipedia with a different command list. Thus, we agree that the claimed
limitation "receive a second predetermined command list from the second
selected device through the receiver, wherein the second predetermined
command list is different from the first predetermined command list," would
also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the
claimed invention was made, in light of the combination of Rosenberg,
Wikipedia, Wilson, and Wilson798. Final Act. 15-16. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 23.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-12, and
14--23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
9
Appeal2014-003915
Application 12/051,618
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10