Ex Parte Schafer et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 201613722790 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016) 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. P2012-09-24 (290110.564) 1052 EXAMINER TERRELL, EMILY C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2689 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 13/722,790 12/20/2012 70336 7590 12/30/2016 Seed IP Law Group LLP/EchoStar (290110) 701 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 5400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 Adam Schafer 12/30/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ADAM SCHAFER and ERIC HIEB Appeal 2016-000355 Application 13/722,790 Technology Center 2600 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-000355 Application 13/722,790 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from rejections of claims 1—9 and 11—29. Final Act. 1—23;1 2App. Br. 2. The Examiner indicates that claim 10 would be allowable if written in independent form. Final Act. 23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. CLAIMED INVENTION The claimed invention relates to apparatus, systems, and methods for displaying the current mode of a remote control device. Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method in a remote control device mode notification system, comprising: retrieving, by the remote control device mode notification system, remote control device mode information useful for determining a current mode of a first remote control device; and automatically causing, by the remote control device mode notification system, the current mode of the first remote control device to be presented by a presentation device other than the first remote control device based on the remote control device mode information. REFERENCES Sato US 5,416,535 May 16, 1995 Shinyagaito US 5,886,753 Mar. 23, 1999 Kida US 2006/0287851 A1 Dec. 21, 2006 1 The Final Action (at 1) indicates that claim 10 stands rejected, but sets forth no actual rejection for that claim. Final Act. 1—23. 2 Appeal 2016-000355 Application 13/722,790 Stecyk Brodersen Wisniewski US 7,690,017 B2 Mar. 30,2010 US 2010/0123834 A1 May 20, 2010 US 8,031,270 B1 Oct. 4,2011 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 18, 19, 21—23, 25, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Sato. Final Act. 3—8. Claim 1 also stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Stecyk. Final Act. 8 Claims 2—7 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sato. Final Act. 10—13. Claims 12—14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Sato and Brodersen. Final Act. 14—16. Claims 12—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stecyk. Final Act. 16—19. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Sato and Kida. Final Act. 19—20. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Sato and Shinyagaito. Final Act. 20—21. Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Sato and Wisniewski. Final Act. 21—23. 3 Appeal 2016-000355 Application 13/722,790 ANALYSIS Rejection for Anticipation by Sato Claims 1, 8, 11, 19, 21—23, 25, and 27 Appellants argue that Sato does not disclose the retrieving limitation of claim 1 because Sato’s remote control only operates in one mode and, therefore, would not provide “remote control device mode information useful for determining [its] current mode.” App. Br. 8—10; Reply Br. 2—A. According to Appellants, Sato’s remote control acts like a mouse or trackball input device for selecting items on a screen irrespective of the specific component being controlled. App. Br. 8—10; Reply Br. 2—A. Although Appellants acknowledge that Sato’s remote control stores different commands for controlling different devices, Appellants argue Sato does not teach using those stored commands. App. Br. 9—10; Reply Br. 2-4. We are not persuaded by these arguments. Sato discloses using its remote control to control different devices and displays an indicator of the device it is controlling on a screen. Ans. 8—9 (citing Sato Figures 7—17). Further, Sato teaches using its stored commands for controlling those different devices. See id. at 9; see also Sato 5:30-43. ROM 5b in Sato’s remote control “stores commands to be transmitted” including “command signals for remotely controlling at least one of the above-mentioned VTR 61, CD player 62, TV tuner 63, and VDP 64.” Ans. 8—9; see also Sato 5:30— 43. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection for anticipation by Sato of claim 1 4 Appeal 2016-000355 Application 13/722,790 and of claims 8, 11, 19, 21—23, 25, and 27 not separately argued. App. Br. 8-11. Claim 9 Appellants argue that Sato does not disclose the limitation of claim 9 of “wherein the receiving includes receiving information from the first remote control device” because Sato does not teach transmitting stored commands from its remote control device. App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 5—7. We are not persuaded by this argument, because, as discussed above, Sato teaches the commands-at-issue are stored for transmission. Sato 5:30-43. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 9 for anticipation by Sato. Claim 18 Appellants argue that Sato does not teach or suggest the limitation of claim 18 of “wherein the automatically causing the current mode of the first remote control device to presented by a presentation device other than the first remote control device is triggered by a user picking up the remote control device.” App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 7—9. For this limitation, the Examiner cites Sato’s Figures 3 through 5 and Sato’s disclosure regarding gyroscopes. Final Act. 5; Ans. 10—12 (citing Sato Figs. 3—5, 5:53—6:4, 6:25— 39). Appellants argue these disclosures do not teach triggering the presentation of a current mode of a remote control when a user picks up that remote control. App. Br. 12—13, Reply Br. 7—9. We agree. The disclosures cited by the Examiner do not expressly address triggering the presentation of a current mode of a remote control when a user picks up that remote control. Sato Figs. 3—5, 5:53—6:4, 6:25—39. Furthermore, the Examiner does not explain why those cited disclosures nevertheless teach that limitation. Final 5 Appeal 2016-000355 Application 13/722,790 Act. 5; Ans. 10—12. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 18 for anticipation by Sato. Claim 28 Appellants argue that Sato does not disclose the limitation in claim 28 of “determine a current mode of a remote control device based on remote control device mode information received from the remote control device” for the same reasons as claim 1—because Sato does not disclose the retrieving limitation of claim 1. App. Br. 15—16; Reply Br. 5. As discussed above, we are not persuaded by those arguments for claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 28 for anticipation by Sato. Rejection of Claim 1 for Anticipation by Stecyk Appellants argue that Stecyk does not disclose the retrieving limitation of claim 1 because Stecyk’s remote control device may be in a mode to control a device other than the one currently being used, which means it may not be controlling the device whose icon is displayed. App. Br. 13—14; Reply Br. 9—10. We are not persuaded by this argument because Stecyk’s remote control controls and selects IRC devices. Ans. 12—14; see also Stecyk 7:38-46; 9:9-17 (“navigates through the device selection menu”). Therefore, Stecyk discloses controlling an IRC device it has selected and, hence, the icon of the selected device would be displayed. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 for anticipation by Stecyk. Rejections for Obviousness Over Sato and Other Cited Art Claims 2—7 and 29 Appellants argue that Sato does not teach or suggest the limitation of claim 2 of “receiving, by a first device of the remote control device mode notification system, the remote control device mode information from the 6 Appeal 2016-000355 Application 13/722,790 first remote control device” because Sato’s remote control has only one mode and Sato does not disclose the transmission of the remote control’s stored commands for controlling devices. App. Br. 14—16; Reply Br. 10—12. As discussed above in connection with claim 1, we are not persuaded by these arguments. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 2 and of claims 3—7 and 29, not separately argued. App. Br. 14—16; Reply Br. 10—12. Claims 12—14, 20, 24, and 26 Appellants argue claims 12—14, 20, 24, and 26 are not obvious over Sato in various combinations with other cited art for the same reasons that claims 1,21, and 28 (from which they depend) are not anticipated by Sato. App. Br. 16—18; Reply Br. 13—16. As discussed above, we do not agree with Appellants’ arguments for claims 1,21, and 28. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 12—14, 20, 24, and 26 for obviousness over Sato in various combinations with other cited art. Rejections of Claims 12—17 for Obviousness Over Stecyk Appellants argue claims 12—17 are not obvious over Stecyk for the same reason that claim 1 (from which they depend) is not anticipated by Stecyk. App. Br. 16—18; Reply Br. 14. As discussed above, we do not agree with Appellants’ arguments for claim 1 versus Stecyk. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 12—17 for obviousness over Stecyk. 7 Appeal 2016-000355 Application 13/722,790 DECISION We affirm all rejections of claims 1—9, 11—17, and 19—29. We reverse the rejection of claim 18. 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 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation