Court Opinion

ID: 9393467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-10 15:01:04.992115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:53.530582
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1230    Document: 32    Page: 1   Filed: 05/10/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

      IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.,
                      Appellant
               ______________________

                        2022-1230
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 15/962,451.
                   ______________________

                  Decided: May 10, 2023
                  ______________________

     JAMES J. LUKAS, JR., Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Chicago,
 IL, argued for appellant Universal Electronics, Inc. Also
 represented by BENJAMIN GILFORD, GARY R. JAROSIK.

    MICHAEL S. FORMAN, Office of the Solicitor, United
 States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, ar-
 gued for appellee Katherine K. Vidal. Also represented by
 THOMAS W. KRAUSE, MONICA BARNES LATEEF, AMY J.
 NELSON, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED.
                  ______________________

    Before CHEN, MAYER, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
 CHEN, Circuit Judge.
     Universal Electronics Inc. (UEI) appeals a decision by
 the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) that affirmed
Case: 22-1230    Document: 32      Page: 2    Filed: 05/10/2023

 2                         IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.

 an Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–12 of U.S. Patent Ap-
 plication No. 15/962,451 (’451 application) as unpatentable
 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Ex Parte Pouw, No. 2020-004505,
 2021 WL 4745439, at *9 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 2021) (Decision).
 Because the Board failed to address UEI’s arguments iden-
 tifying a hole in the rejection, we vacate and remand.
                        BACKGROUND
                               I
     The ’451 application is directed to a “switching device,”
 like the audio/video (AV) receiver 902 shown below, that “is
 connected to and capable of switching” connections be-
 tween multiple “source devices,” like DVD player 904 and
 cable set top box 104, and “sink devices,” like TV set 106.
 J.A. 48, 51. Each source and sink device has its own dedi-
 cated remote controller, 906, 907, and 908. J.A. 48.

 J.A. 63. In the present invention, when “one of several [re-
 mote] controlling devices 906 through 908, each corre-
 sponding to one of devices 104, 106 or 904, is currently in
 use,” the remote controller’s transmitted signal is detected
Case: 22-1230    Document: 32     Page: 3    Filed: 05/10/2023

 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.                        3

 and read not only by the corresponding source or sink de-
 vice, but also by the switching device, which may include a
 universal infrared (IR) receiver capable of identifying and
 decoding the command transmission formats of multiple
 manufacturers. J.A. 48. Upon determining that the IR sig-
 nal is intended for a specific source or sink device, the
 switching device establishes the appropriate connection be-
 tween the source device and the sink device. J.A. 48, 51.
     The ’451 application includes independent claims 1, 5,
 and 9. J.A. 23–26. The Board determined that claims 1
 and 5 are exemplary, affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of
 claim 5, and sustained the rejection of claims 1 and 9 for
 the same reasons as claim 5. Decision, 2021 WL 4745439,
 at *1, *3–9. Thus, we also focus on claim 5. It recites:
    A switching device, comprising:
        a plurality of audio/video (AV) ports;
        a receiver; and
        control logic that is operable to selectively
        connect at least one of a plurality of source
        devices to a sink device each of which is
        connected to a corresponding one of the plu-
        rality of AV ports, the control logic being
        configured to:
            determine that the receiver has re-
            ceived an infrared (IR) signal
            transmitted by a remote control de-
            vice, wherein the IR signal trans-
            mitted by the remote control device
            comprises a protocol and a com-
            mand value that is directly recog-
            nizable by a first device among the
            plurality of source devices and the
            sink device;
Case: 22-1230    Document: 32      Page: 4    Filed: 05/10/2023

