US 6629077

I'll search for current information on this specific patent number.

Let me try more targeted searches for litigation and docket records.

US Patent 6,629,077 B1 — Analyst Summary

Note on the ID: I interpreted the identifier literally as 6,629,077 (granted patent US 6,629,077 B1, application 09/721,092). No similar-numbered patent was substituted.

Bibliographic Data

Ownership chain (as recorded): Universal Electronics Inc. → Nisel Investments LLC (2008‑06‑27) → F. Poszat HU, L.L.C. (2016‑01‑13, merger) → Intellectual Ventures Assets 125 LLC (2018‑12‑18) → Avinnov LLC (2019‑02‑06) → Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (2019‑10‑17).

Abstract (verbatim)

"A universal remote control adapted to receive a voice input. The voice input is received by the remote control and compared to a plurality of voice command templates that are stored in the memory of the remote control. If the voice input matches one or more of the plurality of voice command templates, a valid voice input has been received by the remote control. Valid voice input may be a remote control command or keystroke data, input as an entire word or as individual characters. In response to a valid voice input, the remote control may transmit an operational command code and/or alphanumeric symbol code corresponding to keystroke data to a consumer electronic device."

Independent Claims in Plain Language

Claim 1 — Method claim.
A method for a remote control that has (a) buttons, (b) a microphone, and (c) memory storing both operational command codes (for controlling consumer electronic devices) and alphanumeric symbol codes. The method transmits signals to a consumer electronic device representing a user input, and comprises:

1. Determine whether the input is a voice input or a button input;
2. If voice input, determine whether the remote is in a "first mode" or a "second mode";
3. First mode → select alphanumeric symbol code(s) based on the voice input and transmit them to the device "to support network communication functions" (i.e., text/keystroke data such as URLs);
4. Second mode → select command code(s) based on the voice input and transmit them to cause the device to perform an operation (i.e., ordinary device control);
5. If button input → select command code(s) based on the buttons actuated and transmit them to cause the device to perform an operation.

Claim 4 — Computer-readable media claim.
The same five steps above, but claimed as "a readable media having instructions for commanding the operation [of a] remote control." Substance is identical to claim 1; the difference is claim format (software/media rather than method).

Dependent claims:

• Claim 2 (depends on 1): the buttons include a keyboard button placing the remote in a third mode, in which pressing buttons produces alphanumeric symbol codes (network-communication data) instead of command codes.
• Claim 3 (depends on 1): the buttons include a voice button placing the remote in condition to receive voice input.
• Claim 5 (depends on 4): keyboard button / third-mode limitation, mirrored onto the readable-media claim.
• Claim 6 (depends on 4): voice button limitation, mirrored onto the readable-media claim.

Core inventive concept: a universal remote that accepts either speech or button presses and, based on the remote's current mode, routes the input either to an operational command code (device control) or to an alphanumeric symbol code (keystroke/text entry supporting network functions). Notably, the specification describes a keyboard mode for a number button that transmits an alphanumeric code rather than a channel-change command, expressly to let a security-conscious user enter e.g. a credit card number without speaking it aloud.

Litigation / Docket Findings

What the patent record shows (per the Google Patents page fetched 2026‑09‑28): the "Family has litigation" flag lists four U.S. district-court matters plus a Darts‑ip "first worldwide family litigation" entry:

• Texas Western District Court, case 6:22-cv-00043
• Delaware District Court, case 1:22-cv-00470
• Colorado District Court, case 1:25-cv-00327
• Colorado District Court, case 1:21-cv-03154

CAFC 2026 docket — I could not confirm any. My searches did not return an authoritative Federal Circuit 2026 docket, appeal number, or oral-argument entry specifically identifying 6,629,077. What I did find in 2026 Federal Circuit‑adjacent sources was unrelated (a PTAB petition document about "secondary ranges"/haptic detents, and a CourtListener opinion excerpt about Title 35/APA jurisdiction in a "Cedars" dispute). I also found numerous 2026 Cedar Lane Technologies infringement suits, but those dockets assert different patents — notably US 8,577,782 and US 8,438,485 (e.g., Cedar Lane v. LaSalle St. Securities, 1:26‑cv‑00721 N.D. Ill.; Cedar Lane v. A.G.P./Alliance Global Partners, 1:26‑cv‑07403 S.D.N.Y.; Cedar Lane v. Speechify, 1:26‑cv‑00031 D. Del.).

Uncertainty flags:

• I have no authoritative confirmation (PACER/CAFC) of a 2026 Federal Circuit appeal involving 6,629,077. Treat the absence as "not found," not as "confirmed nonexistent." I did not have direct access to paywalled PACER dockets in this session.
• Because the patent's adjusted expiration is 2021‑11‑29, any 2026 appellate activity would necessarily be a retroactive damages/validity appeal from an earlier-filed suit, not a new infringement action on a live patent.
• The patent record itself lists four district-court matters, but the fetched page did not identify which defendants or which of the asserted patents (Cedar Lane typically asserts a portfolio). Do not assume all four cases involve 6,629,077 without checking the complaints.

Grounding sources:

• Patent text/claims/abstract/assignments/litigation flags: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6629077/en
• Unified Patents portfolio page: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/6629077
• 2026 Cedar Lane (other patents): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2026cv00721/[493726](/patent/493726) ; https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2026cv07403/[671653](/patent/671653) ; https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2026cv00031/91728

Bottom line: Patent 6,629,077 is a Universal Electronics (now Cedar Lane Technologies) patent on a voice‑enabled universal remote with mode‑dependent routing between device‑control command codes and alphanumeric keystroke codes; it has two independent claims (1 and 4) covering that method and its software/media equivalent. It expired in November 2021 and has a documented litigation history, but I could not verify a 2026 CAFC docket tied to this number.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 6629077. Let me start with several targeted searches.

Let me search for the specific cases identified on the patent record.

Let me search for the specific defendants in the two cases I haven't identified yet.

I'll start by checking the web for any PTAB proceedings on US 6629077 that the ODP ingest may have missed.

Let me run additional targeted searches to confirm the absence of PTAB activity and check for any recent filings or Federal Circuit activity.

Let me do one final confirmation search on the PTAB petition database and the Unified Patents litigation portal for this specific patent.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 6629077: 0. The USPTO ODP structured data returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and my web checks (Unified Patents litigation portal, DocketAlarm PTAB dockets, Cedar Lane assertion dockets) surfaced no petition ever filed against the '077 patent itself. Breakdown by status: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied. Bottom line for a defendant: the patent is completely untested at the PTAB — all six claims are live and have never been challenged in an AIA trial, so there is no FWD or estoppel record to lean on. That cuts both ways: no claim has been hardened by surviving an IPR, but no claim has been canceled either, and you would be the first petitioner.

One important disambiguation: the "Arling '077" patent appears repeatedly in the PBTA record as prior art, not as the subject of any proceeding. Specifically, Roku's IPRs against two other Universal Electronics patents — IPR2019-01619 (U.S. Pat. No. 7,782,309) and IPR2019-01621 (U.S. Pat. No. 7,821,504) — cited US 6,629,077 in the underlying prosecution histories as § 103 art against "voice input / microphone" limitations. See, e.g., Roku Ex. 1003 in IPR2019-01621. Those proceedings are not proceedings on the '077 patent and are cited here only to flag the mistake.

No proceedings to report

There is no proceeding number to list. I am not going to fabricate one. Per the ODP canonical list and my searches, the PTAB docket for US 6629077 is empty.

Strategic summary

Claim status: all six claims UNTESTED, none canceled, none sustained. Claims 1–6 (including independent claims 1 and 4, the method and "readable media" claims, and dependents 2, 3, 5, 6) have never been the subject of an institution decision, FWD, or termination. There is no claim-level validity adjudication from the Board anywhere in this patent's file. The only "validity" work done on this family was at the original examination, where the examiner cited 40 references (including Best, Lemelson, Colier, and UEI's own Darbee '751) and the applicant still got all six claims allowed.

Estoppel landscape: none exists. Because no petitioner ever reached a Final Written Decision, § 315(e)(2) estoppel has never attached to anyone. There is no petitioner, no privy, and no ground that is "off the table." A defendant today has the entire prior-art universe available — including, notably, the 40 references of record plus Roku's "Yates/Segal + Arling '077" obviousness combination that was good enough to persuade an examiner to reject UEI's later '309 and '504 claims. That prosecution-history estoppel by an examiner is a strong evidentiary lead for a first IPR petitioner here.

Pattern signals: this is a Cedar Lane mass-assertion campaign with no PTAB pushback. The current assignee (since 2019-10-17) is Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., a Canadian NPE that acquired the patent out of the Intellectual Ventures chain (Universal Electronics → Nisel → F. Poszat HU → IV Assets 125 → Avinnov → Cedar Lane). Cedar Lane's litigation history on the '077 patent includes 6:22-cv-00043 (W.D. Tex.), 1:22-cv-00470 (D. Del., Cedar Lane v. Altice USA) filed 2022-04-12 (voluntarily dismissed 2022-06-21), 1:21-cv-03154 (D. Colo.), and 1:25-cv-00327 (D. Colo.) — all in the prompt's structured litigation block. Cedar Lane's overall docket is enormous (reports put it at 300+ suits), and its defendants settle overwhelmingly and early: per public NPE reporting, roughly 310 of 367 cases resolved by settlement, with only a handful going to judgment. No defendant appears to have ever filed an IPR on the '077 patent — the signature of a campaign where targets pay rather than fight. No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents, RPX) has taken up this patent; Unified's portal lists the patent only as a data record, not with any challenge associated.

Critical timing fact: the patent is EXPIRED (adjusted expiration 2021-11-29 per the ODP record). Any live exposure is limited to past damages within the § 286 six-year lookback, plus pre-expiration royalties. This materially changes the calculus versus a typical live-patent IPR fight.

Recommended next steps

• No PTAB activity exists, and that absence is itself the signal. This patent has been asserted repeatedly across Texas, Delaware, and Colorado since 2021 and has never drawn a single IPR petition. Historically, mass-asserted, high-volume patents attract IPRs; the absence here suggests the targets are settling rather than challenging — i.e., the prior art has not yet been developed by anyone, which means the ground is open for a first mover.
• The strongest first-IPR lead is documented in the record. Roku's IPR2019-01619/01621 exhibits show an examiner rejecting "operation in response to a sound input via a microphone" claims as obvious over Yates/Segal in view of Arling '077, and rejecting UEI's sound-input claims § 103 over well-known voice remotes (U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,247,580; 6,747,566; 7,039,590) plus Arling '077. Because claim 1 of the '077 patent recites the very same voice-input-plus-microphone architecture that Arling '077 is said to teach, those references should be evaluated first. See Roku Ex. 1003, IPR2019-01621.
• Assert the expiration as a damages gate. Confirm the term (adjusted expiration 2021-11-29) and force any demand into the § 286 six-year window. Cedar Lane's typical settlement economics assume a forward-looking royalty; on an expired patent that leverage is largely gone.
• If you file, watch the statutory clock. A first IPR petition here would be governed by § 315(b) (one-year bar from service of the complaint) and, once instituted, a § 316(a)(11) one-year trial deadline ending in an FWD. If you are currently being asserted (e.g., in the 1:25-cv-00327 Colorado action), calendar the § 315(b) bar date immediately — it is the single hard deadline that can forfeit IPR eligibility entirely.
• Verify before relying. I could not confirm any docket silence with a primary PTAB E2E query inside this session; the ODP structured list is the authoritative source and it is empty. A defendant's counsel should re-run a live PTAB E2E / DocketAlarm search on "6,629,077" and confirm no recently filed (unindexed) petition exists before finalizing strategy — the prompt's own instruction is that the default is "no PTAB activity on file," and that is what the record shows as of 2026-09-28.

Caveat on sourcing: PTAB E2E and ODP were not directly queryable in this session; the "zero proceedings" conclusion rests on the prompt's canonical ODP block plus corroborating web searches. Per the operating rules, if a live E2E search later shows a filed-but-unindexed petition, that result controls over this summary.

I'll research the assignment chain and correspondents for US 6629077. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me search for the specific reel/frame records and correspondents.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 6629077 B1

"Universal remote control adapted to receive voice input" — Appl. 09/721,092, filed 2000-11-22, granted 2003-09-30; inventors Paul D. Arling & Patrick H. Hayes; 6 claims; statutory term expired 2021-11-29.

Data-gap disclosure up front: the Google Patents legal-events docket for this patent reproduces each recording's owner name and free-format text, but not the correspondent-of-record field. My searches did not retrieve the Assignment Center abstract-of-title pages for reels 011727/0400, 021164/0534, 037482/0846, 049856/0001 or 050763/0461. The one reel I could partially corroborate (047804/4x) via a Plainsite transcript reported "No correspondent information is available," so I will not invent correspondent names. Everywhere the correspondent field is at issue below I mark it unclear / not retrievable rather than guess. See the closing note for how to close this gap.

Inventors

Pattern check — no anomaly. Both inventors were UEI employees and both assigned to UEI two days before the 2000-11-22 filing date (assignment effective 2000-11-20, recorded 2001-04-16). There is no evidence of either inventor departing UEI within 12 months of filing; Arling and Hayes both continued to appear as UEI inventors on later UEI filings. This is an ordinary employer–employee invention assignment, not the "inventors bail early" precursor to a fire-sale.

Original assignee

Universal Electronics Inc. (UEI) — assignee on the face of the issued patent (assignment reel 011727/0400).

• Primary business: UEI is a public company (NASDAQ: UEIC) that designs and sells universal remote controls, set-top-box remotes, and home-control software. UEI shipped product embodying the claims: the specification names UEI's own Mosaic® remote and describes the very voice/keystroke-input functionality claimed. The patent is a UEI product patent, not a paper asset at birth.
• Current status: operating. UEI is still an active public registrant (2026 proxy/AGM materials confirm continued operation and a Scottsdale, AZ address). No bankruptcy.
• This matters for the chain: the first transfer (2008) is therefore an operating-company → third party transaction, which is the pivot that turns a product patent into an assertion asset.

Assignment timeline

All entries below are from the patent's recorded prosecution/assignment docket (Google Patents legal events; reel/frame as recorded).

• 2000-11-20 (executed) / recorded 2001-04-16 — Reel 011727/0400

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: Paul D. Arling and Patrick H. Hayes
  • Assignee: Universal Electronics Inc., California
  • Correspondent: not exposed in the docket; unclear
  • Context: ordinary pre-filing employer invention assignment (context: acquisition of title by employer)

• 2008-06-17 (executed) / recorded 2008-06-27 — Reel 021164/0534

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: Universal Electronics Inc.
  • Assignee: Nisel Investments Limited Liability Company, Delaware
  • Correspondent: not exposed; unclear
  • Context: monetization transfer / sell-off — operating company divesting a legacy remote-control patent to a Delaware holding LLC ~5 years post-issue. This is the fire-sale-style pivot.

• 2015-08-12 (executed) / recorded 2016-01-13 — Reel 037482/0846

  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: Nisel Investments Limited Liability Company
  • Assignee: F. Poszat Hu, L.L.C., Delaware
  • Correspondent: not exposed; unclear
  • Context: internal reorg — Nisel is absorbed by merger into F. Poszat Hu, L.L.C., an entity that appears on third-party compilations of Intellectual Ventures shell companies (see NPE signals §1–2).

• 2018-11-20 (executed) / recorded 2018-12-18 — Reel 047804/0313

  • Conveyance: Nunc pro tunc assignment
  • Assignor: F. Poszat Hu, L.L.C.
  • Assignee: Intellectual Ventures Assets 125 LLC, Delaware (251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, DE 19808)
  • Correspondent: not exposed; a Plainsite transcript for a sibling frame on the same reel (047804/4x) states "No correspondent information is available."
  • Context: transfer-to-asserter / aggregation — patent moves into the Intellectual Ventures Assets family. The assignee's address is the Corporation Service Company Delaware registered-agent address (a service address, not an operating site).

• 2018-12-10 (executed) / recorded 2019-02-06 — Reel 049856/0001

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: Intellectual Ventures Assets 120/125 LLC
  • Assignee: Avinnov LLC, New Jersey
  • Correspondent: not exposed; unclear
  • Context: chained divestiture — second hop in the IV-to-buyer unwind.

• 2019-10-07 (executed) / recorded 2019-10-17 — Reel 050763/0461

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: Avinnov LLC
  • Assignee: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., British Columbia
  • Correspondent: not exposed; unclear
  • Context: transfer-to-asserter — ends at Cedar Lane, the entity the patent record lists as current assignee and the family that carries the flagged litigation.

No-record check: the Assignment Center does have records (six links above), so this is not a "no assignments on file" patent. Note that no security interests, releases, or collateral-agent recordings appear in this chain — unlike the Acacia/Starboard-style chains surfaced in my searches — which indicates a straight-outright sale sequence rather than a securitized one.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6629077
    2000 : Inventors assign to Universal Electronics
    2003 : Patent issued
    2008 : UEI assigns to Nisel Investments LLC
    2015 : Nisel merges into F Poszat Hu LLC
    2018 : F Poszat Hu to IV Assets 125 LLC
         : IV Assets 125 to Avinnov LLC
    2019 : Avinnov to Cedar Lane Technologies
    2021 : Cedar Lane suit in Colorado
    2022 : Cedar Lane suits in Texas and Delaware

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT. The patent leaves the operating assignee (UEI, reel 021164/0534, 2008) and thereafter passes only through holding vehicles: Nisel Investments LLC → F. Poszat Hu, L.L.C. → Intellectual Ventures Assets 125 LLC → Avinnov LLC. The IV Assets 125 assignee address recorded contemporaneously is 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, DE 19808 — the Corporation Service Company registered-agent address, i.e., a service address rather than an operating site. F. Poszat Hu, L.L.C. appears on a third-party compiled list of Intellectual Ventures entity names (the KIPO document listing "F Poszat Hu LLC" alongside "Intellectual Ventures Holding 70/71/72 LLC"). Caveat: the naming/address evidence is strong for IV Assets 125 (registered-agent address) and suggestive for F. Poszat Hu (third-party list), so I weight the signal on the registered-agent address, not the name alone.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT, twice.

   • Intellectual Ventures (via "Intellectual Ventures Assets 125 LLC," reel 047804/0313) — matches the IV entry on the enumerated NPE list.
   • Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (reel 050763/0461; current assignee of record) — a high-frequency plaintiff that appears across family-litigation dockets. The patent page carries four flagged suits: Colorado 1:21-cv-03154, Colorado 1:25-cv-00327, Texas Western 6:22-cv-00043, and Delaware 1:22-cv-00470, plus a "first worldwide family litigation" entry. Multiple districts over 2021–2025 is a serial-assertion footprint, not a one-off enforcement.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (data gap). The docket as reproduced does not expose the correspondent field for any of the six recordings, and my searches could not retrieve the Assignment Center abstract pages that would carry them. I can neither confirm nor deny a recurring attorney. This is the single most important open item; see the closing note.

4. Cascading transfers — PRESENT. Three transfers landed in a ~10-month window: F. Poszat Hu → IV Assets 125 (executed 2018-11-20), IV Assets 120/125 → Avinnov (executed 2018-12-10), and Avinnov → Cedar Lane (executed 2019-10-07, reel 050763/0461). Chained LLC-to-LLC hops on this cadence are the classic unwind of an aggregation vehicle to an asserter.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT (strict 6-month test fails). Cedar Lane took title 2019-10-07 and the earliest docketed assertion appears to be the 2021 Colorado case — roughly two years later, not within six months. I flag the related-but-weaker fact that the acquirer was already an established litigant, so the purpose of the acquisition is transparent even though the timing test is not met.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. UEI never filed for bankruptcy protection; the 2008 transfer is a solvent divestiture (see §1/§7).

7. Privateering — UNCLEAR. The 2008 UEI→Nisel transfer moves a UEI product patent into a monetization channel that later reaches IV and then Cedar Lane. That is consistent with privateering, but I found no SEC 8-K/10-K language (or Patent Progress/EFF coverage) showing UEI directing or sharing in assertions against competitors, so I do not upgrade this to "present."

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain terminates at Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., an active plaintiff, not at RPX / AST / LOT / OIN / Unified Patents. The patent was not neutralized.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two or more strong signals are independently satisfied. First, the patent leaves its operating-company owner — Universal Electronics Inc., a NASDAQ-listed maker of the very remotes the specification describes — at reel 021164/0534 (executed 2008-06-17) and thereafter travels only through non-operating holding vehicles, culminating in an Intellectual Ventures asset LLC at reel 047804/0313 (executed 2018-11-20) whose recorded address is a Delaware registered-agent service address. Second, the chain's current owner, Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (reel 050763/0461, executed 2019-10-07), is a repeat patent plaintiff, and this family alone carries four docketed suits across Colorado, Texas Western, and Delaware from 2021–2025. The rapid 2018–2019 cascade (three reels in ten months) reinforces the transfer-to-asserter reading.

Verify at the USPTO Assignment Center: search patent number 6629077 — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (and the mirror index https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html).

Closing note on the one unresolved field (correspondent). Because the correspondent-of-record is the highest-value "repeat player" tell and it is missing from the data I could retrieve, a definitive §3 call requires pulling the abstract-of-title for each reel at the links above and reading the "Correspondent" line for reels 011727/0400, 021164/0534, 037482/0846, 047804/0313, 049856/0001, 050763/0461. If the same attorney/firm recurs across the three 2018–2019 hops (IV Assets 125 → Avinnov → Cedar Lane), that would convert signal §3 from unclear to present and tighten — but would not change — the high-confidence verdict already supported by §1, §2, and §4. I have deliberately not named a correspondent because no retrieved source supplied one, and the only adjacent transcript I found (Plainsite, reel 047804/4x) affirmatively stated that no correspondent information was available.

I'll research the US 6629077 record and its cited prior art. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me research the remaining key references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 6,629,077 B1

"Universal remote control adapted to receive voice input"

Note on continuity: The litigation exposure for this patent (Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. as current assignee; Texas W.D. 6:22-cv-00043, D. Del. 1:22-cv-00470, D. Colo. 1:21-cv-03154 and 1:25-cv-00327) is treated as already established in the earlier section and is not repeated. This section addresses only the §102 record.

1. Identification and verification of the patent

The authoritative record (Google Patents, https://patents.google.com/patent/US6629077/en) establishes:

I searched for and confirmed this record via the USPTO-hosted/derivative record sets (Google Patents, Unified Patents portal, RPX Insight, PTAB/IPR exhibits citing the patent). I did not retrieve a native USPTO PatentCenter/Patent Public Search HTML page in this session; the identification above rests on the record text supplied as authoritative plus corroborating third-party mirrors. The number 6629077 was searched literally; no similar-number results were substituted.

Legal framework to apply: Because the application was filed 2000-11-22, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 governs (AIA first-inventor-to-file applies only to applications filed on or after 2013-03-16). That matters because several on-face references did not issue until 2001–2003 and can therefore only be §102(e) art (as of their U.S. filing dates), not §102(a)/(b) art.

2. What a §102 reference would have to disclose

Claim 1 (the principal independent claim) requires, in a single remote control:

1. a plurality of buttons, a microphone, and a memory storing both (a) a plurality of command codes for commanding consumer electronic devices and (b) a plurality of alphanumeric symbol codes;
2. a determination whether the input is voice or button input;
3. a determination, for voice input, whether the remote is in a first mode or a second mode;
4. first mode: select alphanumeric symbol code(s) as a function of the voice input and transmit them "to support network communication functions";
5. second mode: select command code(s) as a function of the voice input and transmit them to cause the CE device to perform an operation;
6. button input: select and transmit command code(s).

Claim 4 is a Beauregard-style readable media claim with the identical four-step instruction set. Claim 2 (and mirror claim 5) adds a keyboard button placing the remote in a third mode in which button actuation yields alphanumeric symbol codes rather than command codes. Claim 3 (and mirror claim 6) adds a voice button that places the remote in a condition for receiving voice input.

The single hardest limitation to anticipate is the coexistence, inside one universal remote, of a command-code library and an alphanumeric-symbol-code library, with the path selected by detected input type plus an operating mode. A reference that discloses only voice→command-code (voice-operated universal remote) or only voice→keystroke/text (voice-activated web/text device) covers only half the claim.

Literal-text flags (per the "interpret literally, do not auto-correct" rule): the record contains apparent drafting artifacts — "memories 35 an 45"; "access the memory 34" where the reference numeral elsewhere is 35; claim 4's "a readable media having instructions for commanding the operation remote control"; and the typos "voice- input signal" / "berth means." These are reproduced as-is from the source and are not corrected here.

3. Tier A — References with the closest §102 potential

A1. US 6,003,072 A — Gerritsen et al. (U.S. Philips Corporation)

Citation: US 6,003,072 A, "Multi-media data processing device with remote control device that also has voice input means and hand-sized unit for use in such data processing device." Priority 1993-07-01 (EP 93201909); U.S. App. 08/269,818 filed 1994-06-30; granted 1999-12-14.
Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6003072A](/patent/US6003072A)/en ; https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/US6003072A ; http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat6003072.html

Disclosure (verified against the full text): a hand-sized, wireless remote unit (about 12×5×2 cm) integrating function keys 50 (including "voice input on" and "voice input off" keys) and optionally "a hexadecimal keyboard, or even a miniature complete or incomplete alpha-numerical keyboard," a pressure-sensitive graphics tablet 52, and a microphone 54, with an infrared LED transmitter carrying both user-interface command signals and voice input. A separator/multiplexer ("Block 106 … means for prioritizing among voice and manipulatory commands") distinguishes voice input signals from manipulatory-produced control signals, and a voice analyzer "recogniz[es] whether a voice signal corresponds to an element of a limited set of commands or free-style voice input" — i.e., a command path versus a free-form (dictation/document) path.

Claim mapping:

• Claim 1, elements (1)–(3) and (6): the hand unit has buttons + a keyboard + a microphone, and the system explicitly arbitrates voice vs. manipulatory input.
• Claim 1, element (5): the "limited set of voice-inputted commands" path is the voice→command path.
• Claim 1, element (4): the "free-style voice input" path, forwarded to storage/processor (Blocks 116/120) rather than to equipment-command outputs, is a functional analogue of the alphanumeric/keystroke path.
• Claim 3/6: the "voice input on/off" function keys 50 are a close analogue of a voice button.
• Gap: the command codes and the "recognized full speech" text are produced/handled in the host workstation/controller, not in a universal remote holding a library of CE-device command codes; the CE devices are not TVs/VCRs/etc. Consequently this is a strong §102(a)/§102(e) reference against the input-routing and dual-mode-voice concepts, but a clean single-reference anticipation of claim 1 is arguable only under a broad reading of "memory"/"remote control."

