NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.,

Appellant

______________________ 

2022-1757

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 14/282,785.

______________________ 

Decided: June 14, 2023

______________________ 

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

IL, argued for appellant Universal Electronics, Inc. Also 

represented by BENJAMIN GILFORD, GARY R. JAROSIK,

MATTHEW J. LEVINSTEIN. 

 OMAR FAROOQ AMIN, Office of the Solicitor, United 

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

MAI-TRANG DUC DANG, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, ROBERT 

MCBRIDE, AMY J. NELSON, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED. 

 ______________________ 

Before REYNA, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

TARANTO, Circuit Judge. 

Case: 22-1757 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 06/14/2023
2 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. 

Universal Electronics, Inc. filed U.S. Patent Application No. 14/282,785, claiming priority to 2006. After Universal cancelled a number of claims, the assigned examiner 

in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected all the 

remaining claims (claims 1 and 12–16) for obviousness, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pre-2011 version), in light of three 

prior-art references: Gardner (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 

2008/0319852), Hu (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0304817), 

and Drayson (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0276010). The 

Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the examiner’s rejections. Universal timely appeals. We have jurisdiction. 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A); 35 U.S.C. § 141(a). We affirm.

The ’785 application describes and claims methods for 

displaying advertising content. As relevant to the limited 

issues on appeal here, claim 1, which the parties agree is 

representative, requires “a device” and a “second app installed on the device . . . [that] function[s] to display the 

advertising content as an overlay” to content being 

streamed on a display. J.A. 15. 

The key prior-art reference, Hu, describes “[a] method 

of operation of a content delivery system” that can perform 

a variety of functions, including overlaying an advertisement over content streamed on a display. J.A. 1265; J.A. 

1281–82, ¶¶ 163–65. Hu teaches a “first device,” “second 

device,” and “third device” that are components of its content delivery system. Hu also teaches that a part of its content delivery system is an “overlay module,” which is a part 

of Hu’s “content module,” that can function to overlay advertisements on a display. As the Director explains, and 

as Universal does not dispute, the “sole dispute as to 

whether the prior art combination teaches the limitations 

of claim 1 turns on whether Hu teaches placing overlay 

module 722 on third device 108.” Director’s Response Br. 

at 30. 

The Board, affirming the examiner, found that Hu does

teach placing the overlay module on the third device. J.A. 

Case: 22-1757 Document: 34 Page: 2 Filed: 06/14/2023
IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. 3

5; see J.A. 931; J.A. 1026–28. What Hu teaches is a question of fact. See, e.g., Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 

938 F.3d 1324, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Under the substantial-evidence standard of review, we must affirm the finding of what Hu teaches if that finding is reasonable. Id. at 

1330. 

The reading of Hu adopted by the examiner and the 

Board is reasonable. As the examiner explained, Hu 

teaches that the third device itself can include “a third control unit,” which can “execute[] a third software” that “provides the intelligence of the content delivery system 100.” 

J.A. 1026 (citing J.A. 1278, ¶ 116). The examiner reasoned 

that this intelligence includes overlaying, performed by the 

overlay module as part of the intelligence that can be on 

the third device. J.A. 1026–27. The Board affirmed those 

findings. J.A. 5. This is a reasonable reading of Hu. 

We reject Universal’s argument that a separate passage in Hu suggests otherwise. Although Hu provides that 

the content module, which includes the overlay module, 

can be implemented “in the first device 102 or the second 

device 106,” J.A. 1284, ¶ 199, nowhere does Hu state that 

it cannot be installed on the third device, and ¶ 116 of Hu 

is reasonably understood to indicate that it can be so installed. See J.A. 1278, ¶ 116; J.A. 1270 (Fig. 7); see J.A. 5. 

Nothing in Hu contradicts the Board’s finding that Hu suggests that the overlay module can be installed on the third 

device. The Board’s finding therefore is supported by substantial evidence. See Bradium Technologies LLC v. Iancu, 

923 F.3d 1032, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (explaining that prior

art “must be considered not only for what it expressly 

teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests” (quoting In re 

Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 383 (Fed. Cir. 1994))). 

Besides disputing the Board’s finding about Hu just 

discussed, Universal faults the Board for not identifying a 

motivation to combine Hu with Gardner. But the examiner 

found such a motivation, reflecting a suggestion made in 

Case: 22-1757 Document: 34 Page: 3 Filed: 06/14/2023
4 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. 

Gardner, see J.A. 931, and when appealing to the Board, 

Universal did not challenge that finding in its opening 

brief, see J.A. 1001–09, thus depriving the examiner of notice that such an issue had to be addressed in the examiner’s answer filed with the Board. The contention is 

therefore forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). We see no 

basis to disregard the forfeiture. 

We have considered Universal’s remaining arguments, which we find unconvincing. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s decision affirming the 

examiner’s rejection of pending claims 1 and 12–16 as unpatentable.

AFFIRMED

Case: 22-1757 Document: 34 Page: 4 Filed: 06/14/2023