Paul Arling et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 30, 2021

2020002689 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2021)

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.
13/043,848 03/09/2011 Paul D. Arling 81230.102US5 9650
34018 7590 07/30/2021
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 W. Wacker Drive
Suite 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
EXAMINER
ALAM, MUSHFIKH I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2021 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):
chiipmail@gtlaw.com
clairt@gtlaw.com
jarosikg@gtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PAUL D. ARLING, CHRISTOPHER CHAMBERS,
WAYNE SCOTT, and MARK MOMOT
____________________

Appeal 2020-002689
Application 13/043,848
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MARC S. HOFF, and
JENNIFER L. MCKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1–12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s invention is a system and method for saving and recalling
state data for media and home appliances. A user initiates a save state
command for a particular media rendering system from which a media

1 Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Universal
Electronics Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002689
Application 13/043,848

2
element (e.g., movie, music, etc.) is being played. Both the playback state of
the media and the rendering system’s device states during playback will be
saved, in one or more central servers and/or in a portable controlling device.
Data so saved may be recalled at a later time to operate the devices and
media of the same entertainment center, or it may be recalled and converted
for use in conjunction with a different media rendering system having
analogous or complementary functionality. Spec. 2–3. In response to
activation of the input element of a hand-held portable device, the data
related to the state of an appliance and a state of the appliance’s environment
are used to create and transmit a sequence of commands. Spec. 21–22.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:

1. A method for using saved state data in a media control system
located in an environment, the method comprising:
storing in a memory of the hand-held, portable
controlling device in association with an activable input
element of the hand-held, portable controlling device data
related to a state of an appliance and a state of an environment
in which the appliance is located; and
in response to an activation of the activable input element
of the hand-held, portable controlling device at a time
subsequent to the data related to a state of an appliance and a
state of an environment in which the appliance is located being
stored in the memory causing the handheld, portable controlling
device to use the data related to a state of an appliance and a
state of an environment in which the appliance is located as
stored in the memory of the hand-held, portable controlling
device in association with the activable input element of the
hand-held, portable controlling device to create a sequence of
commands and to transmit the created sequence of commands.
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2020-002689
Application 13/043,848

3
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference(s) Date
Thomas US 2002/0059621 Al May 16, 2002
Sumida US 2002/0124584 Al Sept. 12, 2002
Krzyzanowski US 2004/0003073 A1 Jan. 1, 2004
Zintel US 6,725,281 B1 Apr. 20, 2004
Zigmond US 2005/0035846 A1 Feb. 17, 2005

Claims 1–3 and 7–9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zigmond, Zintel, and Krzyzanowski. Non-Final Act. 2.
Claims 4 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zigmond, Zintel, Krzyzanowski, and Sumida. Non-Final
Act. 5.
Claims 5, 6, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Zigmond, Zintel, Krzyzanowski, and Thomas. Non-
Final Act. 6.

Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed September 12, 2002), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,”
filed February 21, 2020), the Non-Final Action (“Non-Final Act.,” mailed
April 11, 2019), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed December 27,
2019) for their respective details.

ISSUE
Appellant’s arguments present us with the following issue:
Does the combination of Zigmond, Zintel, and Krzyzanowski disclose
or suggest, in response to an activation of the activable input element of a
hand-held portable controlling device, causing the hand-held portable
Appeal 2020-002689
Application 13/043,848

4
controlling device to use data stored therein related to a state of an appliance
and a state of an environment in which the appliance is located, in
association with the activable input element of the hand-held, portable
controlling device, to create a sequence of commands and to transmit the
created sequence of commands?

ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1–3 AND 7–9
Appellant’s remarks are directed exclusively to independent claims 1
and 7, discussed together. Appeal Br. 5–7. We therefore select independent
claim 1 as representative of claims 1–3 and 7–9.
Appellant asserts that Zintel does not teach (a) using data related to a
state of an appliance and a state of the environment in which the appliance is
located, (b) in association with an activable input element of a controlling
device, (c) to create commands for transmission, let alone create and
transmit such commands. Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Appellant here presents an
attack on the Zintel reference individually, in spite of the Examiner’s
assertion of obviousness over the combination of Zigmond, Zintel, and
Krzyzanowski. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Zigmond teaches
storing data related to a state of an appliance and data related to an
environment in which the appliance is located. Non-Final Act. 3. We further
find that Zigmond teaches capturing multimedia information when the
“pause” button is pressed, said information being stored by the remote
controller. Board Decision mailed June 26, 2015, at 6. We further find that
Zigmond teaches an unpause command based on the previous pause
Appeal 2020-002689
Application 13/043,848

