Paper 14
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: March 12, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIVERSAL REMOTE CONTROL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01084
`Patent 7,126,468 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and
`LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`Petitioner, Universal Remote Control, Inc., filed a Request for
`
`Rehearing of our Decision (Paper 9, “Dec.”) instituting inter partes review
`
`of claims 27, 28, 33, 35, 45, and 49 of U.S. Patent No. 7,126,468 B2
`
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’468 patent”). Paper 11 (“Req.”). In its Request, Petitioner
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: March 12, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIVERSAL REMOTE CONTROL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01084
`Patent 7,126,468 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and
`LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`Petitioner, Universal Remote Control, Inc., filed a Request for
`
`Rehearing of our Decision (Paper 9, “Dec.”) instituting inter partes review
`
`of claims 27, 28, 33, 35, 45, and 49 of U.S. Patent No. 7,126,468 B2
`
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’468 patent”). Paper 11 (“Req.”). In its Request, Petitioner
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01084
`Patent 7,126,468 B2
`
`seeks reconsideration of the decision with respect to claims 1, 2, 11, 29, and
`
`46, for which inter partes review was denied. Req. 1.
`
`A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the
`
`party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where
`
`each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party
`
`challenging a decision bears the burden of showing the decision should be
`
`modified. Id. For the reasons provided below, Petitioner’s request for
`
`rehearing is denied.
`
`Claims 1, 2, and 11
`
`In our Decision, we concluded that the information presented did not
`
`show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing
`
`that independent claim 1, and claims 2 and 11 depending therefrom, are
`
`anticipated by Cohen.1 Dec. 9–10. Specifically, we determined Petitioner
`
`did not show sufficiently that Cohen discloses the following step of claim 1:
`
`“determining at the recipient device if the transmission from the remote
`
`control is intended to command an operation of one of the plurality of
`
`intended target appliances.” Id.
`
`Petitioner argues in its Request that our Decision “overlook[ed] the
`
`substance of the disclosure of Cohen” cited by Petitioner and relied on in the
`
`Petition to show that the “determining” step of claim 1 is disclosed in
`
`Cohen. Req. 2. The disclosure of Cohen relied upon by Petitioner is the
`
`following sentence: “The IR signal [received from the remote control] is
`
`changed to electrical impulses that IR decoder 52 [of monitor 34] translates
`
`to generate a signal indicating the component of the home entertainment
`
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 5,235,414, issued Aug. 10, 1993 (Ex. 1005, “Cohen”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01084
`Patent 7,126,468 B2
`
`center being operated on and in what manner.” Ex. 1005, 4:51–55; see
`
`Paper 1, 22 (“Pet.”). Petitioner now contends that, according to this
`
`sentence, decoder 52 in Cohen identifies the component of the home
`
`entertainment system, i.e., the target appliance, operated by the signal, and
`
`“if there is no identification, then the device that the signal is intended for is
`
`not a target.” Req. 2–3.
`
`We are not persuaded that we overlooked a matter previously
`
`addressed by Petitioner. First, Petitioner did not present this argument in the
`
`Petition, which merely quotes the relied-upon sentence from Cohen and
`
`states that decoder 52 receives transmissions from remote controls, decodes
`
`them, and communicates with microprocessor 53. See Pet. 22. Moreover,
`
`we are not persuaded Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Cohen discloses
`
`a system that operates as Petitioner suggests. In explaining how its system
`
`functions, Cohen describes step 74, in which microprocessor 53 checks if the
`
`received signal is valid, and thus should be logged, by “determin[ing] if the
`
`received IR signal is intended for a device that is not being monitored by the
`
`present invention,” such as a children’s toy. Ex. 1005, 5:62–67. In contrast,
`
`the sentence relied on by Petitioner for disclosing the “determining” step
`
`does not indicate decoder 52 performs a similar function of determining if
`
`the signal is intended for a target device or some other device.
`
`We further note that although step 74 might appear to correspond to
`
`the recited “determining” step, Petitioner relies on step 74 as disclosing the
`
`limitation following the “determining” step in claim 1: “when the
`
`transmission from the remote control is determined to be intended to
`
`command an operation of one of the plurality of intended target appliances,
`
`comparing the transmission from the remote control against a plurality of
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01084
`Patent 7,126,468 B2
`
`commands maintained within the recipient device.” Pet. 22–23 (emphasis
`
`added). Because Petitioner contends step 74 satisfies the “comparing” step
`
`of claim 1, Petitioner cannot also rely on step 74 for disclosing the
`
`“determining” step of claim 1. Cf. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545
`
`F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (holding that a reference cannot anticipate
`
`unless it discloses all of the claim limitations arranged or combined in the
`
`same way as recited in the claim).
`
`For these reasons, Petitioner has not shown that we misapprehended
`
`or overlooked any argument in the Petition regarding the “determining” step
`
`of claim 1 or the substance of the disclosure in Cohen relied upon in the
`
`Petition. Thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated we should modify our
`
`Decision with respect to independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and
`
`11.
`
`Claims 29 and 46
`
`In our Decision, we also concluded that the information presented did
`
`not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`
`establishing that Cohen anticipates dependent claims 29 and 46, which recite
`
`“wherein the data is maintained within a state table.” Dec. 13. Petitioner
`
`proposed that a “state table,” under its broadest reasonable construction,
`
`“simply associates one or more functions each with a corresponding state.”
`
`Pet. 11. Although we did not provide in our Decision an explicit
`
`construction of the term “state table,” we agreed with Patent Owner that to
`
`the extent Petitioner argued a “state table” could be something other than a
`
`table, Petitioner ignored the plain language of the term, which requires a
`
`“table.” Dec. 6 (citing Prelim. Resp. 5). We further determined that
`
`Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that Cohen discloses storing channel
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01084
`Patent 7,126,468 B2
`
`selection information, alleged by Petitioner to be state data, in a “table.”
`
`Id. at 13.
`
`Petitioner now argues, without support, that a “table” is “merely a
`
`graphical illustration of associations between bits of data.” Req. 5.
`
`According to Petitioner, the state table in Figure 4 of the ’468 patent is a
`
`graphical illustration of data with associations to other data stored in
`
`memory. Id. Based on this, Petitioner appears to conclude that any data
`
`stored in memory is stored in a table, and, therefore, Cohen’s channel
`
`selection information, stored in memory, is data “maintained within a state
`
`table,” as recited in claims 29 and 46. Id. at 5–6.
`
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that any data stored in
`
`memory is stored in a table. In the context of computer programming, one
`
`ordinary and customary meaning of “table” is “a data structure usually
`
`consisting of a list of entries, each entry being identified by a unique key and
`
`containing a set of related values, . . . often implemented as an array of
`
`records [or] a linked list.”2 The disclosure in Cohen upon which Petitioner
`
`relies indicates that channel selection information is stored in memory, but
`
`does not specify that the information is stored in a “table,” as that term is
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Pet. 25 (citing
`
`Ex. 1005, 4:4–5, 5:22–25). Thus, we are not persuaded that we
`
`misapprehended or overlooked Petitioner’s argument when we determined
`
`that Petitioner did not show sufficiently in its Petition that Cohen’s channel
`
`selection information is stored in a state table. See Dec. 13. Accordingly,
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated we should modify our Decision with respect
`
`to claims 29 and 46.
`
`
`2 MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 510 (5th ed. 2002).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01084
`Patent 7,126,468 B2
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDER
`
` ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01084
`Patent 7,126,468 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Douglas A. Miro
`dmiro@ostrolenk.com
`
`Keith J. Barkaus
`kbarkaus@ostrolenk.com
`
`Peter H. Kang
`pkang@sidley.com
`
`Theodore W. Chandler
`tchandler@sidley.com
`
`Ferenc Pazmandi
`fpazmandi@sidley.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Eric J. Maiers
`maierse@gtlaw.com
`
`Michael A. Nicodema
`nicodemam@gtlaw.com
`
`James J. Lukas
`lukasj@gtlaw.com
`
`Robbie R. Harmer
`harmer@gtlaw.com
`
`7
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
