Case: 22-1758 Document: 36 Page: 1 Filed: 08/24/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.,
Appellant
______________________
2022-1758
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 15/711,381.
______________________
Decided: August 24, 2023
______________________
MATTHEW J. LEVINSTEIN, Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Chi-
cago, IL, argued for appellant Universal Electronics, Inc.
Also represented by BENJAMIN GILFORD, GARY R. JAROSIK,
JAMES J. LUKAS, JR.
ROBERT MCBRIDE, Office of the Solicitor, United States
Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for
appellee Katherine K. Vidal. Also represented by OMAR
FAROOQ AMIN, MARY L. KELLY, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, AMY J.
NELSON, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED.
______________________
Before REYNA, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
STOLL, Circuit Judge.
Case: 22-1758 Document: 36 Page: 2 Filed: 08/24/2023
2 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.
Universal Electronics, Inc. appeals from the final deci-
sion of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirming the re-
jection of certain claims in U.S. Patent Application
No. 15/711,381 (’381 application) as obvious under
35 U.S.C. § 103. The rejected claims recite methods for us-
ing a universal remote control in conjunction with a relay
device to control various appliances. Because substantial
evidence supports the Board’s findings, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
The ’381 application, titled “System and Method for
Ubiquitous Appliance Control,” discloses a system in which
a universal remote controls various appliances through a
slave relay device. The universal remote has a graphical
user interface (GUI) page that may display a “series of
icons representative of appliance control actions.” J.A. 50.
The specification discloses that when an icon, or HTML
tag, is selected, a “message [may be] transmitted back to
the . . . slave relay device, receipt of which causes the de-
sired command(s) to be issued to an appliance.” Id. The
slave relay device stores tag files which “specify the actions
to be performed by a slave relay device when an HTML tag
is activated” on the universal remote control. Id. at 58.
These tag files may be a “series of XML statements to be
executed by the . . . slave relay device” that include “a def-
inition . . . of the appliance to which commands are to be
directed” and “a list . . . of the functions to be transmitted.”
Id. at 58–59. As an exemplary embodiment, the specifica-
tion discloses that the universal remote control may be a
mobile phone which displays icons such as various TV
channels. When an icon is selected by a user, the phone
sends a message to a slave relay device, which would then
send commands specified in its tag files to perform the de-
sired function, such as setting the TV to the desired chan-
nel.
The Examiner rejected claims 2–3, 5–9, 12, 17, and 20–
21 of the ’381 application, with claims 2–3, 6–8, 12, 17, and
Case: 22-1758 Document: 36 Page: 3 Filed: 08/24/2023
IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. 3
20–21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatent-
able over U.S. Patent No. 7,631,197 (Niwamoto) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0097618
(Arling) and U.S. Patent No. 7,589,642 (Mui). The claim
limitations in dispute on appeal are in claims 2 and 3.
Claim 2 recites:
2. A method for using a relay device having a
memory in which is stored a tag file comprising
both first data indicative of a brand and type of a
device that is to commanded in response to an acti-
vation of an activatable link that is associated with
the tag file and second data indicative of one or
more commands to be transmitted to the device in
response to the activation of the activatable link,
the method comprising:
receiving by the relay device from an input device
via a first wireless communications link a commu-
nication containing data that functions to indicate
that the activatable link was activated;
using by the relay device the first data as stored in
the tag file to select a code data having commands
for use in commanding functional operations of the
device; and
transmitting a command communication from the
relay device to the device via a second communica-
tions link, where the command communication
comprises one or more commands selected from the
selected code data, wherein the command commu-
nication uses a protocol defined within the selected
code data, and wherein the one or more commands
are selected from the selected code data via use of
the second data as stored in the tag file.
J.A. 710 (emphasis added to highlight disputed limitation).
Claim 3 recites:
Case: 22-1758 Document: 36 Page: 4 Filed: 08/24/2023
4 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.
3. The method as recited in claim 2, wherein the
data that functions to indicate that the activatable
link was activated comprises a file name of the tag
file.
Id. (emphasis added to highlight disputed limitation).
The Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of 2–3, 5–
9, 12, 17, and 20–21, and Universal appeals. We have ju-
risdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
DISCUSSION
We review the Board’s legal determinations de novo, In
re Elsner, 381 F.3d 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and its fact
findings for substantial evidence, In re Gartside, 203 F.3d
1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Obviousness is a question of
law based on underlying findings of fact. Id. The scope and
content of the prior art and whether a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
teachings in the prior art are questions of fact. In re
Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 985 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence is
“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion.” Mouttet, 686 F.3d
at 1331.
Universal challenges the Board’s findings that Arling
discloses the “tag file” limitation of claim 2 and that Niwa-
moto teaches the “file name” limitation of claim 3. Univer-
sal also argues that the Board failed to properly articulate
why a person of ordinary skill would have combined Niwa-
moto, Arling, and Mui. We address each issue in turn.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that
Arling teaches a “tag file comprising both first data indica-
tive of a brand and type of a device that is to commanded
in response to an activation of an activatable link that is
associated with the tag file and second data indicative of
one or more commands to be transmitted to the device in
response to the activation of the activatable link” as
Case: 22-1758 Document: 36 Page: 5 Filed: 08/24/2023
IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. 5
required by claim 2. 1 Arling discloses that its system may
be used to control a “home entertainment center having a
set of home appliances of different brand, model, or type”
and that “[t]o identify [these] home appliances by type and
make (and sometimes model) . . . data may be entered into
the universal remote control device.” Arling [0018], [0026].
Arling also states that its system contains “general device
conversion definitions includ[ing] device selection/state
data . . . [and] device definitions . . . (which may comprise
available device command and function abilities for indi-
vidual appliances).” Id. [0031]. Arling further discloses
that “corresponding data elements for source appliances
. . . may be saved for subsequent command generation” and
“may be saved in any known format, for example as an
XML file.” Id. [0030]. These disclosures support the
Board’s finding that Arling discloses the “tag file” limita-
tion of claim 2.
We are also not persuaded by Universal’s argument
that Niwamoto fails to teach “the data that functions to in-
dicate that the activatable link was activated comprises a
file name” as required by claim 3. Niwamoto discloses that
a user’s selection of a button on its remote-control device
will “transmit[] the instruction information to [a] gateway
device” and that this instruction information, which “al-
ways includes a . . . control apparatus ID,” is used to “gen-
erate[] control information directed to controlling [an
appliance] based on the operation information included in
the instruction information.” Niwamoto col. 23 l. 42–
1 The government asserts that Universal is collater-
ally estopped from arguing that Arling does not teach this
“tag file” limitation of claim 2. Universal responds that the
government waived this argument by not raising it below.
We need not address this issue because we find that sub-
stantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Arling
discloses a “tag file.”
Case: 22-1758 Document: 36 Page: 6 Filed: 08/24/2023
6 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.
col. 24 l. 60. Based on this disclosure, the Board adopted
the Examiner’s finding that “Niwamoto points to links
which are selected and provide instruction information
(file) including control apparatus ID” that correlates to the
file name. J.A. 793. We hold that substantial evidence
supports the Board’s finding that Niwamoto teaches a file
name because Niwamoto’s disclosure of its links—like the
file name—identifies both the intended device and the de-
sired function.
Finally, Universal contends that the Board failed to
properly articulate why a person of ordinary skill would
have combined Niwamoto, Arling, and Mui. We disagree.
Though the Board’s discussion is short, the Board articu-
lated a motivation to combine these references. The
Board’s discussion must be read in light of the examiner’s
explanation that one skilled in the art would have been mo-
tivated to combine the art because the combination “pro-
vides an established system with one to one mapping for
accessing information thereby improving overall operabil-
ity,” which the Board adopted. J.A. 5. Further, as the
Board noted, Universal’s argument that there would have
been no motivation to combine the prior art references
rested on its assertion that Arling does not disclose a tag
file. Having found that Arling teaches a tag file (a finding
that we affirm on appeal), the Board explained that Uni-
versal’s argument is moot. For these reasons, the Board
sufficiently articulated a motivation to combine Niwamoto,
Arling, and Mui.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Universal’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the decision of
the Board is affirmed.
AFFIRMED