Ex Parte Um et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2016

12049601 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/049,601 03/17/2008
58027 7590 06/02/2016
RC PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC
1894 PRESTON WHITE DRIVE
RESTON, VA 20191
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chang Gun Um
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.
P2223USOO 7171
EXAMINER
DUFFIELD, JEREMY S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2016 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):
PATENT@PARK-LAW.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHANG GUN UM and SEUNG MUN RHO
Appeal2014-007231
Application 12/049,601
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1 and 5-1 7, which constitute all claims pending in the application. 1
(Final Act. l; Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Page five of the Final Action and page fifteen of the Appeal Brief indicate
that claim 4 also stands rejected. The first page of the Final Action and the
Claim Appendix set forth that claim 4 is canceled. In fact, Appellants
canceled claim 4 in the Reply and Amendment Submitted with a Request for
Continued Examination (RCE) Under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.114, filed June 7, 2012
(see page 2).
Appeal2014-007231
Application 12/049,601
INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed invention relates to a method of controlling a
device with a universal remote control, and more particularly, to a method of
registering a device with a universal remote control and controlling the
registered device. (Spec. i-f 3.) Claim 1 is representative and reads as
follows, with its disputed limitations italicized:
1. A method of controlling a device with a universal remote
control, comprising:
obtaining an image of an operation panel of a remote
control that controls the device;
detecting a boundary of an input key area in the image of
the operation panel;
identifYing a character included within the detected
boundary of the input key area;
receiving a control command from the remote control that
controls the device if a touch signal is detected on the detected
input key area;
assigning the received control command to the input key
area so as to register with the device;
storing the input key area and the control command
assigned to the input key area;
displaying the image of the operation panel of the remote
control; and
outputting the assigned control command in response to a
touch signal input at the input key area, wherein storing the input
key area comprises storing the identified character in
association with the control command assigned to the input key
area.
2
Appeal2014-007231
Application 12/049,601
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references:
Chellapilla et al. US 2004/0181749 Al Sep. 16,2004
Katayose US 2005/0156904 Al July 21, 2005
Kakui US 2005/0200715 Al Sep. 15,2005
Huang et al. US 7 ,548,246 B2 June 16, 2009
Amand WO 2005/043484 Al May 12, 2005
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 6-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Amand, Kakui, Chellapilla, and
Huang. (Final Act. 5.)
Claims 5 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Amand, Kakui, Chellapilla, Huang,
and Katayose. (Final Act. 15.)
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
We agree with, and adopt, the findings and reasoning the Examiner
sets forth in the Final Action and the Answer regarding claim 1. (Final Act.
2-8; Ans. 2-8.) We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants argue the cited prior art references fail to teach or suggest
"identifying a character included within a detected boundary of the input key
area" and "storing the identified character in association with the control
3
Appeal2014-007231
Application 12/049,601
command assigned to the key input area," as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 7-
9; Reply Br. 5-8.) In particular, Appellants argue that combining Amand's
disclosed remote control with Kakui' s disclosed algorithm for identifying G-
Codes would: fail to satisfy the disputed limitations, change Kakui' s
principle of operation, and render Kakui inoperable. (App. Br. 7-8; Reply
Br. 5-8.) The Examiner, however, correctly relies on Kakui for the
teaching of "identifying a character contained in an image," rather than on
the identification ofG-Codesper se. (Final Act. 7 (citing Kakui i-fi-131, 41.))
That is, rather than combining the specific embodiments disclosed in Amand
and Kakui in the manner Appellants purport, the Examiner combines
Amand's teaching of having a remote control scan an object to produce an
image, Kakui's teaching of optical character recognition, and Chellapilla's
teaching of identifying characters within a detected boundary. (Ans. 2-5.)
Appellants have not presented persuasive arguments or evidence
demonstrating that these combined teachings fail to satisfy the disputed
limitations, would change Kakui' s principle of operation, or would render
Kakui inoperable. (App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 5-8.)
Appellants further argue that Huang fails to teach "storing the
identified character in association with the control command assigned to the
input key area," as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 5-8.) We
are not persuaded by this argument because the Examiner relies on the
combination of Amand, Kakui, Chellapilla, and Huang for this limitation,
not just on Huang. (Ans. 5---6.)
Appellants further argue that (i) the Examiner uses impermissible
hindsight to combine the cited references and (ii) the claimed invention is an
unpredictable combination. (App. Br. 12-14.) Appellants, however, have
4
Appeal2014-007231
Application 12/049,601
not presented persuasive evidence or arguments demonstrating
impermissible hindsight or an unpredictable combination. (Id.) Moreover,
Appellants' arguments do not show error in the Examiner's findings
regarding what the references would suggest to an ordinarily skilled artisan
with ordinary creativity (e.g., Appellants argue that Kakui merely describes
a method for decoding a G-Code for a timer recording of a program and
Chellapilla is merely about populating entities from an electronic image
using character recognition, so combining those embodiments requires
hindsight.). (App. Br. 13.)
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 5-17
Appellants present the same arguments for claims 5-1 7 as for claim 1.
(App. Br. 14--15.) Therefore, for the reasons expressed above for claim 1,
we sustain the rejection of claims 5-1 7.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1 and 5-17.
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
5