 4                         IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.

             in response to determining that the
             receiver has received the IR signal,
             determine that the remote control
             device is in use; and
             in response to at least determining
             that the remote control device is in
             use, controlling a connection be-
             tween the at least one of the plural-
             ity of source devices and the sink
             devices as a function of the detected
             IR signal.
 Id. at *1–2 (emphasis added). Thus, the invention claimed
 is a switching device that detects an IR signal sent directly
 to a source or sink device, like a DVD player or TV, that
 the switching device responds to by controlling a connec-
 tion between the source and sink devices. For example, if
 a user turns on the DVD player using the remote control
 for the DVD player, the switching device also detects the
 IR signal from the remote control to the DVD player and
 responds by connecting the DVD player to the TV.
                              II
     During prosecution, the Examiner rejected the original
 claims of the ’451 application as unpatentable under 35
 U.S.C. § 102 over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0220150
 (Garg). J.A. 146–61. Garg discloses a “hub” that connects
 “a plurality of source devices . . . to one or more sink de-
 vices,” where the user selects a source or sink device
 through (1) “manual selection means” like “switches, but-
 tons or keys” on the front panel of the hub, or (2) “remote
 selection means” like an IR remote controller. Garg ¶¶ 60,
 64–66. Although UEI argued that Garg’s hub (i.e., the
 switching device) only responds to an IR signal intended for
 the hub rather than a signal intended for a source device,
 J.A. 136–38, the Examiner found the claims anticipated be-
 cause the outcome of Garg’s IR signals was the same—i.e.,
Case: 22-1230     Document: 32      Page: 5   Filed: 05/10/2023

 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.                          5

 connection of a source and sink device, J.A. 148–49. See also
 J.A. 180–83; J.A. 186; J.A. 191–92.
      UEI responded to this rejection by amending the claims
 to add the limitation emphasized in claim 5 above, thus re-
 quiring the switching device to receive and respond to an
 IR signal directed to a source or sink device. J.A. 209–18.
 The Examiner conceded that Garg did not anticipate the
 claims as amended but rejected the claims as unpatentable
 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Garg in view of U.S. Patent
 Pub. No. 2013/0187767 (Igoe). J.A. 225–41. Igoe teaches a
 wireless home entertainment hub that “facilitates the
 transfer of data between the source and sink devices,”
 where the user activates or changes source devices
 (1) through a universal remote controller or (2) by interact-
 ing directly with the source device, like inserting a DVD
 into a DVD player. Igoe ¶¶ 23–24, 27, 42, 47. When a given
 source device is active, the hub sends a signal to the uni-
 versal remote controller to display actuators (e.g., buttons)
 that correspond to the active source, and when a user
 presses one of those buttons, an IR signal is sent from the
 remote controller to the active source device. J.A. 232; see
 also J.A. 229, 235. According to the Examiner, a skilled
 artisan would have found it obvious to modify Garg’s re-
 mote controller to send a signal directly to a source device,
 as taught by Igoe, rather than sending a signal to the hub,
 as taught by Garg. J.A. 232; see also J.A. 229, 235. The
 Examiner, however, did not suggest any corresponding
 changes to Garg’s hub in view of Igoe or explain how Garg’s
 hub would respond, if at all, to an IR signal sent directly to
 a sink or source device.
                              III
     UEI appealed to the Board, disputing the Examiner’s
 rejection because (1) the rejection only contemplated mod-
 ifying Garg’s remote controller, not Garg’s hub; (2) Garg’s
 hub, even if modified by Igoe, is not the claimed switching
 device because Igoe does not teach a switching device that
Case: 22-1230     Document: 32     Page: 6    Filed: 05/10/2023

