Court Opinion

ID: 9918304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-12 16:02:10.556051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:41.051434
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1782    Document: 51     Page: 1   Filed: 01/12/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 Trau-
 rig, LLP, Orlando, FL.

    MAI-TRANG DUC DANG, Office of the Solicitor, United
 States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, ar-
 gued 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: 2    Filed: 01/12/2024

 2                        IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.

      Universal Electronics, Inc. appeals a final written de-
 cision 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 applica-
 tion”), titled “User Interface for a Remote Control Applica-
 tion.” J.A. 144. The application describes an improved
 remote control user interface for controlling home appli-
 ances 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 re-
 mote 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 num-
 ber 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: 3     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 de-
    vice, causing the hand-held device to perform steps
    comprising:
    displaying to the user a plurality of iconic represen-
    tations 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 pro-
    gram guide having assignments between channel
    numbers and sources of programming;
    determining if the electronic program guide in-
    cludes 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 pro-
    gram guide includes the assignment of the second
    channel number to the source of programming rep-
    resented by at least one of the plurality of iconic
    representations, using the electronic program
    guide to automatically change the mapping be-
    tween the channel numbers and the plurality of
    iconic representations such that the mapping of the
    channel numbers to the plurality of iconic repre-
    sentations corresponds to assignments of channel
    numbers to sources of programs within the elec-
    tronic program guide.
 J.A. 24 (emphasis added to highlight disputed limitations).
Case: 22-1782    Document: 51      Page: 4    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 re-
 mote control with a display. Baker at Fig. 1. Baker’s re-
 mote control can display a numeric keypad for channel
 selection. Id. at 5:50–52. Baker also discloses program-
 ming a “Favorites” list, which allows the user to “create and
 edit a list of channels that the user wants to access repeat-
 edly.” Id. at 7:15–17.
     Darbee discloses a remote control that displays pro-
 gram 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 pe-
 riodically receiving EPG data and updating program
 guides stored in the remote control. Id. at 8:20–23. Accord-
 ing 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 infor-
 mation 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 re-
 solve 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: 5    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” limita-
 tions. J.A. 1663–64. UEI also stated that “nothing with
 Pietraszak” suggests that Baker and Darbee can be modi-
 fied 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 “de-
 termining” limitation, the Examiner explained that Pie-
 traszak “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 “determin-
 ing” limitation. Id. For the “in response to determining”
 limitation, the Examiner cited Darbee’s teachings of “peri-
 odically receiving EPG” updates and that the EPG data in-
 cludes channel numbers mapped to channels. J.A. 1707.
 Addressing UEI’s argument that Darbee “simply over-
 writes 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 rejec-
 tion, adopted the Examiner’s findings, and added brief dis-
 cussion “primarily for emphasis.” J.A. 2, 5. The Board
 agreed with the Examiner that Pietraszak and Darbee dis-
 close the two disputed limitations. J.A. 5–7. The Board
 also noted that UEI belatedly raised in its reply brief a mo-
 tivation-to-combine argument as to Baker and Darbee.
Case: 22-1782     Document: 51      Page: 6    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. In-
 tel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1378
 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Substantial evidence means “such rele-
 vant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as ade-
 quate 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 deter-
 mining” limitations. Appellant Br. 17. UEI further argues
 that “the Board and the Examiner” failed to articulate suf-
 ficient reasoning for a motivation to combine the refer-
 ences. Id. We address each issue in turn.
                      A. “Determining”
     UEI argues that Pietraszak does not disclose the “de-
 termining” limitation. Id. at 23. As discussed below, sub-
 stantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that
 Pietraszak discloses this limitation.

     1  The Board nevertheless considered UEI’s argu-
 ment and found it unpersuasive because the Examiner pro-
 vided a rational reasoning to combine Baker and Darbee
 and UEI failed to address it. J.A. 8.
Case: 22-1782     Document: 51     Page: 7    Filed: 01/12/2024

 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.                          7

     The Board relied on Pietraszak’s disclosures of resolv-
 ing 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 con-
 flicts based on assigned priorities, Pietraszak describes giv-
 ing 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” limita-
 tion is supported by substantial evidence.
              B. “In Response to Determining”
     UEI argues that Darbee does not disclose the “in re-
 sponse to determining” limitation. UEI does not appear to
 dispute that Darbee teaches updating EPG data, which in-
 cludes 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 de-
 termining” requirement because it does not teach the
Case: 22-1782    Document: 51     Page: 8    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 re-
 sponse to determining” limitation is supported by substan-
 tial 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 as-
 signments. 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 re-
 mote 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 dis-
 close “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: 9    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 moti-
 vation-to-combine argument as to any of the three refer-
 ences before the Board.
     In the Final Office Action, the Examiner reasoned that
 one skilled in the art would have been motivated to com-
 bine Baker with Darbee “so that users can navigate to the
 program channel they want to see” by “selecting a corre-
 sponding 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 accu-
 rate [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 for-
 feited, 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 “de-
 termining” limitation. See J.A. 1665–66. These state-
 ments 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 de-
 prived of reasonable notice and an opportunity to respond.
 The Board, in turn, was deprived of a fulsome record nec-
 essary to make an informed judgment. See In re Watts, 354
 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Case: 22-1782    Document: 51     Page: 10   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 circum-
 stances, 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 cir-
 cumstance exists here to justify a departure from this prin-
 ciple, 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.