Court Opinion

ID: 9685762
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:01:10.822798+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:25.280590
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1758    Document: 36    Page: 1    Filed: 08/24/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

      IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.,
                      Appellant
               ______________________

                        2022-1758
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 15/711,381.
                   ______________________

                 Decided: August 24, 2023
                  ______________________

     MATTHEW J. LEVINSTEIN, Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Chi-
 cago, IL, argued for appellant Universal Electronics, Inc.
 Also represented by BENJAMIN GILFORD, GARY R. JAROSIK,
 JAMES J. LUKAS, JR.

    ROBERT MCBRIDE, Office of the Solicitor, United States
 Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for
 appellee Katherine K. Vidal. Also represented by OMAR
 FAROOQ AMIN, MARY L. KELLY, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, AMY J.
 NELSON, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED.
                 ______________________

    Before REYNA, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
 STOLL, Circuit Judge.
Case: 22-1758     Document: 36      Page: 2     Filed: 08/24/2023

 2                          IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.

      Universal Electronics, Inc. appeals from the final deci-
 sion of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirming the re-
 jection of certain claims in U.S. Patent Application
 No. 15/711,381 (’381 application) as obvious under
 35 U.S.C. § 103. The rejected claims recite methods for us-
 ing a universal remote control in conjunction with a relay
 device to control various appliances. Because substantial
 evidence supports the Board’s findings, we affirm.
                         BACKGROUND
      The ’381 application, titled “System and Method for
 Ubiquitous Appliance Control,” discloses a system in which
 a universal remote controls various appliances through a
 slave relay device. The universal remote has a graphical
 user interface (GUI) page that may display a “series of
 icons representative of appliance control actions.” J.A. 50.
 The specification discloses that when an icon, or HTML
 tag, is selected, a “message [may be] transmitted back to
 the . . . slave relay device, receipt of which causes the de-
 sired command(s) to be issued to an appliance.” Id. The
 slave relay device stores tag files which “specify the actions
 to be performed by a slave relay device when an HTML tag
 is activated” on the universal remote control. Id. at 58.
 These tag files may be a “series of XML statements to be
 executed by the . . . slave relay device” that include “a def-
 inition . . . of the appliance to which commands are to be
 directed” and “a list . . . of the functions to be transmitted.”
 Id. at 58–59. As an exemplary embodiment, the specifica-
 tion discloses that the universal remote control may be a
 mobile phone which displays icons such as various TV
 channels. When an icon is selected by a user, the phone
 sends a message to a slave relay device, which would then
 send commands specified in its tag files to perform the de-
 sired function, such as setting the TV to the desired chan-
 nel.
     The Examiner rejected claims 2–3, 5–9, 12, 17, and 20–
 21 of the ’381 application, with claims 2–3, 6–8, 12, 17, and
Case: 22-1758    Document: 36     Page: 3    Filed: 08/24/2023

 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.                         3

 20–21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatent-
 able over U.S. Patent No. 7,631,197 (Niwamoto) in view of
 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0097618
 (Arling) and U.S. Patent No. 7,589,642 (Mui). The claim
 limitations in dispute on appeal are in claims 2 and 3.
    Claim 2 recites:
    2. A method for using a relay device having a
    memory in which is stored a tag file comprising
    both first data indicative of a brand and type of a
    device that is to commanded in response to an acti-
    vation of an activatable link that is associated with
    the tag file and second data indicative of one or
    more commands to be transmitted to the device in
    response to the activation of the activatable link,
    the method comprising:
    receiving by the relay device from an input device
    via a first wireless communications link a commu-
    nication containing data that functions to indicate
    that the activatable link was activated;
    using by the relay device the first data as stored in
    the tag file to select a code data having commands
    for use in commanding functional operations of the
    device; and
    transmitting a command communication from the
    relay device to the device via a second communica-
    tions link, where the command communication
    comprises one or more commands selected from the
    selected code data, wherein the command commu-
    nication uses a protocol defined within the selected
    code data, and wherein the one or more commands
    are selected from the selected code data via use of
    the second data as stored in the tag file.
 J.A. 710 (emphasis added to highlight disputed limitation).
    Claim 3 recites:
Case: 22-1758    Document: 36      Page: 4    Filed: 08/24/2023

 4                         IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.

     3. The method as recited in claim 2, wherein the
     data that functions to indicate that the activatable
     link was activated comprises a file name of the tag
     file.
 Id. (emphasis added to highlight disputed limitation).
     The Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of 2–3, 5–
 9, 12, 17, and 20–21, and Universal appeals. We have ju-
 risdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
                         DISCUSSION
     We review the Board’s legal determinations de novo, In
 re Elsner, 381 F.3d 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and its fact
 findings for substantial evidence, In re Gartside, 203 F.3d
 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). 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. In re
 Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Kahn,
 441 F.3d 977, 985 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence is
 “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
 as adequate to support a conclusion.” Mouttet, 686 F.3d
 at 1331.
     Universal challenges the Board’s findings that Arling
 discloses the “tag file” limitation of claim 2 and that Niwa-
 moto teaches the “file name” limitation of claim 3. Univer-
 sal also argues that the Board failed to properly articulate
 why a person of ordinary skill would have combined Niwa-
 moto, Arling, and Mui. We address each issue in turn.
     Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that
 Arling teaches a “tag file comprising both first data indica-
 tive of a brand and type of a device that is to commanded
 in response to an activation of an activatable link that is
 associated with the tag file and second data indicative of
 one or more commands to be transmitted to the device in
 response to the activation of the activatable link” as
Case: 22-1758    Document: 36      Page: 5    Filed: 08/24/2023

 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.                         5

 required by claim 2. 1 Arling discloses that its system may
 be used to control a “home entertainment center having a
 set of home appliances of different brand, model, or type”
 and that “[t]o identify [these] home appliances by type and
 make (and sometimes model) . . . data may be entered into
 the universal remote control device.” Arling [0018], [0026].
 Arling also states that its system contains “general device
 conversion definitions includ[ing] device selection/state
 data . . . [and] device definitions . . . (which may comprise
 available device command and function abilities for indi-
 vidual appliances).” Id. [0031]. Arling further discloses
 that “corresponding data elements for source appliances
 . . . may be saved for subsequent command generation” and
 “may be saved in any known format, for example as an
 XML file.” Id. [0030]. These disclosures support the
 Board’s finding that Arling discloses the “tag file” limita-
 tion of claim 2.
      We are also not persuaded by Universal’s argument
 that Niwamoto fails to teach “the data that functions to in-
 dicate that the activatable link was activated comprises a
 file name” as required by claim 3. Niwamoto discloses that
 a user’s selection of a button on its remote-control device
 will “transmit[] the instruction information to [a] gateway
 device” and that this instruction information, which “al-
 ways includes a . . . control apparatus ID,” is used to “gen-
 erate[] control information directed to controlling [an
 appliance] based on the operation information included in
 the instruction information.” Niwamoto col. 23 l. 42–

     1    The government asserts that Universal is collater-
 ally estopped from arguing that Arling does not teach this
 “tag file” limitation of claim 2. Universal responds that the
 government waived this argument by not raising it below.
 We need not address this issue because we find that sub-
 stantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Arling
 discloses a “tag file.”
Case: 22-1758    Document: 36      Page: 6    Filed: 08/24/2023

 6                         IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.

 col. 24 l. 60. Based on this disclosure, the Board adopted
 the Examiner’s finding that “Niwamoto points to links
 which are selected and provide instruction information
 (file) including control apparatus ID” that correlates to the
 file name. J.A. 793. We hold that substantial evidence
 supports the Board’s finding that Niwamoto teaches a file
 name because Niwamoto’s disclosure of its links—like the
 file name—identifies both the intended device and the de-
 sired function.
      Finally, Universal contends that the Board failed to
 properly articulate why a person of ordinary skill would
 have combined Niwamoto, Arling, and Mui. We disagree.
 Though the Board’s discussion is short, the Board articu-
 lated a motivation to combine these references. The
 Board’s discussion must be read in light of the examiner’s
 explanation that one skilled in the art would have been mo-
 tivated to combine the art because the combination “pro-
 vides an established system with one to one mapping for
 accessing information thereby improving overall operabil-
 ity,” which the Board adopted. J.A. 5. Further, as the
 Board noted, Universal’s argument that there would have
 been no motivation to combine the prior art references
 rested on its assertion that Arling does not disclose a tag
 file. Having found that Arling teaches a tag file (a finding
 that we affirm on appeal), the Board explained that Uni-
 versal’s argument is moot. For these reasons, the Board
 sufficiently articulated a motivation to combine Niwamoto,
 Arling, and Mui.
                        CONCLUSION
     We have considered Universal’s remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the decision of
 the Board is affirmed.
                        AFFIRMED