 6                         IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.

 detects and responds to a protocol and a command value
 that is directly recognizable by a source or sink device; and
 (3) the Examiner did not articulate a motivation to combine
 Garg and Igoe. J.A. 285–88.
     The Examiner’s Answer responded to UEI’s arguments
 by adjusting the proposed combination to modify Garg’s
 hub according to Igoe, explaining that Igoe teaches a hub
 that “is operable to switch between sources and sink de-
 vices” and thus “it would have been obvious, based on the
 teachings of Igoe, to modify the switching device
 (Hub)/method of Garg [] in order to transmit the IR com-
 mand from the remote controller directly to any sinks
 and/or source devices connected to the Hub[].” J.A. 315
 (emphasis added). The Examiner did not explain, however,
 how Garg’s now modified hub would respond to IR signals
 sent directly to a sink or source device. Regarding motiva-
 tion to combine, the Examiner stated, without further ex-
 planation, that “obviousness may be established by
 combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to
 produce the claimed invention where there is some teach-
 ing, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the
 references themselves or in the knowledge generally avail-
 able to one of ordinary skill in the art.” J.A. 316 (citations
 omitted).
                              IV
     The Board affirmed the Examiner’s rejection. Decision,
 2021 WL 4745439, at *1, *9. After dismissing UEI’s argu-
 ment as “not directed to the Examiner’s specific findings,”
 the Board explained that the Examiner found, and UEI did
 not persuasively dispute, that Garg teaches certain limita-
 tions of claim 5, and thus “Igoe does not need to teach those
 limitations again.” Id. at *4. The Board then recited the
 limitations of claim 5, but without explanation, omitted the
 limitation that UEI added by amendment. Id.
    The Board also determined that UEI’s motivation to
 combine argument “is moot in light of the Examiner’s
Case: 22-1230    Document: 32      Page: 7    Filed: 05/10/2023

 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.                         7

 refined rationale” in the Answer. Id. at *6. The Board ex-
 plained that the Examiner “provided articulated reasoning
 with a rational underpinning,” including that a skilled ar-
 tisan would have combined Garg and Igoe “to facilitate
 communications with the remote controller” and that the
 combination “would have predictably used prior art ele-
 ments according to their established functions—an obvious
 improvement.” Id. (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).
      UEI timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant
 to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
                         DISCUSSION
      The Board’s decision here is inadequate. To start, the
 Board never addressed UEI’s argument that neither Garg
 nor Igoe, alone or in combination, teaches a switching de-
 vice that detects and responds to an IR signal directed to a
 device other than the switching device. The Board dodged
 this argument by stating what was uncontested—i.e., that
 Garg teaches, and thus Igoe does not need to teach, the un-
 disputed limitations of claim 5. Decision, 2021 WL
 4745439, at *4. In doing so, the Board omitted from its rec-
 itation of claim 5 the limitation that was added in response
 to the Examiner’s rejection over Garg—i.e., “wherein the
 IR signal transmitted by the remote control device com-
 prises a protocol and a command value that is directly rec-
 ognizable by” a first device. Compare id., with J.A. 214.
 Although “we will uphold a decision of less than ideal clar-
 ity if the agency’s path may reasonably be discerned,” the
 Board’s “explanation must suffice for us to see that the
 agency has done its job and must be capable of being rea-
 sonably discerned.” In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1383
 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cleaned up) (citations omitted). We cannot
 conclude that the Board has “done its job” when it avoids
 an applicant’s primary argument by omitting the disputed
 limitation from its obviousness analysis. See Gechter v. Da-
 vidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1459–60 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding
Case: 22-1230     Document: 32      Page: 8     Filed: 05/10/2023

