Ex Parte Hatambeiki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2016

13851601 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/851,601 03/27/2013 Arsham Hatambeiki
34018 7590 09/22/2016
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.
81230.146US7 6978
EXAMINER
SIDDIQUI, MD SAIFUL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2016 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 ARSHAM HATAMBEIKI, JEFFREY KOHANEK, and
NAIMISARANY AD. BUSEK
Appeal2015-006617
Application 13/851,601
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, SHARON PENICK, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1---6, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims 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.
Appeal2015-006617
Application 13/851,601
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention generally relates to providing improved
command, navigation, and text input functionality on a controlling device,
such as a remote control used in issuing commands to entertainment and
other appliances. Spec. 1:9-10; 2:3-5. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads
as follows:
1. A system comprising:
a display device displaying a 3-D object having a plurality
of layered surfaces; and
a controlling device adapted to transmit commands to
control functional operations of the display device having an
accelerometer wherein operational software of the controlling
device responds to a signal generated by the accelerometer
indicative of z-axis navigational movement of the controlling
device made to initiate a transmission of a communication to the
display device to cause a different surface of the 3-D object to be
displayed by the display device.
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Chen et al.
Reams et al.
Kerr et al.
Kikinis et al.
Choi et al.
US 2009/0234503 Al
US 2009/0303097 Al
US 2009/0322676 Al
US 2010/0077434 Al
US 2011/0050477 Al
2
Sept. 17, 2009
Dec. 10, 2009
Dec. 31, 2009
Mar. 25, 2010
Mar. 3, 2011
Appeal2015-006617
Application 13/851,601
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kikinis and Choi. Final Act. 7-9.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kikinis, Choi, and Chen. Final
Act. 9-10.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kikinis, Choi, and Reams. Final
Act. 10-11.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kikinis, Choi, and Kerr. Final
Act. 11-13.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Kikinis and
Choi teaches or suggests "wherein operational software of the controlling
device responds to a signal ... to cause a different surface of the 3-D object
to be displayed by the display device," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner relies on Kikinis to teach or suggest the disputed
limitation. Final Act. 7 (citing Kikinis i-fi-150-56; Fig. 2); Ans. 3--4.
Specifically, the Examiner identifies the three planes 102, 103, 104 of
Kikinis' virtual mesh 100, representing a 3-D electronic program guide
(EPG), as corresponding to the claimed "plurality layered surfaces." Final
3
Appeal2015-006617
Application 13/851,601
Act. 5, 7 (citing Kikinis if 35); Ans. 3. The Examiner finds Kikinis teaches
that a user can use a remote control to select a program of any layer of the
EPG. Final Act. 4--5, 7 (citing Kikinis iii! 50-51); Ans. 3--4. The Examiner
finds Kikinis teaches that when a user selects a program, "details of the
selected program [are] displayed on sign 120 of the mesh." Ans. 4 (citing
Kikinis, Fig. 2; if 51 ). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes
Kikinis teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Id.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Kikinis teaches the
disputed limitation because Kikinis does not teach or suggest that the
controlling device functions to transmit commands to cause a different
surface of the 3-D object to be displayed by the display device. App. Br. 4.
Appellants contend Kikinis, instead, teaches that the controlling device is
used only to change the position of the cursor within the displayed 3-D
object. Id. According to Appellants, Kikinis teaches that the planes 102,
103, 104 are stationary and always visible. Id. (citing Kikinis iii! 37, 51).
We find Appellants' contentions persuasive. Kikinis teaches "[b ]ased
on selected interest categories, the programs matching certain criteria are
displayed in the first plane 102, indicating shows of the highest interest, the
second plane 103 indicating shows of neutral interest, or displayed in the
third plane 104, indicating shows of the lowest interest." Kikinis if 52.
Kikinis further teaches:
The user views virtual mesh 100 from the front. Program listings
in the front plane 102 appear to be at the front of the screen.
Program listings in the middle plane 103 appear to be set back
from the front of the screen, and program listings in the back
plane 104 appear to be set further back than program listings in
plane 103. In one embodiment, the programs that the user wishes
to view are displayed more prominently, so that the user's
4
Appeal2015-006617
Application 13/851,601
attention will be immediately drawn to them. This increases the
ease of use of the EPG and creates an attractive visual effect.
Kikinis i-f 54. As such, we agree with Appellants that Kikinis teaches that
the planes 102, 103, 104, which the Examiner identifies as corresponding to
the "plurality of layered surfaces," are always displayed. Further, the
Examiner fails to explain how displaying details of a selected program on
sign 120, as taught by Kikinis, teaches or suggests causing a different
surface of the 3-D object to be displayed.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1
and claims 2 and 5, which depend from claim 1.
Claims 3, 4, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Kikinis, Choi, and Chen, Reams, or Kerr. Each of these claims depend from
claim 1. The secondary references cited in the rejections do not make up for
the deficiency in claim 1 described for Kikinis. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejections of claims 3, 4, and 6 for the same reasons.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
REVERSED
5