Ex parte VOGEL

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 5, 1999

08102507 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 5, 1999)

Application for patent filed August 5, 1993. According1
to appellant, this application is a continuation of
Application 07/841,296 filed February 28, 1992, which is a
continuation of Application 07/582,878 filed October 12, 1990,
both abandoned.
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 41
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte PETER S. VOGEL
____________
Appeal No. 95-4150
Application No. 08/102,5071
____________
HEARD: December 10, 1998
____________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 15-
16, 25-29, 36 and 45. The other remaining claims (Claims 17-
Appeal No. 95-4150
Application No. 08/102,507
2
19, 37 and 38) stand objected to as depending on a rejected
base claim but allowable if rewritten in independent form.
Claim 15 reads as follows:
15. A method of controlling a device, comprising the
steps of:
transmitting an information signal from a first
transmitter;
transmitting a control signal from a second transmitter,
said control signal being indicative of a predetermined target
condition;
receiving said information signal at a receiving station;
applying said received information signal to a receiving
device at said receiving station;
receiving said control signal at an intermediate station;
sensing an operational condition of said receiving
device;
formatting said received control signal according to said
sensed operational condition to form control codes suitable
for reception by an input of said receiving device;
using a third transmitter to modulate a carrier on the
basis of said control codes; and
applying the modulated carrier from said third
transmitter to an input of said receiving device to cause said
receiving device to enter said predetermined target
operational condition.
Appeal No. 95-4150
Application No. 08/102,507
3
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art:
Young 4,706,121 Nov. 10, 1987
Reitmeier 4,746,919 May 24,
1988

OPINION
Claims 15-16, 25-29, 36 and 45 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Young in view of Reitmeier.
Claims 15-16, 25, and 28-29
Claims 15-16, 25, and 28-29 stand or fall together
because appellants have presented no arguments for separate
patentability under 37 CFR § 1.192.
We find that Young teaches all of the steps of claim 15.
As to the first step, Young transmits an information signal
(television broadcast) from a first transmitter 133. As to
the second step, Young transmits a control signal (shown in
Figure 3 as a wavy line between remote control transmitter 116
and remote receiver 118) from a second transmitter 116, said
control signal being indicative of a predetermined target
condition. The recited “predetermined target condition” in
Young is the state of receiving a preselected program. Column
7, line 51, through column 8, line 18.
Appeal No. 95-4150
Application No. 08/102,507
4
As to the third step, Young receives the information
signal at a receiving station. The receiving station includes
everything in Figure 3. As to the fourth step, Young applies
the received information signal to a receiving device at the
receiving station shown in Figure 3. The “receiving device”
is satisfied by the TV/VCR combination 126/150 and may further
include programmable TV tuner 132 and video switcher 140.
As to the fifth step, Young receives the control signal
at an intermediate station 110. As to the sixth step, Young
senses an operational condition (whether TV is on or off) of
the receiving device.
As to the seventh step, Young formats the received
control signal according to the sensed operational condition
to form control codes suitable for reception by an input of
the receiving device. For example, if the sensed condition is
that the television is off, Young may form the control code
for causing the VCR to record. Column 8, lines 62-66. As to
the eighth step, Young uses a third transmitter 1010 to
modulate a carrier on the basis of said control codes. Column
9, lines 7-15; Figure 4b.
Appeal No. 95-4150
Application No. 08/102,507
5
As to the ninth step, Young applies modulated carrier
1004 from third transmitter 1010 to an input on VCR 216 of
said receiving device to cause the receiving device to enter
the predetermined target operational condition. For example,
the application of carrier 1004 to VCR 216 may cause the VCR
to record.
Thus, Young fully suggests the claimed subject matter.
We view Reitmeier as cumulative. We recognize that Young’s
disclosure is different than appellant’s preferred embodiment.
Nonetheless, the claims on appeal are not so limited. Claims
undergoing examination are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and
limitations appearing in the specification are not to be read
into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1,
5 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (in banc).
Therefore, the rejection of claims 15-16, 25, and 28-29
is sustained.
Claim 45
Claim 45 is essentially the same as claim 15 except that
the received control signal is formatted according to the
Appeal No. 95-4150
Application No. 08/102,507
6
receiving device type as well as according to the sensed
operational condition.
Reitmeier teaches that there are different types of
televisions and VCRs and suggests that a remote control signal
should be formatted according to the type of device being
controlled. Column 2, line 60, through column 3, line 19.
From the combined teachings, it would have been obvious to
format Young’s control signal according to the receiving
device type as suggested by Reitmeier in order to control any
type of VCR with one transmitter. Claim 45 requires nothing
more. Thus, we will sustain the rejection of claim 45.
Claim 26
Claim 26 does not further distinguish over Young because
in Figure 4b Young teaches a receiving station remote from the
transmitting stations. The rejection of claim 26 will be
sustained on the same basis as claims 15 and 45 discussed
above.
Claim 27
Claim 27 does not further distinguish over Young because
Young’s receiving station includes a video recorder. For
Appeal No. 95-4150
Application No. 08/102,507
7
example, Young’s receiving station can be considered a
combination television/video recorder as discussed above. The
rejection of claim 27 will be sustained on the same basis as
claims 15 and 45 discussed above.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 15-16, 25-29, 36 and 45 is
sustained.
Appeal No. 95-4150
Application No. 08/102,507
8
No period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-4150
Application No. 08/102,507
9
Cushman, Darby & Cushman
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
9th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3918
GJH
Appeal No. 95-4150
Application No. 08/102,507
APJ CARMICHAEL
APJ THOMAS
APJ HAIRSTON
AFFIRMED
March 6, 2001