5
command, i.e., based on the stored settings. Id. We regard Zigmond’s pause
and unpause commands to correspond to the “activable input element of a
controlling device” as currently claimed.
We find that Zigmond teaches using (stored) data related to a state of
an appliance and a state of the environment in which the appliance located,
in association with that activable input element, to create and transmit at
least one command. Id.; Zigmond ¶¶ 48–50, 60–62. The Examiner finds, and
we agree, that Krzyzanowski teaches creating and transmitting “a sequence
of commands.” Non-Final Act. 4; Krzyzanowski ¶¶ 15, 154–175. Thus, we
agree with the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Zigmond, Zintel,
and Krzyzanowski establishes the prima facie obviousness of independent
claims 1 and 7.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s stated rationale for
combining Zintel with Zigmond is erroneous. “It has not been explained nor
is it evident how providing state table changes (as taught by Zintel) to the
system of Zigmond . . . would result in the exact invention claimed.” Appeal
Br. 6.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. As stated above, we find that
the combination of Zigmond, Zintel, and Krzyzanowski teaches all the
limitations of the invention under appeal. We agree with the Examiner that
Zintel discloses features relating to linking multiple user control points and
controlled devices. Ans. 4. We further agree with the Examiner’s rationale
that it would have been obvious to combine Zigmond with Zintel in order to
provide state changes on the devices in communication, and that it would
have been obvious to combine Zigmond and Zintel with Krzyzanowski in
order to provide a remote control with a macro capability that is not limited
Appeal 2020-002689
Application 13/043,848

6
to sequences of commands present in the universal remote control’s code
library. Non-Final Act. 4.
Appellant’s argument that Krzyzanowski does not teach all the
elements of the claims by itself is not persuasive to show error. Appeal Br. 7.
The Examiner proposed the combination of Zigmond, Zintel, and
Krzyzanowski, set forth the prima facie obviousness of the claimed
invention, and stated reasons to combine the references having a rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. Ans. 5-6.
In response to Appellant’s Reply Brief argument2 regarding the
interpretation of “state of an environment in which the appliance is located,”
we find supra that the combination of Zigmond, Zintel, and Krzyzanowski,
regardless of the particular teachings of the Zintel reference, teaches all of
the limitations of the invention under appeal. Reply Br. 4. The Board
previously found, in the Decision mailed June 26, 2015, that Zigmond
teaches storing such information concerning the state of an environment in
which the appliance is located. Decision 6.
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–3 and
7–9 over the combination of Zigmond, Zintel, and Krzyzanowski. We
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection.

2 Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s Answer contains a new ground
of rejection is properly addressable by petition (within two months) to the
Examining Group Director but is not appealable. 37 C.F.R. § 41.40(a)
(“Failure of appellant to timely file such a petition will constitute a waiver of
any arguments that a rejection must be designated as a new ground of
rejection.”). As the appeal is now before the Board, Appellant’s argument is
moot. Reply Br. 3–4.
Appeal 2020-002689
Application 13/043,848

7
CLAIMS 4–6 AND 10–12
Appellant presents no separate argument with respect to these claims.
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 4 and 10
over Zigmond, Zintel, Krzyzanowski, and Sumida for the reasons given
supra with respect to independent claims 1 and 7. We therefore also sustain
the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 5, 6, 11, and 12 over Zigmond,
Zintel, Krzyzanowski, and Thomas for the reasons given supra with respect
to independent claims 1 and 7.
The combination of Zigmond, Zintel, and Krzyzanowski suggests, in
response to an activation of the activable input element of a hand-held
portable controlling device, causing the hand-held portable controlling
device to use data stored therein related to a state of an appliance and a state
of an environment in which the appliance is located, in association with the
activable input element of the hand-held, portable controlling device, to
create a sequence of commands and to transmit the created sequence of
commands.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–12 is affirmed.
Appeal 2020-002689
Application 13/043,848

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 7–9 103 Zigmond, Zintel,
Krzyzanowski
1–3, 7–9
4, 10 103 Zigmond, Zintel,
Krzyzanowski,
Sumida
4, 10
5, 6, 11, 12 103 Zigmond, Zintel,
Krzyzanowski,
Thomas
5, 6, 11, 12
Overall
Outcome
1–12

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED