In Re UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.

Case: 22-1716 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 08/15/2023

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________

IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.,
Appellant
______________________

2022-1716, 2022-1717
______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 12/645,037,
16/279,095.
______________________

Decided: August 15, 2023
______________________

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

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 REYNA, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
REYNA, Circuit Judge.
Case: 22-1716 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 08/15/2023

2 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.

This is a consolidated appeal from two Patent Trial and
Appeal Board decisions affirming the Patent Office Exam-
iner’s rejection of claims from Appellant Universal Elec-
tronics, Inc.’s U.S. Patent Application Nos. 12/645,037 and
16/279,095 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. For the rea-
sons below, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
A. The Patent Applications
U.S. Patent Application No. 16/279,095 (the “’095 ap-
plication”) is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No.
12/645,037 (the “’037 application”) and the two applications
share the same specification. Appellant’s Br. 3 n.1 (citing
J.A. 39–54; J.A. 691–706). 1 The applications generally re-
late to “a system and method for providing improved user
input functionality on a controlling device.” ’037 applica-
tion at 1:23–24. The controlling device is configured to con-
trol various appliances—like TVs and set top boxes. Id. at
3:12–13. The controlling device may include a “key matrix”
and “a scrolling and/or navigation function input means,”
like “a capacitive or resistive touch sensor.” Id. at 4:6–10.
It may also include memories having “the necessary control
protocols and command values for use in transmitting com-
mand signals to controllable appliances (collectively, the
command data).” Id. at 4:18–23.

1 Because the two applications share the same spec-
ification, we generally cite the ’037 application.
Case: 22-1716 Document: 38 Page: 3 Filed: 08/15/2023

IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. 3

As shown in Figure 3 below, the input means may be a
“multiple-electrode capacitive touch sensor 302,” which
“may accept finger sliding gestures on either axis for trans-
lation into navigation step commands in an X or Y direc-
tion, as well as finger pressure at, for example, the cardinal
points and center area for translation into discrete com-
mands.” Id. at 7:13–23.

Id. at Fig. 3.
Touch sensor 302 may be above “keypad buttons” 310–
313, which “may be supported by printed circuit board
308.” Id. at 7:22–8:5. In a “first input mode,” a user can
slide a finger across the keycap 304 (which covers touch
sensor 302). Id. at 8:5–18. The controlling device can then
retrieve from the memory a navigation command repre-
sentative of the gesture’s speed and direction. Id. “In a
Case: 22-1716 Document: 38 Page: 4 Filed: 08/15/2023

4 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.

second input mode, which may be used in conjunction with
or separately from finger slide input, a user may press
downwards 322” on the keycap 304, compressing one or
more of the buttons 310–313. Id. at 8:21–9:2. The control-
ling device can then retrieve a discrete command (equiva-
lent, for example, to an arrow key on a keypad) from the
memory based on finger position as reported by the touch
sensor 302. See id. at 7:15–19, 9:8–11, 11:1–9. Once the
controlling device has retrieved the command data, it can
use the data to transmit a command in a recognizable for-
mat to the target appliance to control it. Id. at 5:19–6:2.
B. Procedural History
1. The Rejection of the ’037 Application Claims
The Examiner issued a Final Office Action rejecting
claims 1, 5–8, 11, 13–18, 20–21, and 23–25 from the ’037
application as obvious over various combinations of
“Fisher” (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2010/0149127), “Dresti”
(U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2005/0162282), and two other ref-
erences not at issue here. J.A. 529–44. Representative
claim 1 of the ’037 application recites: 2
1. A controlling device, comprising:
a casing having an opening; and
an input device disposed in the opening
comprised of a moveable touch sensitive surface
positioned above a plurality of switches;
[1] wherein the controlling device is adapted to
respond to an activation of at least one of the
plurality of switches by:

2 UEI does not dispute that claim 1 from each appli-
cation is representative.
Case: 22-1716 Document: 38 Page: 5 Filed: 08/15/2023

IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. 5

a) [2] determining a touch location of a touch
upon the touch sensitive surface;
b) [3] using the determined touch location to
retrieve from a library of command data stored in
a memory of the controlling device a command data
for use in controlling a functional operation of an
appliance; and
c) [4] using the retrieved command data to
transmit a command signal to the appliance via
use of a transmission protocol recognizable by the
appliance.
’037 application at Claim 1 (emphasis added to disputed
limitation and the Board’s bracketing added (J.A. 4)).
The Examiner found that claim 1 was obvious based on
Fisher and Dresti. Fisher discloses an electronic device,
which can be a remote control, that can include an input
device. Fisher, ¶¶ 34–38. The input device can be config-
ured to provide control functions and to include “a touch
sensitive surface that provides location information for” a
finger “in contact with . . . a touch sensor element associ-
ated with the touch sensitive surface.” Id. at ¶ 38. It can
also include “switch elements that actuate a switch when a
particular area” is “pressed.” Id. In some embodiments
(see, e.g., the Figures below), the input device can include a
frame (or support structure) and a touch pad. Id. at ¶ 129.
Case: 22-1716 Document: 38 Page: 6 Filed: 08/15/2023

6 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.

Id. at Figs. 26–27, 28, and 33.
The touch pad can generate “tracking signals when” a
“finger is moved over the top surface of the touch pad in the
x,y plane.” Id. at ¶ 138. And “in the depressed position (z
direction),” the touch pad “generates positional information
and a movement indicator generates a signal indicating
that” the touch pad “has moved.” Id. “The positional infor-
mation and the movement indication can be combined to
form a button command.” Id. The touch pad can also be
divided into four different “button zones” that can “repre-
sent regions of the touch pad” that “can be moved by a user
to implement distinct button functions or the same button
function.” Id. at ¶ 140. A “movement detector” (switches
or sensors) “can be configured to sense movement of the
button zones during [a] clicking action and to send a signal
corresponding to the movement to the electronic device.”
Id. at ¶ 142. And the touch pad “can be configured to send
positional information on what button zone may be acted
on when the clicking action occurs.” Id. at ¶ 143. “The po-
sitional information can allow the device to determine
Case: 22-1716 Document: 38 Page: 7 Filed: 08/15/2023

IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. 7

which button zone to activate when the touch pad is moved
relative to the frame.” Id.
The Examiner found that Fisher taught all the limita-
tions of claim 1 except that it did not “explicitly teach” all
of limitation [3]—the limitation at issue here—and limita-
tion [4]. J.A. 533–34. For limitation [3], the Examiner
found that Fisher discloses that “a predefined function may
be activated by pressing on each button zone,” J.A. 533 (cit-
ing Fisher, ¶¶ 141, 143), which corresponds to “using the
determined touch location to control a functional operation
of an appliance,” id. (bolding removed). Fisher, though, did
not “explicitly” teach the entire limitation—including re-
trieving command data from a library of command data
stored in a memory. Id.
But Dresti, the Examiner found, teaches what Fisher
lacks. J.A. 534. Dresti discloses “a remote control” that is
“capable of commanding the operation of home appliances,”
like TVs or DVD players. Dresti, ¶ 31. Dresti explains that
“[f]or commanding the operation of home appliances of dif-
ferent makes, models, and types,” the remote control in-
cludes a memory that has a “command code library.” Id. at
¶ 34. The library includes “a plurality of command codes
that may be transmitted from the remote control” to control
the appliances. Id. Dresti, the Examiner explained,
teaches what Fisher lacks, because Dresti discloses “a re-
mote control 10 comprising a memory 26 including a com-
mand code library for controlling an operation of a home
appliance.” J.A. 534 (citing Dresti, Fig. 2 and ¶ 34). The
Examiner concluded that a skilled artisan would have
found it obvious “to modify the input device of Fisher to in-
clude the method of Dresti of providing a memory including
a command code library and generating a command code
associated with a command key to a home appliance” and
would have done so “to facilitate controlling the home ap-
pliance.” Id.
Case: 22-1716 Document: 38 Page: 8 Filed: 08/15/2023

8 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.

Universal Electronics, Inc. (“UEI”) appealed to the
Board. J.A. 557–65. In its Answer, the Examiner reaf-
firmed its reasoning and further explained that “Fisher
and Dresti are in the same field of endeavor.” J.A. 605–06.
The Board affirmed. Ex Parte Hatambeiki, No. 2021-
353, 2022 WL 1185840, at *1 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 2022) (“’037
Decision”). It explained that the Examiner found that
Fisher’s positional information allows a device to communi-
cate a button zone to activate when a touch pad is moved,
creating a clicking action, and therefore teaches limitations
[1] and [2]. Id. at *2 (citing J.A. 533 & 604–05). The Board
also explained that the Examiner found that “Dresti’s use
of a command code library to control the operation of home
appliances teaches or suggests” limitations [3] and [4]. Id.
(citing J.A. 534). The Board rejected UEI’s argument that
Fisher fails to teach using the determined touch location in
the manner required by limitations [3] and [4], explaining
that the Examiner relied on the combination of Fisher and
Dresti—not on Fisher alone—to teach those limitations.
Id. at *3 (citing J.A. 533–34 & 605–06).
The Board also rejected UEI’s argument that a skilled
artisan would not have modified Fisher based on Dresti’s
teachings. Id. at *3–4. “[A]s the Examiner’s findings
show,” the Board explained, “modifying Fisher’s input de-
vice 2540 based on Dresti’s teachings and suggestions
would have enabled the modified input device to control de-
vices that respond to transmitted commands (as in Dresti)
instead of sensor signals (as in Fisher),” which the Board
found, was “supported” by Dresti’s “use of a command code
library for ‘commanding the operation of home appliances
of different makes, models, and types.’” Id. at *4 (citing
J.A. 606 and quoting Dresti, ¶ 34). The Board thus
“agree[d] with the Examiner that it would have been obvi-
ous to combine” Fisher’s and Dresti’s teachings “in the
manner of recitations [3] and [4].” Id.
Case: 22-1716 Document: 38 Page: 9 Filed: 08/15/2023

IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. 9

2. The Rejection of the ’095 Application Claims
The Examiner issued a Final Office Action rejecting
claims 1–6 and 8–11 of the ’095 application as obvious over
various combinations of Fisher, “Meijer” (U.S. Pat. App.
Pub. No. 2008/0235406), and two other references not at
issue here. J.A. 810–22. Representative claim 1 of the ’095
application recites:
1. A remote control system for remotely
controlling one or more devices and/or a user
interface, the remote control system comprising:
a remote control comprising:
a plurality of user input buttons, at least one of
the user input buttons configured to receive a user
input event and comprising at least one metal
dome and a printed circuit board;
a plurality of sensors being coupled to the at
least one of the user input buttons of the plurality
of user input buttons, the plurality of sensors
configured to generate sensor data in response to a
user input event being received at the at least one
of the user input buttons of the plurality of user
input buttons;
a memory storing a plurality of command
values; and
user input event detection logic configured to
receive the sensor data and identify whether the
user input event received at the at least one of the
user input buttons of the plurality of user input
buttons was a click event or a touch event, wherein
the user input event detection logic identifies that
the user input event is the click event based on
receiving sensor data indicating that the at least
one metal dome is depressed such that it forms an
Case: 22-1716 Document: 38 Page: 10 Filed: 08/15/2023

10 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.

electrical connection on the printed circuit board;
and
command selection logic configured to include a
first one of the plurality of command values in a
first control command transmission in response to
determining that the user input event received at
the at least one of the user input buttons of the
plurality of user input buttons was the click event
and to include a second one of the plurality of
command values in a second control command
transmission in response to determining that the
user input event received at the at least one of the
user input buttons of the plurality of user input
buttons was the touch event.
’095 application at Claim 1 (emphasis added to disputed
limitations).
The Examiner found that Fisher teaches most of the
limitations of claim 1 of the ’095 application except that it
does not “explicitly teach a memory storing a plurality of
command values; and the command selection logic config-
ured to include a first one of the plurality of command val-
ues in a first control command transmission and to include
a second one of the plurality of command values in a second
control command transmission.” J.A. 814 (emphasis re-
moved). But it found that Meijer taught this. J.A. 815.
Meijer discloses a remote control that can “issue com-
mands to a multiplicity of appliances of different type
and/or manufacture.” Meijer, ¶ 1. The remote control is
“capable of transmitting commands” to the appliances “to
cause the appliances to perform operational functions, pro-
vided the control protocols and command values to be used
are known to the” remote control’s “operational software.”
Id. at ¶ 14. It includes a processor and memory, id. at ¶ 15,
which stores executable instructions for the processor and
“data that serves to define the . . . control protocols and
command values to the operational software.” Id. at ¶ 16.
Case: 22-1716 Document: 38 Page: 11 Filed: 08/15/2023

IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. 11

The Examiner explained that Meijer “teaches a memory
storing a plurality of command values” because it “discloses
a controlling device 100 comprising memories 202,204,206
for storing a plurality of command values.” J.A. 815 (em-
phasis removed) (citing Meijer, Fig. 2, ¶¶ 14–17). And Mei-
jer, the Examiner continued, further teaches the first and
second plurality of command values in first and second
command transmissions because it discloses that “the con-
trolling device 100 retrieves from the command data a com-
mand value corresponding to an actuated function key and
transmits the command to an intended target appliance,”
and “[i]t is understood that an activation for each actuated
function key would be corresponding to particular com-
mand value.” Id. (citing Meijer at ¶¶ 15–17).
The Examiner found that it would have been obvious
to modify Fisher to include “the method of Meijer of storing
a plurality of command values in a memory; retrieving a
command data from the memory; and transmitting the
command data to an intended target appliance.” Id. A
“touch event,” it explained, would correspond to a first com-
mand value and a “click event” to a second command value.
Id. Thus, the Examiner concluded, “a first command data
would be transmitted to an intended target appliance in
response to a touch event” and a “second command data”
would be transmitted in response to a “click event.” Id.
The “motivation,” the Examiner explained, would have
been “to enable the remote control to command an appli-
ance in response to touch/click event.” Id.
UEI appealed the rejections. J.A. 888–900. The Exam-
iner answered. J.A. 935–42. The Examiner provided the
below annotated Figure 29 from Fisher and explained that
it teaches an example of a remote control that includes an
input device 2540 that communicates with a computing de-
vice 2542 via a communication interface 2554. J.A. 936.
Case: 22-1716 Document: 38 Page: 12 Filed: 08/15/2023

12 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.

J.A. 936 (annotations in original).
The Examiner explained that Fisher does not teach the
remote control having a memory storing a plurality of com-
mand values, stating that the “program storage area (i.e.,
memory) of Fisher is included in the computing device”
2542—not the “input device” 2540—and thus Fisher’s “in-
put device 2540 transmits raw data (e.g., tracking signals
and movement signal), instead of a command value as
claimed, to the computing device 2542.” J.A. 938. The Ex-
aminer then reaffirmed its finding that Meijer teaches a
remote control that has the memory for storing a plurality
of command values and that it would have been obvious to
modify Fisher’s remote control to include Meijer’s teaching
of using a memory in the remote control to store the com-
mand values. Id. The Examiner also countered UEI’s ar-
gument that a skilled artisan would not have been
motivated to combine Fisher with Meijer because Fisher
“already has a capability of commanding an appliance.”
J.A. 939. The Examiner explained that Fisher “is not ca-
pable of selectively controlling an intended target appli-
ance among multiple appliances.” J.A. 940. So, the
Case: 22-1716 Document: 38 Page: 13 Filed: 08/15/2023

IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. 13

Examiner explained, it would have been obvious to mod-
ify Fisher to include Meijer’s teaching to do just that. Id.
The Board affirmed. Ex Parte Hatambeiki, No. 2020-
6705, 2022 WL 737209, at *1 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2022)
(“’095 Decision”). It explained that the Examiner found
that Fisher’s touch pad can detect touch events to scroll
through a list of items and thus suggests command logic.
Id. at *2. The Board then explained that although the Ex-
aminer acknowledged that Fisher’s command logic is part
of the computing device 2542—not the remote control—the
Examiner “relie[d] on Meijer’s teaching of a controlling de-
vice that retrieves command data from memory on the con-
trolling device to transmit to an intended target appliance
to teach or suggest moving the command logic from compu-
ting device 2542 to Fisher’s input device 2540 (i.e., to a re-
mote control).” Id. The remote control could then control
multiple appliances in response to a touch or click event.
Id.
The Board rejected UEI’s arguments that relied on “at-
tacking Fisher individually,” explaining that the Exam-
iner’s rejection was “based on the combined teachings and
suggestions of Fisher and Meijer.” Id. at *3. It also disa-
greed with UEI’s argument that the ability of Fisher’s in-
put device to control a “single device” undercut the
Examiner’s proposed rationale—modifying Fisher based on
Meijer’s teachings in order to make “Fisher’s input device
more capable by enabling it to control multiple appliances.”
Id. The Board found that the “Examiner’s reason ha[d] a
rational underpinning and [was] support[ed] by” Meijer’s
teaching that Meijer’s functionality is “‘for use in com-
manding the functional operations of one or more appli-
ances.’” Id. (quoting Meijer, ¶ 15 (emphasis added by
Board)). The Board thus “agree[d]” that the proposed mod-
ification of Fisher would have been obvious. Id.
UEI appeals the Board’s decisions for both applica-
tions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A)
and 35 U.S.C. § 141(a).
Case: 22-1716 Document: 38 Page: 14 Filed: 08/15/2023

14 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.

DISCUSSION
We review the Board’s obviousness determination de
novo. See In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1175 (Fed. Cir.
2018). We review underlying factual findings—including
what a reference teaches and whether there is a motivation
to combine—for substantial evidence. See In re Cuozzo
Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1363 (Fed.
Cir. 2018). “Substantial evidence is something less than
the weight of the evidence but more than a mere scintilla
of evidence.” Donner Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC,
979 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020). It is “such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.” Brandt, 886 F.3d at 1175 (citation
omitted).
UEI argues on appeal that for both applications, the
Board and the Examiner (1) failed to show that the prior
art references teach certain claimed subject matter; and (2)
failed to articulate a reason with a rational underpinning
for why a skilled artisan would have combined the refer-
ences. We address each argument for each application in
turn.
A.
As for the ’037 application, UEI first argues that the
Board and the Examiner failed to show that Fisher and
Dresti teach limitation [3]—the “claimed controlling device
that uses ‘the determined touch location’ to retrieve com-
mand data from a library of command data stored in a
memory of the controlling device.” Appellant’s Br. 27. We
disagree.
The Board and the Examiner found that the combina-
tion of Fisher and Dresti teach the claimed controlling de-
vice that uses the determined touch location (Fisher) to
retrieve command data from a library of command data
stored in a memory of the controlling device (Dresti). See
Case: 22-1716 Document: 38 Page: 15 Filed: 08/15/2023

IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. 15

’037 Decision, at *3 (“[T]he Examiner relies on the combi-
nation of Fisher and Dresti, not Fisher alone, to teach or
suggest recitation[] [3].”); id. at *2–4; J.A. 533–34; J.A.
605–06. In particular, the Examiner found that Fisher dis-
closes that “a predefined function may be activated by
pressing on each button zone [of the touch pad],” J.A. 533
(citing Fisher, ¶¶ 141, 143), which it found corresponds to
“using the determined touch location to control a functional
operation of an appliance,” id. (bolding removed). But it
found that “Fisher does not explicitly teach a method of re-
trieving a command data from a library of command data
stored in a memory.” J.A. 605. It found, however, that
Dresti discloses “a remote control 10 comprising a memory
26 including a command code library for controlling an op-
eration of a home appliance,” in which the remote control
“reads the command code” when a command key is acti-
vated. J.A. 534 (citing Dresti, Fig. 2, ¶¶ 34, 36). The two
references combined thus taught limitation [3]. J.A. 533–
34. The Board affirmed that finding. ’037 Decision, at *1–
4. We conclude that the finding is supported by substantial
evidence—the references themselves. See, e.g., id. at *2
(citing J.A. 533 (citing Fisher, ¶¶ 136, 138, 140–44, Fig.
28), J.A. 604–05 (citing Fisher, ¶¶ 130, 138, Fig. 29), J.A.
534 (citing Dresti, ¶¶ 34, 36, Fig. 2)).
UEI argues that “Fisher’s alleged memory (i.e., pro-
gram storage area 2562) is located on computing device
2542”—not on the “input device 2540 (i.e., the alleged con-
trolling device)”—and that Fisher does not disclose that
command data is retrieved from memory but instead “dis-
closes that commands are generated in the processor 2557.”
Appellant’s Br. 27–28. And Dresti, UEI argues, does not
disclose using a “determined touch location” to retrieve
command data but instead uses “command key activation
(i.e., a button press)” to retrieve command data from
memory. Id. at 28 (emphasis removed). UEI claims that
the combination fails because “using a ‘command key’ to
retrieve a command code from memory is not the same
Case: 22-1716 Document: 38 Page: 16 Filed: 08/15/2023

16 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.

thing as the claimed ‘using the determined touch location
[of a touch upon a touch sensitive surface]’” to do so. Id.
(emphasis removed and brackets in original).
UEI’s arguments largely amount to an assertion that
each reference on its own fails to teach the entire limita-
tion—that is, that Fisher fails to teach retrieving command
data from memory of the controlling device (which Dresti
teaches) and that Dresti fails to teach using a determined
touch location (which Fisher teaches). But the Board and
Examiner relied on the combination of Fisher and Meijer
for the limitation. “That the proposed combination of
[Fisher] and [Meijer]—rather than one of the individual
references—discloses the disputed claim limitation[] does
not defeat the Board’s conclusion of obviousness.” Fleming
v. Cirrus Design Corp., 28 F.4th 1214, 1222 (Fed. Cir.
2022). And so when, as here, “the rejection is based upon
the teachings of a combination of references,” “[n]on-obvi-
ousness cannot be established by attacking [the] references
individually.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). UEI’s attack on Fisher and Dresti for failing to
individually teach the entire limitation is thus without
merit.
UEI’s “command key” combination argument also lacks
merit. UEI asserts that the Examiner’s proposed combina-
tion does not teach the limitation because the combination
uses a determined key activation upon a command key (i.e.,
a switch)—not a determined touch location of a touch upon
a touch sensitive surface above the switch—to retrieve a
command code from memory. Appellant’s Br. 28 & n.3.
And the Board, UEI continues, did not “remedy” the Exam-
iner’s failure to set forth a combination that teaches using
a determined touch location to retrieve a command from
memory. Id. at 29. UEI reads the Examiner’s and the
Board’s analysis too narrowly. True, as UEI notes, the Ex-
aminer refers at the end of its claim 1 analysis to Dresti’s
“command key” when discussing modifying Fisher’s input
device to include the method of Dresti. See J.A. 534. But
Case: 22-1716 Document: 38 Page: 17 Filed: 08/15/2023

IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. 17

reading the analysis as a whole—with its explanation of
what Fisher teaches, J.A. 533, and its selective emphasis
when explaining that “Dresti teaches using the deter-
mined key activation to retrieve from a library of com-
mand data in a memory . . .,” J.A. 534—we think that it
is clear that the Examiner relied on combining Fisher’s use
of button zones on a touch pad associated with functions
and sending positional information (i.e., using a deter-
mined touch location to control an appliance) with Dresti’s
retrieving a command code from a memory having a com-
mand code library. 3 And again, the Board’s affirmance rec-
ognized this. See ’037 Decision, at *3 (“[T]he Examiner
relies on the combination of Fisher and Dresti . . . to teach
or suggest recitation[] [3].” (citing J.A. 533–34, 605–06));
id. at *4 (“[W]e agree with the Examiner that it would have
been obvious to combine the teachings and suggestions of
Fisher and Dresti in the matter of recitation[] [3].”). UEI’s
“command key” argument is thus unavailing.
UEI next argues that the Board and the Examiner
failed to articulate a reason why a skilled artisan would
have combined Fisher with Dresti. Appellant’s Br. 30. The
Examiner, UEI asserts, proposed modifying Fisher to in-
clude Dresti’s method of generating a command code “to
enable the input device to control an intended target appli-
ance.” Id. at 31 (quoting J.A. 606). But, UEI contends,
Fisher already teaches that its input device can control an
intended target appliance. Id. So, it says, the Examiner’s
reason for modifying Fisher lacks a rational underpinning.
Id. UEI argues that the Board tried to “sidestep” this by
proposing that “‘modifying Fisher’s input device 2540
based on Dresti’s teachings . . . would have enabled the
modified input device to control devices that respond to

3 UEI notably does not dispute that Fisher teaches
using a determined touch location. See Oral Arg. at 12:51–
13:06, 14:52–15:11.
Case: 22-1716 Document: 38 Page: 18 Filed: 08/15/2023

18 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.

transmitted commands (as in Dresti) instead of sensor sig-
nals (as in Fisher).’” Id. (quoting Decision, at *4). UEI ar-
gues that this merely states what the combination would
do, not why it would be made. Id.
We disagree. The Examiner also explained in its An-
swer that Fisher and Dresti are in “the same field of en-
deavor,” J.A. 605, and the Board, in agreeing with the
Examiner’s obviousness conclusion, continued on to state
that the Examiner’s conclusion was “supported by Dresti’s
teaching regarding the use of a command code library for
‘commanding the operation of home appliances of different
makes, models, and types,’” ’037 Decision, at *4 (quoting
Dresti, ¶ 34). UEI agreed at oral argument that Fisher
fails to disclose universal-remote capability. See Oral Arg.
at 6:01–6:11.
We note that “[t]here is a motivation to combine when
a known technique has been used to improve one device”
(Dresti’s use of a command code library for operating appli-
ances of different makes, models, and types), and a skilled
artisan “would recognize that it would improve similar de-
vices in the same way” (Fisher’s input device, which con-
trolled only a single device), “using the prior art elements
according to their established functions.” Intel Corp. v.
PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir.
2023) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (re-
versing Board’s finding of no motivation to combine where
the references related to the same field of endeavor and ad-
dressed the same cache-coherency issue). Under the cir-
cumstances here, the Board provided a sufficient “apparent
reason”—supported by substantial evidence, including
Dresti, ¶ 34, which the Board and the Examiner both relied
on—“to combine the known elements in the [claimed] fash-
ion.” KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
B.
Turning to the ’095 application, UEI first argues that
the Board and the Examiner failed to show that Fisher and
Case: 22-1716 Document: 38 Page: 19 Filed: 08/15/2023

IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. 19

Meijer teach “a remote control comprising a memory stor-
ing a plurality of command values and command selection
logic configured to include two of the command values
stored in memory in two separate control command trans-
missions in response to a click and a touch event.” Appel-
lant’s Br. 34. We are not persuaded.
The Board and the Examiner found that the combina-
tion of Fisher and Meijer taught the disputed limitations.
See ’095 Decision, at *3 (explaining that the “Examiner’s
rejection” was “based on the combined teachings and sug-
gestions of Fisher and Meijer”); id. at *2; J.A. 814–15. The
Examiner found that Fisher discloses “command selection
logic (the controller 300, Fig.3)” that causes a command in
response to the click event (the input device with a touch
pad on which a button zone can be pressed to start a pro-
gram or view a menu) and a command in response to the
touch event (the detection of a touch on the touch pad and
generating a tracking signal to scroll through a list of
items). J.A. 814 (bolding removed) (citing Fisher, ¶¶ 38,
42, 130, 132, 138, 140–41, 153, and Figs. 3, 26–29); see also
J.A. 936–38 (citing Fisher, ¶¶ 42, 130, 138, 145–46, 149,
150, and Figs. 25–27, 29). It found, though, that Fisher
does not teach that the remote control has a memory stor-
ing a plurality of command values because, for example,
Fisher’s memory is in computing device 2542—not input
device 2540—and so input device 2540 transmits tracking
and movement signals—not a command value—to compu-
ting device 2542. J.A. 938. But it found that Meijer’s re-
mote control includes a memory that stores command
values (“controlling device 100 comprising memories
202,204,206 for storing a plurality of command values”)
and command logic configured to include a first and second
command value in a first and second control transmission
(“controlling device 100 retrieves from the command data
a command value corresponding to an actuated function
key and transmits the command to an intended target ap-
pliance”). J.A. 815 (citing Meijer, ¶¶ 14–17, Fig. 2). Meijer
Case: 22-1716 Document: 38 Page: 20 Filed: 08/15/2023

20 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.

thus taught what Fisher lacked and the combination
taught the limitations. See id.; see also J.A. 938.
The Board recounted and affirmed this analysis. See
’095 Decision, at *2–4. And the finding on what the refer-
ences teach is supported by substantial evidence—the cited
portions of the two references. See, e.g., id. at *2 (citing
J.A. 814 (citing Fisher, ¶¶ 38, 42, 130, 132, 138, 140–41,
153, and Figs. 3, 26–29; Meijer, ¶¶ 14–17, Fig. 2)); id. at *3
(citing J.A. 938 (citing Fisher, ¶¶ 145–46, Fig. 29) and
Fisher, ¶ 150).
UEI has not shown any error. UEI says that Fisher
fails to disclose the claimed remote control because its “in-
put device 2540 (i.e., the alleged remote control) does not
include a memory” (the memory, “program storage area
2562,” is instead in Fisher’s “computing device 2542”) and
the memory does not “store a plurality of command values”
(the “computing device 2542” instead “generates com-
mands in the processor 2557”). Appellant’s Br. 34–35. And
Meijer, UEI argues, fails to suggest the claimed remote
control because “Meijer’s remote control does not transmit
commands in response to a click event and a touch event”
(it instead “transmits commands only in response to the ac-
tuation of a ‘function key’ (i.e., a button press)”). Id. at 35.
Stated differently, UEI argues that each reference on its
own fails to teach what the other discloses—that Fisher
fails to teach a memory storing multiple command values
and that Meijer fails to teach transmitting commands in
response to click or touch events. But this argument is un-
availing because the Board and the Examiner relied on the
combination of the two references. See Merck, 800 F.2d at
1097.
UEI’s assertions pertaining to the combination are also
unavailing. According to UEI, the Examiner and the Board
proposed modifying Fisher to move Fisher’s command logic
from its computing device to its input device. Appellant’s
Br. 35–36. For the modification to work, UEI contends,
Case: 22-1716 Document: 38 Page: 21 Filed: 08/15/2023

IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. 21

Fisher must teach storing command values in its memory.
UEI argues that because Fisher does not teach this, the
combination fails. We disagree.
UEI reads the Board’s and the Examiner’s analysis too
narrowly. Both the Examiner and the Board plainly relied
on Meijer’s disclosure for the “memory storing a plurality
of command values.” See, e.g., J.A. 938 (“It would have
been obvious to [a skilled artisan] to modify the remote con-
trol system of Fisher to include the teaching of Meijer of
providing a memory storing a plurality of command values
in a remote control.” (emphasis added)); J.A. 815; ’095 De-
cision, at *2 ([T]he Examiner relies on Meijer’s teaching of
a controlling device that retrieves command data from
memory on the controlling device to transmit to an intended
target appliance to teach or suggest moving the command
logic from computing device 2542 to Fisher’s input device
2540 (i.e., to a remote control).” (emphasis added) (citing
J.A. 815 & 938)). Including Meijer’s teaching, they found,
would enable the modified input device to control multiple
appliances. See, e.g., J.A. 938; ’095 Decision, at *4. To the
extent that UEI is demanding bodily incorporation or is
otherwise attempting to compartmentalize each individual
reference’s teachings, it errs: The “test for obviousness is
what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to” skilled artisans and “does not require an ac-
tual, physical substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686
F.3d 1322, 1332–33 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (emphasis added).
UEI next argues that the Board and the Examiner
failed to articulate a reason why a skilled artisan would
have combined Fisher with Meijer. Appellant’s Br. 37. Ac-
cording to UEI, the Examiner proposed modifying Fisher
with Meijer “to enable the input device to control an in-
tended target appliance among multiple appliances.” Id.
at 37–38 (quoting J.A. 938). But, UEI contends, Fisher al-
ready discloses this. Id. at 38. The Examiner’s reason thus
lacks a rational underpinning. Id. As for the Board, UEI
argues that the Board conceded that Fisher’s input device
Case: 22-1716 Document: 38 Page: 22 Filed: 08/15/2023

22 IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.

can control an intended target appliance but asserted for
the first time that a skilled artisan would have modified
Fisher “such that tracking and movement signals are pro-
cessed in the input device 2540 instead of in the computing
device 2542 because doing so purportedly ‘would have
made Fisher’s input device more capable by enabling it to
control multiple devices.’” Id. at 39 (quoting ’095 Decision,
at *4). UEI maintains that the Board failed to explain why
a skilled artisan would have thought to modify Fisher to
control multiple devices in the first place. Id. We disagree.
In its Answer, the Examiner agreed that Fisher has the
capability to command an appliance but noted that Fisher’s
input device transmits tracking and movement signals to
the computing device and thus “is not capable of selectively
controlling an intended target appliance among multiple
appliances.” J.A. 940 (emphasis added). Yet Meijer, the
Examiner explained, discloses a remote control that trans-
mits a command value in a recognizable format “to control
an intended target appliance among multiple appliances.”
Id. (underlining removed) (citing Meijer, ¶¶ 16–18). The
Examiner thus explained that “it would have been obvious
to modify . . . Fisher to include the teaching of Meijer of
providing a memory storing a plurality of command values
so that the input device would be able to selectively control
an intended target appliance among multiple appliances.”
Id. (emphasis added).
The Board agreed: “The Examiner’s reason has a ra-
tional underpinning and is supported by the teaching in
Meijer that the functionality added to a controlling device
is ‘for use in commanding the functional operations of one
or more appliances.’” ’095 Decision, at *4 (quoting Meijer,
¶ 15 (emphasis added by the Board)). Again, UEI agreed
at oral argument that Fisher fails to disclose universal-re-
mote capability. Oral Arg. at 6:01–6:11. Under the circum-
stances here, the Board provided a sufficient “apparent
reason”—supported by substantial evidence, including
Case: 22-1716 Document: 38 Page: 23 Filed: 08/15/2023

IN RE: UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. 23

from the references themselves—“to combine the known el-
ements in the [claimed] fashion.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
CONCLUSION
We have considered UEI’s other arguments and find
them unpersuasive. We conclude that the Board’s factual
determinations are supported by substantial evidence, and
that the Board did not err in determining that it would
have been obvious to a skilled artisan to combine the fea-
tures of respective references to arrive at the inventions
claimed in the ’037 and ’095 applications. We therefore af-
firm the Board’s decisions.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.