Ex Parte Haughawout et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 29, 201714244510 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/244,510 04/03/2014 Joseph Lee Haughawout 81230.83US3 1392 34018 7590 03/31/2017 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 77 WEST WACKER DRIVE SUITE 3100 CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732 EXAMINER HONG, MICHAEL HYUN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2426 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2017 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 JOSEPH LEE HAUGHAWOUT, MAURO DRESTI, SANDRO DAVID KLIEN, ALEX LOUIE, HAN-SHENG YU, STEVE LANPING HUANG, PATRICK H. HAYES and WEIDONG WILLIAM WANG Appeal 2016-005983 Application 14/244,510 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR. and JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—5, 10 and 12—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to a system and method “for navigating a program guide and/or for using a program guide to command operation of an Appliance.” Specification 1. Appeal 2016-005983 Application 14/244,510 Illustrative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)'. 1. A method for controlling the operation of a consumer electronic device, comprising: displaying in a display of a controlling device a graphical user interface, the graphical user interface being provided for use in controlling channel tuning operations of each of a plurality of consumer electronic devices and having a plurality of broadcast channel identifiers each corresponding to a broadcast channel that can be tuned to by each of the plurality of consumer electronic devices; accepting an input into the controlling device that functions to designate a one of the plurality of broadcast channel identifiers; and using by the controlling device the designation of the one of the plurality of broadcast channel identifiers to cause a transmission of a channel tuning command sequence for the controlling device wherein the channel tuning command sequence corresponds to the broadcast channel corresponding to the designated one of the plurality of broadcast channel identifiers; and wherein a location condition associated with the controlling device when accepting the input determines a one of the plurality of consumer electronic device to which the channel tuning command sequence is directed to thereby cause the one of the plurality of consumer electronic devices to tune to the broadcast channel corresponding to the designated one of the plurality of broadcast channel identifiers. Rejection on Appeal Claims 1, 3—5, 10 and 12—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huang (US Patent Number 6,437,836 Bl; issued August 20, 2002) and Kemink (US Patent Number 6,563,430 Bl; issued May 13, 2003). Final Rejection 2—9. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 30, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed May 19, 2016), the Answer (mailed March 25, 2016) and the Final 2 Appeal 2016-005983 Application 14/244,510 Rejection (mailed July 31, 2015) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, except where noted. Appellants argue that neither Huang nor Kemick discloses the claimed location condition associated with the controlling device. Appeal Brief 6—7. The Examiner finds Huang does not explicitly disclose the claimed location information and relies upon Kemick to address Huang’s deficiency. Final Rejection 4. The Examiner finds “Kemink discloses based on geographic location or zone control device 100 uses different control options (IR vs RF) to control the appliances present in the location/control zone (see abstract; col. 2, line 55-col. 3, line 14; col. 11, lines 4—14, Fig. 1 ).” Final Rejection 4. Appellants contend that “Kemick location information is used to provide a user interface to the controlling device before a user is even intended to interact with that user for the purpose of controlling a target device in a location via use of a communication protocol, e.g., IR or RF, that is recognized by the target device.” Appeal Brief 7. Appellants further argues: As such, Kemick also fails to disclose, teach, or suggest using a location condition associated with a controlling device when accepting input that functions to designate a one of the plurality of broadcast channel identifiers to determine a one of a plurality of consumer electronic device to which the channel tuning command is sequence is to directed. Appeal Brief 7. 3 Appeal 2016-005983 Application 14/244,510 We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Kemink discloses a location condition associated with a controlling device because Kemink discloses, “A user interface is provided that is location dependent” wherein the “control parameters are associated with location, and the user control interface is customized to the context sensitive information and the communication of corresponding context sensitive user commands via the interface.” Kemink, Abstract. Appellants’ argument that Kemick provides the location information before the user intended interaction is not persuasive. It is well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Haung with Kemink’s location dependent controlling device to adjust Haung’s operations to accommodate for locality.1 Haung discloses that the coding scheme employed is flexible “so that the infrared transmission system can dynamically generate any form of different infrared codes.” Huang, column 5, lines 17—18. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 14, as well as, dependent claims 3—5, 10 and 12, 13 and 15—20 not separately argued. DECISION The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3—5, 10 and 12—20 is affirmed. 1 “As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int 7 v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007). 4 Appeal 2016-005983 Application 14/244,510 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(v). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation