Court Opinion

ID: 9383985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 16:00:58.846125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:49.435283
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1058   Document: 40     Page: 1   Filed: 03/31/2023

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                      ROKU, INC.,
                       Appellant

                            v.

          UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.,
                      Appellee
               ______________________

                       2022-1058
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-
 01615.
                  ______________________

                Decided: March 31, 2023
                ______________________

     WILLIAM MILLIKEN, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox,
 PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also repre-
 sented by JON WRIGHT; JONATHAN DANIEL BAKER, Dickin-
 son Wright PLLC, Mountain View, CA; MICHAEL DAVID
 SAUNDERS, Austin, TX.

     MICHAEL ANTHONY NICODEMA, Greenberg Traurig
 LLP, West Palm Beach, FL, argued for appellee. Also rep-
 resented by BENJAMIN GILFORD, JAMES J. LUKAS, JR., Chi-
 cago, IL.
                 ______________________
Case: 22-1058     Document: 40       Page: 2   Filed: 03/31/2023

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

     Before NEWMAN, REYNA, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
     Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge STOLL.
     Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN.
 STOLL, Circuit Judge.
     Roku, Inc. appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s
 final written decision holding that claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 of
 U.S. Patent No. 9,716,853 had not been proven unpatenta-
 ble as obvious. This case turns on a single question—
 whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
 understood the prior art’s disclosure of a listing of remote
 command codes formatted for transmission via two differ-
 ent communication methods to be a listing comprised of at
 least a first communication method and a second commu-
 nication method different than the first communication
 method. Because the question presented involved the
 scope and content of the prior art, the Board resolved this
 dispute as a purely factual question, which we review for
 substantial evidence. The Board thoroughly considered the
 evidence of record and found in its final written decision
 that the skilled artisan would not have understood the
 prior patent’s listing of remote command codes to corre-
 spond to the claim limitation at issue. Because the Board’s
 finding in this close factual dispute is supported by sub-
 stantial evidence, we affirm the Board’s final written deci-
 sion.
                         BACKGROUND
      The ’853 patent relates to universal remotes and, more
 specifically, to a universal control engine (UCE) that facil-
 itates communication between a controlling device (i.e., a
 remote) and intended target appliances (e.g., a TV, a DVD
 player, a sound system, etc.). ’853 patent col. 1 l. 63–col. 2
 l. 45.   Although the specification of the ’853 patent
 acknowledges that universal remotes were known at the
 time of the invention, it states that the proliferation of new
 communication methods raises the potential for “confusion,
Case: 22-1058       Document: 40    Page: 3    Filed: 03/31/2023

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

 misoperation, or other problems,” id. at col. 1 ll. 40–59, par-
 ticularly because the preferred communication method for
 transmitting commands “may vary by both appliance and
 by the function to be performed,” id. at col. 6 ll. 62–64. For
 example, a user can “power on and select inputs on a TV”
 using Consumer Electronic Control (CEC) commands while
 “control[ling] the volume on the same TV” using infrared
 (IR) commands. Id. at col. 2 ll. 21–45. The ’853 patent’s
 purported invention is the ability to reliably use different
 communication methods that enable a single remote con-
 trol to provide commands to a variety of target appliances,
 according to the optimal method of communication for each
 target appliance and command. Id. at col. 2 ll. 16–20.
      The ’853 patent’s UCE can “receive commands from a
 controlling device” and “apply the optimum methodology to
 propagate the command function(s) to each intended target
 appliance,” id. at col. 2 ll. 20–37, according to a “preferred
 command matrix,” id. at col. 7 ll. 19–29. The preferred
 command matrix, an example of which is shown below, can
 be, for example, a list or a table with entries that corre-
 spond to a specific command and “comprise identification
 of [(1)] a form of command/transmission to be used and
 [(2)] a pointer to the required data value and formatting
 information for the specific command.” Id. at col. 7
 ll. 19–29.
Case: 22-1058     Document: 40          Page: 4   Filed: 03/31/2023

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

 ’853 patent Fig. 7.
     Representative claim 1 recites:
     1. A universal control engine, comprising:
     a processing device; and
     a memory device having stored thereon instruc-
     tions executable by the processing device, the in-
     structions, when executed by the processing device,
     causing the universal control engine
     to respond to a detected presence of an intended
     target appliance within a logical topography of con-
     trollable appliances which includes the universal
     control engine by
     using an identity associated with the intended tar-
     get appliance to create a listing comprised of at
     least a first communication method and a second
Case: 22-1058       Document: 40    Page: 5    Filed: 03/31/2023

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

     communication method different than the first com-
     munication method for use in controlling each of at
     least a first functional operation and a second func-
     tional operation of the intended target appliance
     and
     to respond to a received request from a controlling
     device intended to cause the intended target appli-
     ance to perform a one of the first and second func-
     tional operations by
     causing a one of the first and second communica-
     tion methods in the listing of communication meth-
     ods that has been associated with the requested
     one of the first and second functional operations to
     be used to transmit to the intended target appli-
     ance a command for controlling the requested one
     of the first and second functional operations of the
     intended target appliance.
 Id. at col. 14 l. 41–col. 15 l. 7 (emphasis added to key limi-
 tation).
      Roku filed a petition for inter partes review of claims 1,
 3, 5, and 7 of the ’853 patent, asserting that the challenged
 claims would have been obvious in view of U.S. Patent Pub.
 No. 2012/0249890 (“Chardon”) and other asserted prior art
 references. Disposition of the case before us rests, as it did
 before the Board, on a single, narrow issue: whether Char-
 don discloses “a listing comprised of at least a first commu-
 nication method and a second communication method
 different than the first communication method” as recited
 in each challenged claim.
      Like the patent-in-suit, Chardon describes a remote
 control system configured to control various target devices
 (e.g., TVs, DVD players, stereo equipment, etc.). Chardon
 uses target device identification data to generate a linked
 database (e.g., a linked list) including sets of command
 codes (i.e., instructions to perform a command) associated
Case: 22-1058     Document: 40       Page: 6   Filed: 03/31/2023

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

 with specific communication protocols.               Chardon,
 ¶¶ [0006]–[0008]. This linked database includes at least
 two different sets of command codes—specifically, a set of
 CEC command codes and a set of IR command codes. Char-
 don’s system receives a command to perform a specific ac-
 tion (i.e., volume up) on a target appliance (i.e., a TV) and
 first relays the command to the TV using a CEC command
 code. Id. at ¶ [0058]. If the system doesn’t receive a re-
 sponse from the TV indicating receipt of the command, the
 system then “determine[s] an IR command code . . . to per-
 form the same set of functions as the CEC command code”
 and transmits that IR command code to the TV. Id. Alter-
 natively, the system can determine in advance that a tar-
 get device “is not configured to receive CEC command
 codes” and “send IR command codes . . . instead.” Id. at
 ¶ [0058]; see also id. at ¶ [0068].
      Roku argued that Chardon disclosed the disputed
 claim limitation to a skilled artisan, devoting much of its
 petition to explaining how Chardon “creates a database of
 IR and CEC command codes.” J.A. 116. In other words,
 Roku established in its petition that Chardon describes a
 process for creating a database of command codes, at least
 some of which are formatted for transmission according to
 a first communication method and some of which are for-
 matted for transmission according to a second communica-
 tion method. “In this way,” Roku asserted, without further
 explanation, “Chardon meets the claimed limitation” of a
 listing of “at least a first (e.g., CEC) and second (e.g., IR)
 communication method.” Id.
     Roku’s petition did not explain how a list of command
 codes is a list of communication methods. Nor did it sug-
 gest that Chardon’s list of command codes would render
 the claimed list of communication methods obvious. For
 example, it did not state that Chardon’s list of command
 codes is inherently a list of communication methods, or ex-
 plain that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to
 derive a list of communication methods from the command
Case: 22-1058       Document: 40    Page: 7    Filed: 03/31/2023

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

 codes, or provide evidence that a skilled artisan would have
 known that Chardon’s list of command codes was also a list
 of communication methods. In its petition, Roku thus as-
 sumed that, because Chardon’s command codes are format-
 ted for transmission via different communication methods,
 its list of command codes is necessarily a list of communi-
 cation methods. But Roku neither articulated this assump-
 tion nor explained how the record evidence supported it.
     Further, Roku advanced no claim constructions for the
 disputed limitation, asserting instead that the relevant
 claim language “should simply receive [its] plain and ordi-
 nary meaning, as informed by the ’853 patent specifica-
 tion.” J.A. 83.
      To support its assertions, Roku’s petition did rely on
 the expert testimony of Dr. Samuel Russ. Dr. Russ ex-
 plained that Chardon’s linked database discloses “a listing
 comprised of at least a first communication method (e.g.,
 CEC command codes) and a second communication method
 (e.g., IR command codes).” J.A. 905 (Russ Decl. ¶ 203).
 This testimony seemingly equates CEC command codes
 with a first communication method and IR command codes
 with a second communication method. Dr. Russ later elab-
 orated, however, that Chardon used its linked database “to
 send a CEC command code over HDMI to an HDMI appli-
 ance using a first communication method (i.e., HDMI-CEC
 over a HDMI cable),” seemingly acknowledging a distinc-
 tion between command codes and the communication
 methods over which the command codes are transmitted.
 J.A. 906 (Russ Decl. ¶ 205). Dr. Russ did not testify that a
 skilled artisan would have understood Chardon’s linked
 database of command codes to teach or suggest a list of
 communication methods.
      Universal did not dispute that Chardon discloses a pro-
 cess for creating a listing of CEC command codes and IR
 command codes. Universal asserted instead that Roku had
 failed to establish that this disclosure teaches or renders
Case: 22-1058    Document: 40        Page: 8   Filed: 03/31/2023

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

 obvious creating a listing of two different communication
 methods. J.A. 300–02. Universal rebutted Roku’s posi-
 tions and Dr. Russ’s testimony with that of Dr. Don Turn-
 bull. Dr. Turnbull opined that one of ordinary skill in the
 art would “not have understood a ‘command code’ to be a
 ‘communication method.’”          J.A. 3034 (Turnbull Decl.
 ¶¶ 69–70). He explained that a command code is “an in-
 struction to perform a function,” whereas a communication
 method is “a medium or protocol for transmitting or receiv-
 ing information.” Id. Dr. Turnbull explained that the
 ’853 patent specification itself “expressly distinguishes be-
 tween a listing of communication methods and a database
 of command codes.” J.A. 3034–35 (Turnbull Decl. ¶ 71). As
 support, Dr. Turnbull cited Figure 7 of the ’853 patent,
 which shows a matrix with cells comprising “identification
 of a form of command/transmission to be used,” such as
 CEC and IR. Id. He explained that the matrix “expressly
 distinguishes between command codes and the communi-
 cation methods (e.g., CEC and IR) that are used to com-
 municate the command codes.” J.A. 3035 (Turnbull Decl.
 ¶ 72) (citing ’853 patent col. 7 ll. 30–42). Dr. Turnbull em-
 phasized that the ’853 patent clearly differentiates be-
 tween the “form of command/transmission to be used” and
 the data value and formatting information for the specific
 command, which is “stored elsewhere” in memory.
 J.A. 3034–35 (Turnbull Decl. ¶¶ 71–72); see also ’853 pa-
 tent col. 7 ll. 26–29. Thus, he explained, the ’853 patent
 makes “clear that a listing of communication methods is
 not the same thing as a database of command codes.” Id.
     In its final written decision, the Board determined that
 Roku had not shown that the challenged claims would have
 been obvious. The Board explained that although Roku
 “specifically equate[d] ‘a first communication method’ with
 ‘CEC command codes’ and ‘a second communication
 method different from the first communication method’
 with ‘IR command codes,’” J.A. 20 (citing J.A. 119–20,
 126–27), it failed to show that one of ordinary skill would
Case: 22-1058       Document: 40    Page: 9    Filed: 03/31/2023

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

 have understood that these were the same things. The
 Board emphasized that Roku cited “no analysis or expert
 testimony” to show that Chardon’s linked database of com-
 mand codes and the transmission of those command codes
 over two different communication methods taught or sug-
 gested “the claimed listing that is comprised of at least two
 different communication methods.” J.A. 22. Acknowledg-
 ing that there was “no requirement that literal names of
 different command transmission mediums . . . appear in
 the text of the listing,” the Board nevertheless found that
 the record fell “short of providing evidence that one of ordi-
 nary skill in the art would have understood stored com-
 mand codes” to identify communication methods rather
 than act as a “reference for codes to be used once the com-
 munication method to be used is determined in some other
 way.” Id. (cleaned up). Thus, the Board concluded that
 Roku had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence
 that the challenged claims would have been obvious over
 Chardon alone, or in combination with other cited prior art
 references.
      Roku requested rehearing, alleging among other things
 that the Board “erred by implicitly construing,” J.A. 525,
 the term “communication method” as “the ‘method of trans-
 mission’ or the ‘transmission medium’ through which the
 selected command is sent,” J.A. 528. The Board denied
 Roku’s petition, explaining that it did not so construe the
 claims. J.A. 29. Furthermore, the Board explained that,
 even if it had construed the claim term as averred by Roku,
 “the outcome . . . would have been no different.” Id. Spe-
 cifically, the Board emphasized that the question of
 “whether a command code teaches a communication
 method” presents a factual question that the Board had al-
 ready considered and “decided in favor of Patent Owner”
 Universal, and Roku’s attempt to characterize the Board’s
 analysis as including an implicit construction was both in-
 correct and unpersuasive. J.A. 31.
Case: 22-1058    Document: 40       Page: 10    Filed: 03/31/2023

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

     Roku appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
 § 1295(a)(4)(A).
                         DISCUSSION
      The ultimate question of obviousness is a legal ques-
 tion that we review de novo with underlying factual find-
 ings that we review for substantial evidence. Fleming
 v. Cirrus Design Corp., 28 F.4th 1214, 1221 (Fed. Cir.
 2022). Those underlying findings of fact, as enumerated by
 the Supreme Court nearly six decades ago, include the Gra-
 ham factors—“basic factual inquiries,” the answers to
 which provide a foundation for the ultimate determination
 of obviousness or nonobviousness. Graham v John Deere
 Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). The Graham
 factors include: “(1) the scope and content of the prior art,
 (2) differences between the prior art and the claims at is-
 sue, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and
 (4) the presence of objective indicia of nonobviousness such
 as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure
 of others, and unexpected results.” Elbit Sys. of Am., LLC
 v. Thales Visionix, Inc., 881 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (in-
 ternal quotation marks omitted) (citing Graham, 383 U.S.
 at 17–18). Substantial evidence is evidence such that a
 “reasonable fact finder could have arrived at the agency’s
 decision.” OSI Pharms., LLC v. Apotex Inc., 939 F.3d 1375,
 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Gartside, 203 F.3d
 1305, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). “[T]he possibility of drawing
 two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not
 prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being sup-
 ported by substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Fed. Mar.
 Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966).
    As explained above, the question considered by the
 Board and raised on appeal is whether Chardon’s list of
 command codes formatted to be transmitted via different
 communication methods is, itself, a list of different
Case: 22-1058      Document: 40     Page: 11    Filed: 03/31/2023

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

 communication methods as recited in the claims. We can
 see both sides of this factual dispute. 1
      On one hand, before this court, Roku advances the rea-
 sonable argument that because (1) CEC and IR are com-
 munication protocols—which neither party disputes
 qualify as communication methods—and (2) Chardon dis-
 closes “a protocol-specific list of CEC command codes” and
 “a protocol-specific list of IR command codes,” Chardon nec-
 essarily discloses creating a listing comprised of at least
 two different communication methods “as a matter of
 logic.” Appellant’s Br. 24–27. Although Roku does not dis-
 pute that a “command code” is not the same as a “commu-
 nication method,” it argues that Chardon’s protocol-specific
 “listing unambiguously indicates both the command code
 and the communication protocol (i.e., communication
 method) to be used in transmission.” Id. at 28–29.
     On the other hand, as Universal persuasively argues,
 Roku has failed to show that the Board’s fact finding—that
 Chardon’s command code formatted for transmission via a
 particular communication method was not proven to be a
 communication method—was unsupported by substantial
 evidence. Appellee’s Br. 23. First, Universal notes that
 Roku’s argument contradicts the disclosure of the ’853 pa-
 tent itself. Id. at 24. For example, the ’853 patent de-
 scribes its listing as a “command matrix,” comprising “a
 series of data cells” that include “identification of a form of
 command/transmission to be used” and “a pointer to the

     1   The dissent asserts that we should apply de novo
 review to this issue. But Roku expressly raises only a fac-
 tual question on appeal: whether Chardon teaches a par-
 ticular claim element. See Appellant’s Br. 21 (“That
 factual issue is the sole subject of this appeal.”). We thus
 view the issue on appeal as a Graham factor underlying
 obviousness—not as a question of the ultimate conclusion
 of obviousness.
Case: 22-1058    Document: 40       Page: 12    Filed: 03/31/2023

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

 required data value and formatting information for the
 specific command,” which is stored in a separate location
 in memory. ’853 patent col. 7 ll. 19–29. In other words, the
 patent specification itself distinguishes a list of communi-
 cation methods from a separate list of command codes. Sec-
 ond, Universal argues that the Board’s decision is
 supported by Dr. Turnbull’s expert testimony. Appellee’s
 Br. 25–26. According to Universal, the Board was entitled
 to weigh Dr. Turnbull’s testimony that a skilled artisan
 “would not have understood a ‘command code’ to be a com-
 munication method,” J.A. 3034 (Turnbull Decl. ¶¶ 69–70),
 more heavily than Dr. Russ’s more vague and unexplained
 testimony that Chardon’s linked database discloses “a list-
 ing of at least a first communication method (e.g., CEC
 command codes) and a second communication method (e.g.,
 IR command codes),” J.A. 905 (Russ Decl. ¶ 203). Finally,
 Universal points out that Roku does not dispute the basic
 fact that a command code is different than a communica-
 tion method.
      Review of the record as a whole reveals that the factual
 dispute at hand was highly contested and closely decided.
 Most significantly for our purposes, the Board’s finding was
 supported by substantial evidence.         Specifically, the
 Board’s finding flows from the ’853 patent specification it-
 self and Dr. Turnbull’s testimony. This evidence supported
 the Board’s finding that Roku had failed to meet its burden
 of proof. The Board, in its role as factfinder in the first
 instance, was entitled to weigh the evidence in the record,
 including this evidence against Roku.
     An appellate court “do[es] not and should not reweigh
 evidence or make factual findings.” Impax Lab’ys. Inc.
 v. Lannett Holdings Inc., 893 F.3d 1372, 1382 (Fed. Cir.
 2018). As an appellate court, our role is to review the
 Board’s findings for substantial evidence, not to step into
 its place and make those findings anew. Id. Indeed, alt-
 hough this court could well have decided the factual dis-
 pute at hand differently than the Board did, it is not the
Case: 22-1058      Document: 40     Page: 13   Filed: 03/31/2023

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

 province of this court to do so. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.
 v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 327 (2015) (explaining that a
 lower tribunal, which has “presided over, and listened to,
 the entirety of a proceeding has a comparatively greater
 opportunity to gain that familiarity than an appeals court
 judge who must read a written transcript or perhaps just
 those portions to which the parties have referred”).
      Because the Board’s factual finding—that Chardon’s
 listing of command codes did not teach or suggest a listing
 of communication methods—was supported by substantial
 evidence, we affirm the Board’s decision that Roku has not
 shown that the challenged claims would have been obvious.
                          CONCLUSION
      We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
 affirm the Board’s final written decision.
                          AFFIRMED
Case: 22-1058    Document: 40     Page: 14   Filed: 03/31/2023

    United States Court of Appeals
        for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                       ROKU, INC.,
                        Appellant

                             v.

          UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.,
                      Appellee
               ______________________

                        2022-1058
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-
 01615.
                  ______________________

 NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
     I respectfully dissent, for I have concerns as to both
 procedural and substantive aspects of the court’s ruling.
                              I
     With respect to procedure, the court holds that because
 the parties did not dispute claim construction at the Patent
 Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”), our appellate
 review is limited to whether substantial evidence supports
 the PTAB’s decision of non-obviousness. Claim construc-
 tion and obviousness are questions of law, whose underly-
 ing factual components may or may not be disputed. When
 disputed, factual findings of the PTAB are reviewed for
 support by substantial evidence, as the panel majority
Case: 22-1058    Document: 40       Page: 15    Filed: 03/31/2023

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

 recognizes, see Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064,
 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (reciting the standard of review for
 PTAB findings of fact), whereas the ultimate questions of
 law remain for de novo determination on appeal, id.
      The panel majority states that because “the question
 presented involved the scope and content of the prior
 art, the Board resolved this dispute as a purely factual
 question, which we review for substantial evidence.” Maj.
 Op. at 2. The majority then finds that substantial evidence
 supports the PTAB’s finding that “Chardon’s listing of com-
 mand codes did not teach or suggest a listing of communi-
 cation methods.” Id. at 13. This is the focus of my dissent,
 for the majority declines to review the ultimate legal ques-
 tion of validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,716,853 (the “’853 pa-
 tent”) and instead reviews solely the Board’s specific fact-
 finding discussed therein.
      The decision on appeal is “that Petitioner has not es-
 tablished by a preponderance of the evidence that any of
 claims 1, 3, 5, or 7 of the ’853 patent are unpatentable.” J.A.
 24. My concern is with the majority’s implicit holding that
 if the underlying findings of fact are supported by substan-
 tial evidence, then we do not review the ultimate legal
 question of non-obviousness.
    I believe that de novo review is appropriate for the
 questions of law presented herein, along with review of any
 underlying facts for support by substantial evidence. 1

     1   The panel majority misperceives my dissent. I do
 not “assert[] that we should apply de novo review to this
 [factual] issue.” Maj. Op. at 11 n.1. I do assert that we
 should apply de novo review to the issue on appeal, that is,
 the legal issue of obviousness. “It is emphatically the prov-
 ince and duty of the judicial department to say what the
 law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must
 of necessity expound and interpret that rule.” Marbury v.
Case: 22-1058      Document: 40      Page: 16   Filed: 03/31/2023

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

                                II
      It is not disputed that universal “remotes” were known
 at the time of the invention described and claimed in the
 ’853 patent. Communicating commands via both wireless
 and wired communication methods was well known: “a
 ‘communication method’ is a medium or protocol for trans-
 mitting or receiving information (e.g., CEC [consumer elec-
 tronics control], IR [infrared], RF [radio frequency], etc.).”
 Universal Elecs. Br. 5 (citing the ’853 patent col. 2 ll. 4–16,
 col. 6 ll. 25–28, 62–67, col. 14 ll. 20–24). The Chardon ref-
 erence describes a “database of CEC and IR command
 codes.” Id. at 1.
      In this appeal it is not disputed that a person of ordi-
 nary skill in the field of this invention would understand
 that the CEC and IR command codes listed and disclosed
 by Chardon are the same as the CEC and IR command
 codes listed and communicated in the ’853 patent. Chardon
 shows a Universal Control Engine (“UCE”) receiving a com-
 mand code from a remote control device, and it shows the
 UCE employing the applicable communication method to
 transmit the command to the appliance. This is the subject
 matter of the ’853 patent. As the panel majority recites,
 “[t]he ’853 patent’s purported invention is the ability to re-
 liably use different communication methods that enable a
 single remote control to provide commands to a variety of
 target appliances, according to the optimal method of com-
 munication for each target appliance and command.” Maj.
 Op. at 3 (citing the ’853 patent col. 2 ll. 16–20).
     The panel majority also recites that “Chardon discloses
 a process for creating a listing of CEC command codes and
 IR command codes” for communication to remote appli-
 ances. Id. at 7. Chardon teaches “at least two different

 Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803). This foundation of appel-
 late review applies whether or not any facts are disputed.
Case: 22-1058    Document: 40      Page: 17    Filed: 03/31/2023

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

 communication methods,” namely CEC and IR, Roku Reply
 Br. 1, and “[a] skilled artisan would understand that Char-
 don’s listing of parallel sets of CEC and IR command codes
 and its description of algorithms for selecting which com-
 munication method to use reads precisely on the chal-
 lenged claims.” Id. at 11. Although the parties discuss
 differences between the details disclosed by Chardon and
 by the ’853 patent, and the majority recognizes some such
 differences, these details are unclaimed by the ’853 patent
 and cannot be used to support non-obviousness.
     An example is that for selecting the communications
 method, the ’853 patent shows use of a “matrix” in Figure
 7, and states that the matrix contains the “form of com-
 mand/transmission to be used and a pointer to the required
 data value and formatting information for the specific com-
 mand,” Roku Reply Br. 10 (quoting the ’853 patent col. 7 ll.
 26–29), while Chardon lists “both CEC-formatted com-
 mand codes and a parallel set of IR-formatted command
 codes.” Id. (citing Chardon, ¶¶ [0008], [0039], [0044]).
 However, any difference in the selection method does not
 appear in the claims.
     Applying the requisite analysis of law and fact, I con-
 clude that the ’853 patent claims at issue would have been
 obvious in view of Chardon, because the methods described
 in the claims and the prior art are substantially identical
 and serve the same purpose and use. I respectfully dissent
 from my colleagues’ contrary ruling.