Universal Electronics Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 14, 20212020004261 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2021) 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. 16/163,270 10/17/2018 Gerben Meijer 81230.162US2 8177 34018 7590 10/14/2021 Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 W. Wacker Drive Suite 3100 CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732 EXAMINER LUBIT, RYAN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2626 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/14/2021 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 GERBEN MEIJER ____________ Appeal 2020-004261 Application 16/163,270 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before LARRY J. HUME, CATHERINE SHIANG, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–8, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Universal Electronics Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-004261 Application 16/163,270 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The disclosed and claimed invention relates to “using a controlling device having multiple surfaces to control navigational functions of an appliance.” Spec. 1:24–2:1. In particular, the described system and method facilities control of navigational functions of an appliance by functioning to dynamically align an A, B, and C axis of a controlling device to an X, Y, and Z axis of an appliance based upon which of the multiple surfaces of the controlling device is determined to be the active surface. In this manner, as the controlling device is moved for the purpose of changing a one of the multiple surfaces of the controlling device that is to be placed into the active state, the controlling device can be still be conveniently utilized to interact with displayed menu systems, to browse web pages, to manipulate pointers, and/or to perform other similar activities. In a described embodiment an accelerometer may be utilized to detect changes in orientation of the controlling device for the purposes described herein. Id. at 2:1–10. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method for providing axis orientation compensation in a system in which movement of a controlling device is used to control navigational functions of a target appliance, comprising: receiving by the target appliance from the controlling device a navigational command wherein the navigational command comprises data indicative of a one of a plurality of sides of the controlling device that was determined by the controlling device to be an active side of the controlling device and data indicative of a movement of the controlling device along a one of an A, B, or C axis of the controlling device; using the data in the received navigational command by the target appliance to determine whether the target appliance is to respond to the received navigational command by Appeal 2020-004261 Application 16/163,270 3 performing a navigational function in a one of an X, Y, or Z axis of the target appliance; and performing by the target appliance the navigational function in the determined one of the X, Y, or Z axis of the target appliance. Reference and Rejection2 Claims Rejected3 35 U.S.C. § References 1–8 102(b) Hatambeiki (US 2011/0279223 A1, pub. Nov. 17, 2011) ANALYSIS Anticipation4 We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of Hatambeiki disclose “using the data in the received navigational command by the target appliance to determine whether the target appliance is to respond to the received navigational command by performing a navigational 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated Oct. 23, 2019 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated Feb. 10, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); (3) Examiner’s Answer dated Mar. 26, 2020 (“Ans.”); and (4) Reply Brief dated May 20, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). 3 The Examiner’s objection to the Title (Final Act. 4) is not before us. 4 Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not address the additional arguments. See, e.g., Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (an administrative agency’s “judicious use of a single dispositive issue approach . . . can . . . save . . . unnecessary cost and effort”). Appeal 2020-004261 Application 16/163,270 4 function in a one of an X, Y, or Z axis of the target appliance,” as recited in independent claim 1 (emphases added). See Appeal Br. 8–9. The Examiner cites Hatambeiki’s Figures 2 and 5 and paragraphs 18, 20, 24, and 35 for teaching the above claim limitation. See Final Act. 6; Ans. 10–11. We have reviewed the cited Hatambeiki portions, and they do not provide sufficient details to disclose “using the data in the received navigational command by the target appliance to determine whether the target appliance is to respond to the received navigational command by performing a navigational function in a one of an X, Y, or Z axis of the target appliance,” as required by claim 1 (emphases added). As a result, the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence or explanation to support the rejection under the strict requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 102.5 Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. Regarding independent claim 5, similar to the discussions above, the cited Hatambeiki portions lack sufficient details to disclose wherein the controlling device determines whether the target appliance is to perform the navigational function in the one of the X, Y, or Z axis of the target appliance as a function of which one of a plurality of sides of the controlling device was determined by the controlling device to be an active side of the controlling device and the one of the A, B, or C axis of the controlling device along which the controlling device was moved to cause the navigational signal to be sent to the target appliance, 5 If prosecution reopens, we leave it to the Examiner to determine whether the disputed limitation is obvious in light of (i) Hatambeiki’s paragraphs 17 and 35; or (ii) the collective teachings of Hatambeiki and Friedman (US 2011/0090407 A1; publ. Apr. 21, 2011), as Friedman is cited as prior art for a related Application No. 13/761,387. Appeal 2020-004261 Application 16/163,270 5 as required by claim 5 (emphases added).6 Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 5. We also reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of corresponding dependent claims 2–4 and 6–8. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 1–8 102 Hatambeiki 1–8 REVERSED 6 The Examiner also cites Hatambeiki’s paragraphs 13 and 14 for claim 5. Final Act. 8. However, those two paragraphs similarly lack sufficient details to disclose the disputed limitation. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation