Court Opinion

ID: 9839479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-13 15:01:37.231846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:54.832548
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-2128   Document: 37     Page: 1   Filed: 08/28/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

          UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.,
                    Appellant

                            v.

                      ROKU, INC.,
                        Appellee
                 ______________________

                  2021-2128, 2021-2129
                 ______________________

     Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2019-
 01620, IPR2019-01621.
                  ______________________

                Decided: August 28, 2023
                 ______________________

     MICHAEL ANTHONY NICODEMA, Greenberg Traurig
 LLP, West Palm Beach, FL, argued for appellant. Also rep-
 resented by BENJAMIN GILFORD, JAMES J. LUKAS, JR., Chi-
 cago, IL.

     DEBRA JANECE MCCOMAS, Haynes & Boone, LLP, Dal-
 las, TX, argued for appellee. Also represented by RAGHAV
 BAJAJ, DAVID W. O'BRIEN, Austin, TX; JONATHAN R.
 BOWSER, ANGELA M. OLIVER, Washington, DC.
                     ______________________
Case: 21-2128     Document: 37      Page: 2    Filed: 08/28/2023

 2                  UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ROKU, INC.

     Before NEWMAN, REYNA, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
 NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
      This is a consolidated appeal of two inter partes review
 (IPR) decisions, on petitions filed by Roku, Inc. seeking in-
 validation of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,821,504
 (“’504 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,821,505 (“’505 pa-
 tent”), owned by Universal Electronics, Inc. (“UEI”). The
 Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) held
 all the challenged claims invalid on the ground of obvious-
 ness; viz., claims 1 and 5 of the ’504 patent and claims 5–7,
 9, 10, 12, 49, and 51 of the ’505 patent. We affirm the
 Board’s decisions. 1
                        BACKGROUND
                 The Patented Inventions
     The ’504 and ’505 patents are continuations of U.S. Pa-
 tent No. 7,782,309, which in turn is a continuation of U.S.
 Patent No. 7,432,916. The patents are titled “Controlling
 Device with Dual-Mode, Touch-Sensitive Display” and
 have substantially the same specifications. The patents
 state that they are directed to improvements in “remote,
 cursor control functionality,” ’504 patent, col. 2, ll. 3–8, as
 “may be utilized to command functional operations of mul-
 tiple appliances such as those typically found in a home en-
 tertainment center,” for example televisions, VCRs, and
 DVD players. Id., col. 4, ll. 15–17. The Abstract summa-
 rizes:
     A processing device of a universal controlling de-
     vice is programmed to distinguish between a first

     1   Roku, Inc. v. Universal Elecs., Inc., No. IPR2019-
 01621, 2021 WL 1920983 (P.T.A.B. May 12, 2021) (“Board
 ’504 Op.”); No. IPR2019-01620, 2021 WL 1923108 (P.T.A.B.
 May 12, 2021) (“Board ’505 Op.”).
Case: 21-2128     Document: 37    Page: 3    Filed: 08/28/2023

 UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ROKU, INC.                  3

     input type provided to a touch-sensitive surface
     and a second input type provided to the touch-sen-
     sitive surface. In response to the touch-sensitive
     surface being provided the first input type which is
     indicative of a static touch made upon the touch-
     sensitive surface the processing device causes a
     transmitter to transmit first data representative of
     the static touch made upon the touch-sensitive sur-
     face. In response to the touch-sensitive surface be-
     ing provided the second input type which is
     indicative of a moving touch made across the touch-
     sensitive surface, the processing device causes the
     transmitter to transmit second data being repre-
     sentative of the moving touch made across the
     touch-sensitive surface.
 ’504 patent, p. 1.
     Roku requested IPR of claims 1 and 5 of the ’504 patent
 and claims 5–7, 9, 10, 12, 49, and 51 of the ’505 patent,
 stating that these claims are unpatentable on the ground
 of obviousness in view of references authored by Herz,
 Zetts, and Finkelstein. Patentability of the challenged
 claims had previously been confirmed on inter partes reex-
 amination. Board ’505 Op. at *1, Board ’504 Op. at *1.
     The following claims of the ’504 patent and the ’505 pa-
 tent are the focus of this appeal:
                      The ’504 patent
     1. A method for using a universal controlling de-
     vice comprised of a touch-sensitive surface to com-
     mand functional operations of one or more
     appliances located remotely from the controlling
     device, comprising:
         accepting via the touch-sensitive surface of the
             universal controlling device a first input
             type indicative of a static touch made upon
             the touch-sensitive surface;
Case: 21-2128    Document: 37     Page: 4    Filed: 08/28/2023

 4                 UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ROKU, INC.

        causing the universal controlling device to
            transmit first data used to command at
            least a first functional operation of the one
            or more appliances, the first data being
            representative of the static touch made
            upon the touch-sensitive surface;
        accepting via the touch-sensitive surface of the
            universal controlling device a second input
            type indicative of a moving touch made
            across the touch-sensitive surface;
        causing the universal controlling device to
            transmit second data used to command at
            least a second functional operation of the
            one or more appliances, the second data be-
            ing representative of the moving touch
            made across the touch-sensitive surface;
            and
        causing the universal controlling device to dis-
            tinguish the first input type received via
            the touch-sensitive surface from the second
            input type received via the touch-sensitive
            surface.
 Claim 5 of the ’504 patent elaborates the second data move-
 ment of the cursor:
     5. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the
     second data comprises data for commanding move-
     ment of a displayed cursor associated with the one
     or more appliances.
 The ’504 patent claims are directed to the method, and the
 ’505 patent claims are for the device.
                      The ’505 patent
     For the ’505 patent, UEI focuses on the cursor limita-
 tion in dependent claim 10, which depends from claim 5
 (and intervening claims) as follows:
Case: 21-2128    Document: 37     Page: 5    Filed: 08/28/2023

 UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ROKU, INC.                   5

    5. A non-transitory computer-readable media em-
    bodied in a physical memory device having stored
    thereon instructions for causing a universal con-
    trolling device comprised of a display having a
    touch-sensitive surface and adapted to transmit
    data to one or more appliances located remotely
    from the controlling device to perform steps com-
    prising:
    displaying in the display of the universal control-
         ling device one or more graphical user inter-
         faces comprised of graphical user interface
         icons;
    accepting via the touch-sensitive surface of the uni-
         versal controlling device a first input type in-
         dicative of a selection of a displayed graphical
         user interface icon;
    initiating a transmission by the universal control-
         ling device to the one or more appliances first
         data representative of the displayed graphical
         user interface icon selected by the first input
         type;
    accepting via the touch-sensitive surface of the uni-
         versal controlling device a second input type in-
         dicative of a motion made across the touch-
         sensitive surface;
    initiating a transmission by the universal control-
         ling device to the one or more appliances second
         data representative of the motion made across
         the touch-sensitive surface provided by the sec-
         ond input type; and
    allowing the universal controlling device to distin-
         guish the first input type received via the
         touch-sensitive surface from the second input
         type received via the touch-sensitive surface.
 Claim 10 recites the displayed cursor commanded by the
 second data:
Case: 21-2128      Document: 37      Page: 6     Filed: 08/28/2023

 6                   UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ROKU, INC.

     10. The non-transitory computer-readable media
     as recited in claim 9, wherein the second data com-
     prises data for commanding movement of a dis-
     played cursor associated with the one or more
     appliances.
 UEI states that the second data and cursor limitations in
 claim 10 are principal distinctions from the prior art.
                    The Cited References
            U.S. Patent No. 6,407,779 B1 (“Herz”)
     The Herz reference teaches “a remote control system
 for remotely controlling various electronic devices such as
 television and audio visual systems using a single remote
 control.” Id., col. 1, ll. 6–9. Herz Figure 5 shows a remote
 control system that “comprises a display screen for inter-
 facing with the user; a plurality of buttons . . . for issuing
 commands and/or entering data into the remote control;
 [and] a stylus for writing onto the screen.” Id., col. 4, ll. 49–
 54. Herz also shows a touch-screen display “provided with
 pressure sensing ability for sensing different handwriting
 stroke pressures exerted on the screen.” Id., col. 5, ll. 8–10.
 A user interface is shown for the remote control, having a
 “soft graphical user interface [which] can provide maxi-
 mum flexibility for the user to interface with the remote
 control.” Id., col. 9, ll. 49–54.
     The Board applied Herz to all of the challenged claims
 of both the ’504 and ’505 patents, finding obviousness based
 on Herz in combination with other references.
        Eur. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 0536554 A1 (“Zetts”)
     The Zetts reference teaches a “method and apparatus
 for efficiently distinguishing between different types of in-
 put signals simulated by a pointing device coupled to a
 multi-tasking computer system. The pointing device may
 be a stylus, finger or other device that moves across the
 surface of a touch screen or the like to generate positional
Case: 21-2128       Document: 37   Page: 7    Filed: 08/28/2023

 UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ROKU, INC.                   7

 information.” Id., p. 1 (Abstract). Zetts describes a “touch
 input device (e.g., a touch workpad) for a data processing
 system, where a touch sensor is disposed over a viewing
 surface of a display, input signals generated from a point-
 ing device, such as a stylus or finger, can be categorized
 either as a mouse input signal or as a gesture or handwrit-
 ing input signal.” Id., p. 2, ll. 28–31.
     The Board applied Zetts in combination with Herz and
 Finkelstein as grounds for obviousness of claims in both
 the ’504 and ’505 patents.
         U.S. Patent No. 6,025,841 A1 (“Finkelstein”)
     Finkelstein describes use of a cursor for managing the
 display of multiple windows in a graphical user interface,
 and states:
     Specific types of user interaction events, often in-
     volving the cursor, comprise triggering events in
     the invention. Those skilled in the art will under-
     stand that operations with the cursor include crea-
     tion of a selection rectangle, clicking on objects,
     activating menus and/or control objects in menus,
     double clicking on objects to activate them, clicking
     and holding an object to “drag” the object or selec-
     tion to a different location, etc. These and other
     types of user interactions can be triggering events.
 Id., col. 7, ll. 27–35.
    The Board found that Finkelstein is “analogous art” to
 Herz and Zetts, providing motivation for combination with
 Herz and Zetts.
                     The Board Decisions
     The Board’s findings as to the ’504 and ’505 patents are
 substantially the same as to all aspects presented on ap-
 peal. The Board held all of the challenged claims of the
 ’504 and ’505 patents invalid on the ground of obviousness.
 The Board held that the combination of Herz and Zetts
Case: 21-2128     Document: 37     Page: 8    Filed: 08/28/2023

 8                  UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ROKU, INC.

 renders obvious the ’504 patent’s claim 1 limitations “sec-
 ond input type indicative of a moving touch made across
 the touch-sensitive surface” and “second data being repre-
 sentative of the moving touch made across the touch-sensi-
 tive surface.” Board ’504 Op. at *17, *21. The Board found
 that Zetts and Finkelstein are analogous art in that they
 are in the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to
 one or more of the same problems as are subject of the chal-
 lenged patents. Board ’504 Op. at *13, *26.
       Applying the cited references to claim 5 of the ’504 pa-
 tent, the Board agreed with petitioner Roku that it would
 have been obvious to “combin[e] Finkelstein’s teaching of
 using a cursor to perform windows management functions
 . . . with the teachings of Herz and Zetts regarding the con-
 trol of the size and location of the PIP [picture-in-picture]
 window on the remote control and the television set.” Board
 ’504 Op. at *24. The Board held: “In consideration of the
 foregoing and based on the complete record, we are per-
 suaded by Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, notwith-
 standing Patent Owner’s arguments, addressed above.
 Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has demon-
 strated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 5 is
 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combina-
 tion of Herz, Zetts, and Finkelstein.” Id. at *26.
      For the ’505 patent’s claim 5, the Board held that the
 combination of Herz and Zetts renders obvious the clause
 “second input type indicative of a motion made across the
 touch-sensitive surface” and the clause “second data repre-
 sentative of the motion made across the touch-sensitive
 surface.” Board ’505 Op. at *17, *20–22, *24. For claims 6,
 7, 9, 12, and 51 of the ’505 patent, the Board also held these
 claims obvious over the combination of Herz and Zetts. Id.
 at *25.
     For claim 10 of the ’505 patent, the Board held this
 claim obvious over the combination of Herz, Zetts, and
 Finkelstein. Id. at *28. The Board also held claim 49 of
Case: 21-2128    Document: 37     Page: 9    Filed: 08/28/2023

 UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ROKU, INC.                 9

 the ’505 patent obvious over the combination of Herz, Zetts,
 and a reference to Kushiro, but claim 49 is not presented
 for review. Id. at *29.
      UEI disputes the Board’s findings and conclusions.
 UEI argues that the Board erred in finding that Herz
 teaches the “second data” limitation as used in the ’504 and
 ’505 patents, and argues that if “second data” were cor-
 rectly construed, the ’504 and ’505 claims are not invalid
 for obviousness. UEI also argues that the Board erred in
 finding that Finkelstein is analogous art, and in finding
 that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated
 to combine Herz with Finkelstein. Roku responds that sub-
 stantial evidence and correct applications of law support
 the Board’s determinations of unpatentability on the
 ground of obviousness.
                        DISCUSSION
                              I
                       Obviousness
      “Obviousness ‘is a question of law based on underlying
 findings of fact.’” SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co., 980
 F.3d 865, 870 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting In re Gartside, 203
 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The Board’s factual find-
 ings are reviewed for support by substantial evidence, and
 its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. In re Van Os,
 844 F.3d 1359, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Substantial evidence
 is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might ac-
 cept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Consol. Edison
 Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).
     Claim construction is a question of law and receives de
 novo review. Trs. Of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp.,
 811 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The construction of
 claim terms based on the claim language, the specification,
 and the prosecution history are legal determinations.”).
 The Board’s factual findings relevant to claim construction
 are reviewed for support by substantial evidence. Id.
Case: 21-2128    Document: 37     Page: 10    Filed: 08/28/2023

 10                 UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ROKU, INC.

                    Claim construction
     UEI states that the “second data” limitations distin-
 guish the ’504 and ’505 patent claims from the prior art.
 The Board construed this term as it is used in both patents.
      Claim 5 of the ’505 patent recites “second data repre-
 sentative of the motion made across the touch-sensitive
 surface.” The Board construed this to mean: “second data
 representative of the continuous contact from the first lo-
 cation to the second location on the touch-sensitive sur-
 face.” Board ’505 Op. at *6. UEI agrees with this claim
 construction, but states that the Board “implicitly adopted
 a different construction” in its analysis. UEI Br. 26. UEI
 states that “in the Board’s analysis of the alleged obvious-
 ness of the Challenged Claims over Herz, the Board implic-
 itly adopted a different construction of the Second Data
 Limitations where the ‘second data’ need only be data that
 is ‘transmitted in response to the continuous contact from
 the first location to the second location on the touch sensi-
 tive surface.’” Id. (emphasis original).
     UEI argues that “[t]he Board’s new construction of the
 Second Data Limitations is erroneous because it is incon-
 sistent with the plain language of the claims and the
 Board’s express and proper construction of the Second Data
 Limitations.” Id. at *27. UEI states that “there is no evi-
 dence that Herz teaches the Second Data Limitations un-
 der the proper construction of those terms (i.e., that the
 claimed ‘second data’ must be ‘representative of the contin-
 uous contact from the first location to the second location
 on the touch sensitive surface’).” Id. at *29. UEI further
 states that the Board’s explicit construction of “second
 data” does not refer merely to the data “transmitted in re-
 sponse to the continuous contact from the first location to
 the second location on the touch sensitive surface,” id. at
 *26 (emphasis original), and that, according to the experts,
 “second data” means the data representative of continuous
 contact, not a “single, static location where the user
Case: 21-2128    Document: 37     Page: 11    Filed: 08/28/2023

 UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ROKU, INC.                   11

 terminates his or her dragging gesture on Herz’s touch
 screen display.” Id. at *18, 30.
     Roku responds that “the Board did not implicitly adopt
 a further construction of the Second Data Limitations,
 much less one suggesting that being ‘representative of’ is
 ‘independent of what is in the data.’” Roku Br. 46. Roku
 cites its expert Dr. Polish, who disagreed with UEI’s ex-
 pert, stating:
     Mr. Bear appears to contend that the only data
     transmitted by Herz’ remote control is “the data in-
     dicating the new location and/or size of the PIP
     [picture-in-picture] window.” [Appx6733], ¶ 92. I
     do not agree with Mr. Bear’s conclusion, because it
     omits what a POSITA would have understood Herz
     to teach. While the “data indicating the new loca-
     tion and/or size of the PIP window” is part of what
     is transmitted, a POSITA would have understood
     that Herz also transmits to the appliance (e.g., a
     television) an indication of what is to be moved or
     resized. In other words, if the only thing the re-
     mote control transmitted to the television was the
     new location and/or size of the PIP window, Herz
     would not function as it describes. Rather, a
     POSITA would have understood that, to implement
     movement or resizing of the PIP window as Herz
     describes, the remote control also transmits an in-
     dication to the appliance that the PIP window is to
     be moved or resized. . . . Thus, in response to the
     user’s stylus movement, a POSITA would have un-
     derstood the remote control to transmit at least an
     indication to the appliance (e.g., the television) to
     move the PIP window, and the position to which
     the PIP window is to be moved (e.g., an x/y coordi-
     nate).
 Polish Reply Decl. ¶ 26 (emphases original). Dr. Polish ex-
 plained that Zetts teaches that the motion or gesture
Case: 21-2128     Document: 37       Page: 12     Filed: 08/28/2023

 12                  UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ROKU, INC.

 inputs on a touch screen are “representative of ‘continuous
 contact from a first location to a second location on the
 touch sensitive surface’ because [Zetts’ system] recognizes
 a gesture when the user makes a ‘touchdown’ at a first
 touch input point on the touch screen and continues to
 move through other points on the screen in a certain time
 frame without lifting off the screen.” Polish Decl. ¶ 108.
      Roku further responds to UEI’s argument by pointing
 to Herz’ teaching that “[i]n response to the command to re-
 position the PIP window screen, the remote control issues
 the corresponding repositioning control signals to the tele-
 vision set by transmitting the new location and/or size of
 the PIP window as entered by the user.” Herz, col. 11,
 l. 64–col. 12, l. 1. Herz explains that “the PIP window on
 the television screen is positioned by the user to a new lo-
 cation when the emulated PIP window on the remote con-
 trol is dragged to a different location.” Id., col. 11, ll. 61–63.
 Herz illustrates that when a user touches a window on the
 remote control and drags the picture to another point on
 the screen, data representing that contact is transmitted to
 the television set.
     In view of this evidence, the Board found that Herz
 teaches transmitting “second data representative of the
 continuous contact from the first location to the second lo-
 cation on the touch sensitive surface” in the form of the “re-
 positioning control signals” issued by the remote control.
 There is substantial evidence, in the text of the references
 and as explained by the expert witnesses, supporting the
 Board’s findings that Herz in combination with Zetts
 teaches the “second data” limitation of the claims of the
 ’504 patent and ’505 patent. On review of UEI’s argu-
 ments, we discern no reversible error in the Board’s deter-
 mination of the meaning and role of the “second data”
 limitations in the ’504 and ’505 patents.
Case: 21-2128    Document: 37      Page: 13    Filed: 08/28/2023

 UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ROKU, INC.                  13

                       Analogous art
     “A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness
 determination only when it is analogous to the claimed in-
 vention.” Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp., 941 F.3d 1374,
 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “Whether a reference qualifies as
 analogous prior art is a question of fact that we review for
 substantial evidence.” Id. “Prior art is analogous if it is
 from the same field of endeavor or if it is reasonably perti-
 nent to the particular problem the inventor is trying to
 solve.” Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc., 795 F.3d 1331, 1335
 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “A reference is reasonably pertinent if,
 even though it may be in a different field from that of the
 inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter
 with which it deals, logically would have commended itself
 to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re
 Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re
 Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
     The Board first considered whether Finkelstein is in
 the same field of endeavor, and concluded that it is not.
 The Board found that “the field of endeavor of the ’505 pa-
 tent is a ‘controlling device with a touch-sensitive display,’
 notwithstanding the patent’s disclosure of narrower em-
 bodiments specific to universal remote control devices.”
 Board ’505 Op. at *11. The Board concluded that “Finkel-
 stein is not from the same field of endeavor because Finkel-
 stein does not describe any device with a touch-sensitive
 display.” Id. at *27. However, the Board found that
 “Finkelstein is reasonably pertinent to one or more of the
 problems of the ’505 patent” because it “describes using a
 cursor to perform various windows management func-
 tions[.]” Id. at *28.
     The Board reasoned that “one of the particular prob-
 lems with which the ’505 patent’s inventor was involved is
 to provide remote, cursor control functionality because the
 ’505 patent describes a second operational mode of the con-
 trolling device, which is a pointer control mode.” Board ’505
Case: 21-2128    Document: 37      Page: 14    Filed: 08/28/2023

 14                 UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ROKU, INC.

 Op. at *28. The ’505 patent states that all of the user in-
 terface functions typically associated with mousing are in-
 cluded through use of the pointer control mode of the
 universal controlling device, such as: double-tapping to
 stick the pointer to a window bar, dragging the window
 across the desktop, and single tapping to release; double-
 tapping to open a window or start an application; etc. ’505
 patent, col. 6, ll. 3–9.
     The Board reasoned that “Finkelstein describes using
 a cursor to perform various windows management func-
 tions” such as clicking on objects, double clicking on objects
 to activate them, and clicking and dragging, “Finkelstein
 logically would have commended itself to the ’505 patent’s
 inventor dealing with the particular problem of creating a
 controlling device with a pointer control mode that includes
 various windows management functions.” Board ’505 Op.
 at *12; Board ’504 Op. at *26. The Board concluded: “Thus,
 we agree with Petitioner that Finkelstein is analogous art.”
 Id.
     UEI argues that the Board erroneously “asserted that
 the Challenged Patents acknowledged a need for a univer-
 sal controlling device that is adapted to provide remote,
 cursor control functionality” and erroneously “concluded
 that Finkelstein is reasonably pertinent to this alleged
 problem because Finkelstein describes using a cursor to
 perform various windows management functions.” UEI Br.
 41 (citations omitted). UEI states that “Finkelstein indis-
 putably has nothing to do with universal controlling de-
 vices, remote controls, or software for remote controls” and
 that “even under the Board’s characterization of the prob-
 lem the inventor of the Challenged Patents was trying to
 solve, there is no evidence that Finkelstein is reasonably
 pertinent to this problem.” UEI Br. 41–42. Thus UEI ar-
 gues that the Board erred in finding a motivation to com-
 bine Finkelstein with Herz and Zetts because Finkelstein
 is not analogous art.
Case: 21-2128    Document: 37      Page: 15   Filed: 08/28/2023

 UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ROKU, INC.                 15

