Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-22-01782/USCOURTS-ca13-22-01782-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Universal Electronics, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.,

Appellant

______________________

2022-1782

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 14/047,072.

______________________

Decided: January 12, 2024

______________________

JAMES J. LUKAS, JR., Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Chicago, 

IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by BENJAMIN 

GILFORD, GARY R. JAROSIK; ERIK BOKAR, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Orlando, FL.

 MAI-TRANG DUC DANG, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Katherine K. Vidal. Also represented by

AMY J. NELSON, BRIAN RACILLA, FARHEENA YASMEEN 

RASHEED.

______________________

Before REYNA, HUGHES, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

REYNA, Circuit Judge.

Case: 22-1782 Document: 51 Page: 1 Filed: 01/12/2024
2 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.

Universal Electronics, Inc. appeals a final written decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office 

Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which found two claims of

U.S. Patent Application No. 14/047,072 unpatentable as 

obvious. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

A. U.S. Patent Application No. 14/047,072

Universal Electronics, Inc. (“UEI”) is the assignee of 

U.S. Patent Application No. 14/047,072 (“’072 application”), titled “User Interface for a Remote Control Application.” J.A. 144. The application describes an improved 

remote control user interface for controlling home appliances and entertainment devices, such as televisions. J.A. 

28 (2:12–17), 70 (44:20–23). The disclosed user interface 

can display a list of icons representing a user’s favorite 

channels. See J.A. 124 (Fig. 17(a)). A user can tap an icon

(such as “ESPN”) to select a channel. J.A. 65 (39:1–5). 

The remote control may support electronic program 

guide (EPG) functionality, which provides information 

such as channel listings. J.A. 78 (52:3–14). Using EPG 

data, the application describes automatically updating 

channel numbers associated with icons representing the 

user’s favorite channels. J.A. 96–97 (70:18–71:8). The remote control may “compare the most recently downloaded 

EPG against a previously downloaded EPG to determine if 

any channel assignments have changed.” J.A. 96 (70:20–

23). If there is a change, the remote control can “update 

the favorites channel list to reflect the new channel number assigned to a favorite.” J.A. 97 (71:2–3). For instance,

if the channel number for “ESPN” changes from 29 to 45, 

the remote control updates the mapping for “ESPN” from 

channel 29 to channel 45. J.A. 97 (71:3–8). When the user

selects the “ESPN” icon, the correct channel is selected and

displayed. Id.

Case: 22-1782 Document: 51 Page: 2 Filed: 01/12/2024
IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. 3

Claims 11 and 12 are at issue. J.A. 24–25. Claim 11 is 

representative and recites, 

11. A non-transitory, computer readable media 

having instructions for displaying information to a 

user of a hand-held device, the instructions, when 

executed by a processing device of the handheld device, causing the hand-held device to perform steps 

comprising:

displaying to the user a plurality of iconic representations of sources of programming each having 

mapped thereto a first channel number usable by 

the hand-held device to transmit a channel tuning 

command to a home appliance to [sic] in response 

to a selection of a [sic] one of the plurality of iconic 

representations;

receiving by the hand-held device an electronic program guide having assignments between channel

numbers and sources of programming;

determining if the electronic program guide includes an assignment of a second channel number 

to a source of programming represented by at least 

one of the plurality of iconic representations; and

in response to determining that the electronic program guide includes the assignment of the second 

channel number to the source of programming represented by at least one of the plurality of iconic 

representations, using the electronic program 

guide to automatically change the mapping between the channel numbers and the plurality of 

iconic representations such that the mapping of the 

channel numbers to the plurality of iconic representations corresponds to assignments of channel 

numbers to sources of programs within the electronic program guide.

J.A. 24 (emphasis added to highlight disputed limitations). 

Case: 22-1782 Document: 51 Page: 3 Filed: 01/12/2024
4 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.

B. Prior Art References

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) affirmed 

rejection of claims 11 and 12 based on prior art references

Baker (U.S. Patent No. 6,597,374), Darbee (U.S. Patent No.

6,130,726), and Pietraszak (U.S. Patent No. 6,990,677).

Baker, the primary reference, discloses a universal remote control with a display. Baker at Fig. 1. Baker’s remote control can display a numeric keypad for channel 

selection. Id. at 5:50–52. Baker also discloses programming a “Favorites” list, which allows the user to “create and 

edit a list of channels that the user wants to access repeatedly.” Id. at 7:15–17.

Darbee discloses a remote control that displays program guides with icons mapped to channel numbers, and it

allows the user to modify the channel mapping. Darbee at 

Figs. 13–15, 5:54–57, 9:33–35. Darbee further discloses periodically receiving EPG data and updating program 

guides stored in the remote control. Id. at 8:20–23. According to Darbee, the program guide data can be transmitted 

in “blocks” or “one-slot at a time.” Id. at 9:14–16, 17:3–6.

Pietraszak discloses managing EPG data from multiple 

sources and that the EPG data may include channel information such as channel number. Pietraszak at 2:33–36,

8:65–66. Pietraszak explains that the EPG data received 

from different sources may differ. Id. at 2:50–54, 8:38–39. 

According to Pietraszak, the locally stored EPG data may

also differ from EPG data received from various sources. 

Id. at 6:12–15. Pietraszak describes various schemes to resolve conflicts among the EPG data sets. Id. at 8:39–54. 

For example, EPG data sources may be assigned different 

priorities, or the “last EPG data” may take precedence. Id.

at 8:42–48.

C. Obviousness Rejection

During prosecution, the Examiner rejected claims 11 

and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Baker, 

Case: 22-1782 Document: 51 Page: 4 Filed: 01/12/2024
IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. 5

Darbee, and Pietraszak. J.A. 1641. In its appeal brief to

the Board, UEI argued that the references do not disclose 

the “determining” and “in response to determining” limitations. J.A. 1663–64. UEI also stated that “nothing with

Pietraszak” suggests that Baker and Darbee can be modified to “arrive at the exact invention claimed.” J.A. 1665.

The Examiner’s answer to UEI’s appeal brief clarified 

the basis for the rejection. See J.A. 1706–14. For the “determining” limitation, the Examiner explained that Pietraszak “teaches local and source EPG data can vary and 

differ,” and it discloses determining and resolving conflict 

in the EPG data from different sources. J.A. 1711. The 

Examiner explained that these teachings of determining 

and resolving conflicts are “equivalent to” the “determining” limitation. Id. For the “in response to determining” 

limitation, the Examiner cited Darbee’s teachings of “periodically receiving EPG” updates and that the EPG data includes channel numbers mapped to channels. J.A. 1707. 

Addressing UEI’s argument that Darbee “simply overwrites old data with new data,” the Examiner reasoned

that Darbee also teaches “selective updating of program 

guide channel data, not completely overwriting it.” J.A. 

1708.

The Board ultimately affirmed the Examiner’s rejection, adopted the Examiner’s findings, and added brief discussion “primarily for emphasis.” J.A. 2, 5. The Board 

agreed with the Examiner that Pietraszak and Darbee disclose the two disputed limitations. J.A. 5–7. The Board 

also noted that UEI belatedly raised in its reply brief a motivation-to-combine argument as to Baker and Darbee. 

Case: 22-1782 Document: 51 Page: 5 Filed: 01/12/2024
6 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.

J.A. 7–8. The Board found such argument untimely and 

forfeited.1 Id. 

UEI appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo, and 

its fact findings for substantial evidence. In re Baxter Int’l, 

Inc., 678 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Obviousness is 

a question of law based on underlying findings of fact. Id. 

The scope and content of the prior art and whether a person 

of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to 

combine teachings in the prior art are questions of fact. Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1378 

(Fed. Cir. 2023). Substantial evidence means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

On appeal, UEI contends that the cited references do 

not disclose the “determining” and “in response to determining” limitations. Appellant Br. 17. UEI further argues

that “the Board and the Examiner” failed to articulate sufficient reasoning for a motivation to combine the references. Id. We address each issue in turn. 

A. “Determining” 

UEI argues that Pietraszak does not disclose the “determining” limitation. Id. at 23. As discussed below, substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that 

Pietraszak discloses this limitation. 

1 The Board nevertheless considered UEI’s argument and found it unpersuasive because the Examiner provided a rational reasoning to combine Baker and Darbee 

and UEI failed to address it. J.A. 8. 

Case: 22-1782 Document: 51 Page: 6 Filed: 01/12/2024
IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. 7

The Board relied on Pietraszak’s disclosures of resolving conflicts between EPG data from various sources to 

teach this limitation. J.A. 5. On appeal, UEI repeats its 

argument that Pietraszak replaces EPG data blocks “based 

on priority,” without determining “at the channel number 

level” whether channel number assignment has changed. 

Appellant Br. 23–24. As the Board explained, UEI reads

Pietraszak’s disclosure too narrowly. See J.A. 5–6. 

Pietraszak discloses that EPG data includes “channel 

number” information and that conflicts may arise between 

locally stored and newly received EPG data. See J.A. 5–6;

see also Pietraszak at 8:66–67, 6:12–18, 15:1–4. The cited 

disclosures describe resolving conflicts “upon determining” 

a conflict exists between EPG data sources. Pietraszak at 

15:1–4 (emphasis added). And in addition to resolving conflicts based on assigned priorities, Pietraszak describes giving precedence “to EPG data that is received most 

recently,” namely, the new or updated EPG data. J.A. 6.

In view of these disclosures, one skilled in the art would 

have read Pietraszak to teach determining if local EPG 

data, such as a channel number, is conflicted with newly 

received source EPG data. See id. We agree with the Board

that this teaching sufficiently discloses determining 

whether a new channel number is assigned to a source of 

programming. See J.A. 5–6. We conclude that the Board’s 

finding that Pietraszak teaches the “determining” limitation is supported by substantial evidence. 

B. “In Response to Determining” 

UEI argues that Darbee does not disclose the “in response to determining” limitation. UEI does not appear to 

dispute that Darbee teaches updating EPG data, which includes updating channel numbers. See Oral Arg. 7:54–

8:17, 11:23–42. Rather, the thrust of UEI’s argument is 

that Darbee cannot teach the claimed “in response to determining” requirement because it does not teach the 

Case: 22-1782 Document: 51 Page: 7 Filed: 01/12/2024
8 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.

“determining” limitation.2 Appellant Br. 26. We disagree

with UEI’s contention. 

The Board’s finding that Darbee discloses the “in response to determining” limitation is supported by substantial evidence. This limitation requires “automatically 

chang[ing] the mapping between the channel numbers and 

the plurality of iconic representations.” J.A. 24. As the 

Board explained, Darbee discloses periodically receiving 

new EPG data, which includes new channel number assignments. J.A. 6–7 (citing Darbee 9:14–16, 17:3–12, 

18:51–53, and Fig. 12). The cited Darbee disclosures also 

describe that new EPG data can be transmitted to the remote control “one time-slot at a time,” and in that manner, 

“[o]nly the time-slot just received” is updated. Darbee at 

17:3–12. The Board found that, based on these teachings, 

one skilled in the art would have understood Darbee to disclose “overwriting channel data in response to determining 

whether the channel data has changed.” J.A. 7. To the 

Board, this disclosure of “selective updating of program 

guide channel data” in response to determining channel 

data updates “teaches or at least suggests” the “in response 

to determining” limitation. Id. We agree and conclude that 

the Board’s finding is supported by substantial evidence. 

C. Motivation to Combine 

UEI asserts that the Board erred in (1) adopting the

Examiner’s reasoning for a motivation to combine Baker 

and Darbee, which UEI contends was insufficient; and (2) 

2 To the extent UEI argues the Board must base its 

obviousness rejection on a single reference disclosing both

disputed limitations, we reject such a proposition. Unlike 

anticipation, for obviousness, limitations of a disputed 

claim can be “found in a number of prior art references.” 

DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. 

Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 

Case: 22-1782 Document: 51 Page: 8 Filed: 01/12/2024
IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. 9

failing to “make any findings” regarding the Examiner’s

motivation-to-combine analysis for all three references. 

Appellant Br. 29–30. We hold that UEI forfeited its motivation-to-combine argument as to any of the three references before the Board. 

In the Final Office Action, the Examiner reasoned that

one skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Baker with Darbee “so that users can navigate to the 

program channel they want to see” by “selecting a corresponding channel logo.” J.A. 1645. The Examiner further 

explained that one skilled in the art would also have been 

motivated to combine Baker and Darbee with Pietraszak 

so that “the user is presented with the mostly likely accurate [EPG] data.” J.A. 1646. 

UEI’s appeal brief to the Board did not challenge the 

Examiner’s motivation-to-combine analysis or explain how

UEI believed it to be insufficient.3 Nor did UEI do so in its

reply brief. The first time UEI addressed the Examiner’s 

reasoning was in its briefing on appeal to this court. See

Appellant Br. 28–30; J.A. 8. Under these circumstances, 

we hold that UEI failed to properly raise, and thus forfeited, its motivation-to-combine argument before the 

3 In its appeal brief to the Board, UEI generally 

stated that Pietraszak would not lead one to modify Baker 

and Darbee to arrive at the claimed invention or the “determining” limitation. See J.A. 1665–66. These statements are premised on UEI’s contention as to what the 

prior art references (alone or modified) teach. They do not

raise with sufficient specificity, or preserve, an argument 

against finding a motivation to combine the references. See

37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). As a result, the Examiner was deprived of reasonable notice and an opportunity to respond. 

The Board, in turn, was deprived of a fulsome record necessary to make an informed judgment. See In re Watts, 354 

F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

Case: 22-1782 Document: 51 Page: 9 Filed: 01/12/2024
10 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.

Board. See In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 

862–63 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Absent exceptional circumstances, an argument not properly raised before the Board 

will not be considered on appeal. See id.; In re Couvaras, 

70 F.4th 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023). No exceptional circumstance exists here to justify a departure from this principle, and we therefore decline to entertain UEI’s

motivation-to-combine argument.

CONCLUSION 

We have considered UEI’s remaining arguments and 

find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the decision of the 

Board is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

COSTS 

No costs.

Case: 22-1782 Document: 51 Page: 10 Filed: 01/12/2024