 8                          IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.

 that “the Board’s opinion lacks the level of specificity nec-
 essary for [] review” because the Board’s decision addressed
 only one of several limitations in the claim).
      The Board’s failure is particularly problematic because
 it is unclear if the Examiner’s rejection relies on modifying
 Garg’s remote controller, Garg’s hub, or both. See Decision,
 2021 WL 4745439, at *3 (adopting Examiner’s findings and
 conclusions). Even assuming the Examiner meant both,
 the Examiner’s rejection does not fully address the limita-
 tion at issue. The Examiner’s rejection only explained that
 Igoe’s hub sends a signal to the remote controller, and the
 remote controller sends a signal to the source device. Igoe
 does not teach that the hub responds to the IR signal sent
 to the source device by changing a connection between a
 source and sink device. Thus, even if Garg’s hub was mod-
 ified according to Igoe to transmit a signal from the remote
 controller to a source or sink device, the rejection still fails
 to teach the limitation at issue—i.e., that an IR signal con-
 figured to be read by a specific source or sink device is also
 detected by the switching device, which then automatically
 takes action to control the connections between the source
 and sink devices, as a function of that detected signal.
     The Board’s motivation to combine analysis also is con-
 clusory and insufficient. See NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1382
 (“Although identifying a motivation to combine need not
 become a rigid and mandatory formula, KSR, 550 U.S. at
 419, 127 S.Ct. 1727, the PTAB must articulate a reason
 why a [skilled artisan] would combine the prior art refer-
 ences.”). The Board relied on the Examiner’s Answer, but
 the Answer merely parroted case law without any attempt
 to apply that case law to the proposed combination in a
 manner that matched all the claim limitations.
 J.A. 315–16; Decision, 2021 WL 4745439, at *6. These con-
 clusory statements unsupported by a reasoned explanation
 are insufficient. See NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1383.
Case: 22-1230     Document: 32     Page: 9    Filed: 05/10/2023

 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.                          9

     The Board also mechanically recited that a skilled ar-
 tisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents
 together like pieces of a puzzle” and that the proposed com-
 bination “would have predictably used prior art elements
 according to their established functions.” Decision, 2021
 WL 4745439, at *6 (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21). But
 the Board failed to cite any part of the record or the prior
 art to explain how or why those statements apply here.
      Finally, the Board asserted that a skilled artisan
 “would have modified Garg’s system to incorporate Igoe’s
 feature in order to facilitate communications with the re-
 mote controller.” Id. Setting aside the fact that Garg alone
 teaches that its hub communicates with its remote control-
 ler, this fails to explain why a skilled artisan would modify
 Garg such that Garg’s hub detects and responds to an IR
 signal directed to another device.
     The Director’s brief acknowledges that the rejection
 may not constitute “a model of clarity” but argues that the
 rejection “was more than sufficient” because the “claimed
 invention is straightforward” and the “prior art references
 are easily understandable.” Appellee’s Br. 20–21. Alt-
 hough a “brief explanation may do all that is needed if, for
 example, the technology is simple and familiar and the
 prior art is clear in its language and easily understood,”
 Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d
 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017), neither the Board nor the Exam-
 iner provided even a brief explanation as to how Garg
 would be modified by Igoe to render obvious the ’451 appli-
 cation’s claims.
     The Director also advances multiple arguments on ap-
 peal based on theories that were not made by the Examiner
 or the Board. The Director, for example, argues that the
 ’451 application’s specification admits that universal IR re-
 ceivers were known in the art, that it would have been “well
 within the capabilities of a skilled artisan” to modify Garg’s
 switching device IR circuitry to add a universal IR receiver
Case: 22-1230    Document: 32     Page: 10    Filed: 05/10/2023

 10                        IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.

 that responds to IR signals sent directly to a source device,
 and that a skilled artisan would be motivated to combine
 Garg and Igoe such that the switching device automatically
 responds to an IR signal sent to another device to “sim-
 plify[] the process of changing sources.”          Appellee’s
 Br. 15–17, 19. Even if we found these arguments persua-
 sive, we “have no warrant to accept appellate counsel’s post
 hoc rationalizations for agency action”; “our review of a pa-
 tentability determination is confined to the grounds on
 which the Board actually relied.” Power Integrations, Inc.
 v. Lee, 797 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal quo-
 tation marks and citations omitted). Instead, the required
 course is for the agency in the first instance to consider
 these possible bases for rejecting the claim.
                        CONCLUSION
      The Board’s reasoning does not meet the requirements
 for a sustainable obviousness rejection, and we vacate the
 Board’s determination that claims 1–12 of the ’451 applica-
 tion are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We remand
 for the agency to reconsider the merits of the claims in view
 of the Director’s new arguments.
                VACATED AND REMANDED
                            COSTS
 No costs.