Universal Electronics Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 2, 2020

15902007 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2020)

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.
15/902,007 02/22/2018 Arsham Hatambeiki 81230.142US2 9240
34018 7590 07/02/2020
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 W. Wacker Drive
Suite 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
EXAMINER
TRUONG, NGUYEN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2691
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2020 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 ARSHAM HATAMBEIKI, JEFFREY KOHANEK, and
PAMELA EICHLER KEILES
________________

Appeal 2019-002026
Application 15/902,007
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.

Opinion of the Board by MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

Opinion Dissenting by SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2–19. This appeal is related to appeal
number 2014-005267 (decided April 4, 2016) and appeal number 2019-

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Universal
Electronics Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002026
Application 15/902,007

2

000458 (decided October 4, 2019). Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
Summary of the disclosure
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to a controlling device that:
(1) “senses an activation of at least one of the plurality of switches when
caused by a movement of the touch sensitive panel resulting from an input at
an input location upon the touch sensitive surface” and (2) “responds by
transmitting a signal to an appliance wherein the signal is reflective of the
input location upon the touch sensitive surface.” Spec., Abstract.
Representative claim (key limitations emphasized)
2. A method for remotely controlling one or more devices and/
or a user interface, the method comprising:
detecting a user input event at a portion of a user input element
of a remote control;
determining whether the user input event is a click event or a
touch event;
selecting from a library of control commands stored in a
memory of the remote control a control command based on
whether the user input event is a click event or a touch event
and on the portion of the user input element at which the user
input event was detected; and
for a particular portion of the user input element at which the
user input event was detected, causing a first control command
selected from the library of control commands to be executed in
response to determining that the user input event is a click event
and causing a second control command selected from the
library of control commands to be executed in response to
determining that the user input event is a touch event;
wherein a threshold associated with a depression of the user
input element is used to determine whether the user input event
is a click event or a touch event.
Appeal 2019-002026
Application 15/902,007

3

The Examiner’s rejections and cited references
The Examiner rejects claims 2–5, 7–15, and 17–19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fisher et al. (US 2010/0149127 A1;
published June 17, 2010) (“Fisher”) and Arling et al. (US 2008/0005764 A1;
published Jan. 3, 2008) (“Arling”). Final Act. 2–9.
The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fisher, Arling, and Rigazio et al. (US 2009/0262073
A1; published Oct. 22, 2009) (“Rigazio”). Final Act. 9–10.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 2 as obvious, the Examiner finds Fisher’s use of
signals produced by a touch pad to detect events—such as a motion to
perform actions such as scrolling through a list—teaches or suggests
mapping “a control command based on whether the user input event is . . . a
touch event and on the portion of the user input element at which the user
input event was detected.” See Final Act. 3 (citing, e.g., Fisher Fig. 26,
¶¶ 130–31); Ans. 4 (citing, e.g., Fisher ¶¶ 42, 150). The Examiner does not
rely on Fisher to teach or suggest that the control commands are selected
“from a library control commands stored in a memory of the remote
control,” but the Examiner instead relies on Arling’s command code library
to teach or suggest modifying Fisher to include such a library. See Final Act.
4; Ans. 3 (citing, e.g., Arling ¶¶ 22, 24). The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to include a command code library in Fisher
because such incorporation would have merely represented the combination
of “prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
results.” Final Act. 5.
Appeal 2019-002026
Application 15/902,007

4

Appellant contends the Examiner erred because in Fisher’s “‘touch
mode’ it is not the location of a touch upon the touchpad but . . . instead the
reported change in the position of the finger upon the touchpad that is
important for the device . . . to operate as intended.” Appeal Br. 6 (citing
Fisher ¶ 131). That is, Appellant argues Fisher “never expressly describes
that a control command is executed based upon a determination of a
particular portion of the user input element at which the touch-based[] user
input event was detected.” Reply Br. 2.
Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim
2 and thus are unpersuasive. Specifically, the disputed recitation of “the
portion of the user input element at which the user input event was detected”
does not preclude the portion of the user input element being determined by
prior user input events. Indeed, the Specification discloses accepting “finger
sliding gestures on either axis for translation into navigation step commands
in an X or Y direction.” Spec. 7, ll. 11–12.2 Thus, a broad, but reasonable
interpretation of “the portion of the user input element” encompasses a
portion of the user input element contacted at the end of a gesture that is
relative to the portion of the user input element contacted at the beginning of
the gesture (e.g., above, below, left, right).
The Examiner correctly finds that Fisher teaches a touch event based
on gestures such as linear motion. Ans. 4 (citing Fisher ¶ 42). Such gestures,

2 The dissent, in agreeing with Appellant, states that “a co-pending
application, not this application, describes such finger sliding gestures and
resulting commands.” See below (citing Spec. 7–8). Such descriptions,
however, support rather than show error in our claim construction because
the Specification incorporates the co-pending application (U.S. 12/522,761)
“by reference in its entirety.” Spec. 8.
Appeal 2019-002026
Application 15/902,007

5

like the finger slide gestures disclosed in the Specification, would end with
contact on one portion of the user input element relative to the contact point
at the beginning of the gesture. See, e.g., Fisher Fig. 26. Therefore, we agree
with the Examiner that Fisher teaches or suggests “a control command based
on whether the user input event is . . . a touch event and on the portion of the
user input element at which the user input event was detected,” as recited in
claim 2. See Final Act. 3.
Appellant argues “the system of Fisher operates on the principle of
reporting the absolute coordinates of the location of a touch” and that
“eliminating/changing this functionality from the device of Fis[]her would
impressimbly change [its] principle of operation.” Appeal Br. 8; see also
Reply Br. 3–4. Appellant’s arguments, however, relate to Fisher’s “absolute
mode” rather than to Fisher’s “relative mode,” which “can report the
direction and/or distance of change, for example, left/right up/down.” Fisher
¶ 131. The Examiner’s findings, which we address above and find
persuasive, are based on Fisher’s “relative mode.” See Ans. 4. Therefore,
Appellant’s arguments are not responsive to the Examiner’s findings and
are, therefore, unpersuasive.
Appellant further argues the Examiner erred in concluding that it
would have been obvious to modify Fisher based on the Arling library of
commands because Fisher “already includes a library of command codes
stored in memory and already selects from the library of control commands
stored in the memory a command based on the click event and on the
portion of the touchpad at which the click event was detected.” Appeal Br.
7–8. That is, Appellant argues Fisher “only discloses tracking a touching
Appeal 2019-002026
Application 15/902,007

6

movement of a finger on a touch pad for purposes of controlling a scrolling
operation.” Reply Br. 5.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because they do not
persuasively distinguish Fisher’s scrolling operation controls from the
claimed control commands. Id.; see also Ans. 4. Moreover, the Examiner’s
conclusion that it would have been obvious to select such control commands
from a library of control commands is bolstered, rather than undercut, by
Appellant’s acknowledgment that—at least when a user input event is a click
event—Fisher teaches selecting a control command from a library of control
commands. See Appeal Br. 7–8. As the Examiner only relies on Arling to
teach or suggest “‘a library’ storing control commands” (Ans. 3), and,
according to Appellant, Fisher already teaches the use of such a library
(Appeal Br. 7–8), we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Arling’s library of control commands with Fisher’s teachings and
suggestions would have represented the combination of familiar elements
according to known methods to yield predictable results (Final Act. 4–5).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 2, and claims 3–19, which Appellant argues are patentable for
similar reasons. See Appeal Br. 8–9.

Appeal 2019-002026
Application 15/902,007

7

CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
2–5, 7–15,
17–19
103(a) Fisher, Arling 2–5, 7–15,
17–19

6, 16 103(a) Fisher, Arling, Rigazio 6, 16
Overall
Outcome
2–19
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking 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

Appeal 2019-002026
Application 15/902,007

8

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte ARSHAM HATAMBEIKI,
JEFFREY KOHANEK, and
PAMELA EICHLER KEILES
________________

Appeal 2019-002026
Application 15/902,007
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.

Claim 2 recites “selecting from a library of control commands stored
in a memory of the remote control a control command based on whether the
user input event is a click event or a touch event and on the portion of the
user input element at which the user input event was detected.” Appellant
contends that Fisher teaches a relative mode, in which the direction of the
touch, not the particular location of the touch, determines the command.
Reply Br. 2–3. In particular, Appellant contends that Fisher teaches that
“when the user touches on a portion of the touchpad . . . and rotates the
finger in a clockwise/counterclockwise direction, a user interface displayed
on a screen would be scrolled in a corresponding direction (e.g., up/down).”
Id. at 3. Appellant contends that determining a command based on a
Appeal 2019-002026
Application 15/902,007

9

direction of a touch as disclosed by Fisher does not teach “selecting . . . a
control command based . . . on the portion of the user input element at which
the user input event was detected” as claimed. See id. at 4.
I agree with Appellant. In my view, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claimed “selecting . . . a control command based . . . on
the portion of the user input element at which the user input event was
detected,” read in light of the Specification, does not encompass a direction
or distance of change of touch. Although the Specification discloses a touch
pad that accepts finger sliding gestures for translation into navigation
commands, the Specification discloses that a co-pending application, not this
application, describes such finger sliding gestures and resulting commands.
Spec. 7–8. In this application, the Specification discloses the claimed
“portion of the user input element at which the user input event was
detected” as a location, in X,Y coordinates, of a finger position. Spec. 10–
11, Fig. 5. Figure 5 shows such portion as location 512 corresponding to a
left arrow when in navigation mode, and as location 512’ corresponding to
the numeric digit 4 when in digit entry mode. Id. at 10–11; see id. at 12–14,
Fig. 6 (Step 618 “Interpret X,Y position data as navigation keys,” step 620
“Interpret X,Y position data as number pad.”).
Fisher discloses that “[i]n relative mode, touch pad 2534 can report
the direction and/or distance of change [and] can direct movement on the
display screen in a direction similar to the direction of the finger as it may be
moved across the surface of touch pad 2354.” Fisher ¶ 131. Fisher does not
disclose that the touch pad in relative mode reports “the portion of the user
input element at which the user input event was detected,” as recited in
claim 2. The command resulting from a touch described in Fisher’s relative
Appeal 2019-002026
Application 15/902,007

10

mode will be based on the reported direction or distance, regardless of which
portion of the user input element the user touches. Therefore, Fisher’s
relative mode does not teach “selecting . . . a control command based . . . on
the portion of the user input element at which the user input event was
detected” as claimed.
I find claim 2 patentable over the combination of Fisher and Arling.
Because claims 3–19 recite, or depend from a claim that recites, a similar
limitation, I find these claims patentable over the prior art applied by the
Examiner in the rejections of claims 3–19.