     UEI argues that, because “Herz does not disclose a ‘dis-
 played cursor,’” the Board erred in finding a motivation to
 combine Herz’ remote control with Finkelstein’s cursor.
 UEI Br. 43–44. UEI argues that the Board based its con-
 clusion solely on the fact that both Herz and Finkelstein
 disclose the use of Microsoft windows, but Herz “says noth-
 ing about a cursor.” Id. at *45. UEI argues that “[t]he
 Board failed to explain (and could not explain) how a
 POSITA would reasonably have expected to solve the al-
 leged problem of creating ‘a universal controlling device
 that is adapted to provide remote, cursor control function-
 ality’ by considering a reference that indisputably has
 nothing to do with universal controlling devices or remote
 controls.” UEI Br. 42 (emphases original).
     We conclude that there was substantial evidence sup-
 porting the Board’s finding that Finkelstein is analogous
 art. Roku’s expert Dr. Polish opined that “[a] POSITA, in
 order to implement the system of Herz and Zetts, would
 have looked to documentation in the field of GUI display
 technology to supplement its teachings for how to imple-
 ment this windows-based resizing and repositioning in
 Herz. Finkelstein describes the technology for doing so.”
 Polish Decl. ¶ 117 (Appx2696). Finkelstein uses a cursor,
 and the ʼ504 and ʼ505 patents sought to add cursor func-
 tionality to universal remote controls. Thus Finkelstein is
 reasonably pertinent to cursor functionality, and in combi-
 nation with the analogous art of Herz and Zetts, provides
 substantial evidence in support of the Board’s conclusion of
 obviousness of the challenged claims.
                              II
            New argument in Roku’s Replies
     UEI argues that “the Board’s finding that Finkelstein
 is analogous art was improperly based on an argument that
 was raised for the first time in Roku’s Replies.” UEI Br. 39.
 Roku responds that its Replies “responded to UEI’s
Case: 21-2128    Document: 37     Page: 16    Filed: 08/28/2023

 16                 UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ROKU, INC.

 counterarguments regarding analogous art that UEI pre-
 sented in its Patent Owner Responses.” Roku Br. 60.
     UEI also argues that “the Board’s finding that Herz
 teaches the Second Data Limitations is based on an argu-
 ment that was belatedly raised for the first time in Roku’s
 Replies, and thus the Board’s finding is legally erroneous.”
 UEI Br. 25. Roku responds:
      The Board properly considered Roku’s arguments
      and evidence in reply because Roku had already
      raised those arguments in its Petitions, and Roku’s
      reply arguments were directly responsive to the
      claim-construction arguments raised in UEI’s Pa-
      tent Owner Responses. In any event, UEI was al-
      lowed a Sur-reply in each case to substantively
      address the arguments and evidence in the replies,
      as well as supplemental briefing to raise its argu-
      ments that the arguments and evidence should not
      have been considered by the Board. Moreover, UEI
      declined the opportunity to take the deposition of
      Roku’s expert witness regarding those arguments
      and evidence in reply. UEI had every opportunity
      to respond to any allegedly “new” arguments.
 Roku Br. 33.
     A party to litigation is not precluded from responding
 with new arguments relevant to arguments made by the
 opponent, provided that there is opportunity for additional
 relevant response. See Skky, Inc. v. MindGeek, s.a.r.l., 859
 F.3d 1014, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (reply arguments not im-
 proper where patent owner had an opportunity to file a sur-
 reply and made no assertion that “it lacked notice and the
 ability to respond to any particular argument”). UEI does
 not contend that it had no opportunity to respond to Roku’s
 arguments presented in its replies. We discern no merit to
 UEI’s objections.
Case: 21-2128    Document: 37     Page: 17   Filed: 08/28/2023

 UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ROKU, INC.                17

                       CONCLUSION
     We affirm the Board’s decisions that the challenged
 claims of the ’504 and ’505 patents are unpatentable for ob-
 viousness.
                        AFFIRMED