Patent Owner also identifies Certain Electronic Devices, Including Streaming Players, Televisions, Set Top Boxes, Remote Controllers, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA- 1200 (U.S.I.T.C. 2020), as a related matter before the International Trade Commission.
“Moreover,” Patent Owner argues, “Chardon discloses a complete solution for providing command signals to an external device, thereby eliminating any motivation to search for alternative mechanisms for achieving the very same result.” PO Resp. 37–38 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 119, 120, 126, 127; Ex. 2005, 64).
Specifically, Patent Owner argues that Dr. Turnbull “provided uncontroverted evidence that the prior art does not use a ‘Deck Status’ message to identify a controllable appliance’s ‘capabilities’ (i.e., the functions the appliance is potentially capable of executing, irrespective of time or configuration).” Id. at 4.
Finally, we disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that one of ordinary skill would not have looked to HDMI 1.3a to modify Chardon’s command control methodologies, and find that Petitioner has presented sufficient evidence of a motivation to combine the references as proposed.
Patent Owner, in turn, responds that the Petition did not raise the argument that “Chardon teaches using a received ‘Deck Status’ message indicating a ‘Stop’ status to automatically display and highlight a ‘Play’ icon in the control selection bar 340 of Chardon’s Figure 3.” PO Amended Sur- reply 18 (citing Pet. 43–47; Pet.