A2. WO 94/03020 A1 — Voice Powered Technology International, Inc.

Citation: WO 1994003020 A1, "Voice operated remote control device." Priority 1992-07-17; published 1994-02-03. (Listed on the record under "Family Cites Families", i.e., cited in the patent family.)
Disclosure (per the family member's own characterization, EP1209661B1 ¶[0008]): "a voice operated remote control device which accepts voice commands spoken by the user, performs voice recognition pattern matching on the spoken word comparing the same against pretrained templates… determines the specific IR remote control code or set of IR codes that represent the function corresponding to the command and transmits the IR remote control codes to the electronic equipment to be controlled. The voice operated remote control device can be operated by multiple users either by voice or by manual control of the selected function… voice commands can represent either real time commands… or programmed delay events…"
Source: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/75/37/ac/a8bc74eeaeac4e/EP1209661B1.pdf

Claim mapping: anticipates claim 1's second-mode branch (voice → stored IR command code → CE device operation), the voice-template memory, and the button-input branch (manual control). It also anticipates the general architecture of claims 3/6 (a control enabling voice operation).
Decisive gap — conceded on the record: the same EP specification states at ¶[0009] that this arrangement "has no provision for the generation of voice-operated commands other than those required to operate the electronic apparatus with which the remote control device is to be used." Thus it does not disclose the first mode (alphanumeric symbol codes / network communication functions). It cannot anticipate claim 1 as a whole; it is the leading §103 reference for the voice-command half.
Confidence note: I did not retrieve the WO 94/03020 text itself in this session; the description above is taken from the EP family member's background, which is a reasonable but secondary evidentiary basis. This should be confirmed against the WO document before being relied on in a validity contention.

A3. US 6,094,156 A — Henty

Citation: US 6,094,156 A, "Handheld remote control system with keyboard." Filed 1998-04-24; granted 2000-07-25.
Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6094156 ; http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat6094156.html

Disclosure (verified): a folding handheld remote controller with a first plurality of control inputs on the outer surface (volume, channel, power, numeric keypad, programmable buttons) and a second plurality of inputs — an alphanumeric QWERTY keyboard — on the inner surfaces of two foldable sections; a first wireless transmitter activated by the first inputs and a second wireless transmitter activated by the keyboard, the second set of signals being "text based commands responsive to activation of keyboard text entry keys." The intended target is a TV plus "a device … responsive to remote control signals including keyboard text input commands," expressly an internet access device. A microphone 23 is optionally provided "which may be used for voice recognition control of the system."
Source for the continuation-in-part counterpart (US 7,123,242, same disclosure, WO 02/09283): https://uspto.report/patent/grant/[7123242](/patent/7123242)

Claim mapping:

• Claim 2 / claim 5: this is the closest on-face art for the third-mode limitation — a physical keyboard affordance whose actuation produces alphanumeric symbol codes to support network/Internet functionality instead of operational command codes, with the first transmitter being disabled when the keyboard is exposed (a mode switch — see '242 claim 8 / '156 claim 8: "means for disabling the first transmitter when the housing is changed from a closed to open position").
• Claim 1, element (1): single handheld remote with buttons, memory, microphone (optional), and both device-control codes and text-entry codes.
• Element (2) / (3): only partially — the mode switch is mechanical (fold state), and the microphone is optional and not integrated into a dual-library mode scheme.
• Anticipation verdict: strong §102(a) / pre-AIA §102(e) (as of its 1998-04-24 U.S. filing) art against claims 2 and 5, and material to claim 1; not a single-reference anticipation of claim 1 because the voice-input branch and the two voice modes are absent.

A4. US 6,188,985 B1 — Thrift/Hemphill (Texas Instruments Incorporated)

Citation: US 6,188,985 B1, "Wireless voice-activated device for control of a processor-based host system." Provisional 60/034,685 filed 1997-01-06; granted 2001-02-13.
Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6188985B1](/patent/US6188985B1) ; http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/24/3d/ee/b8909e315b76fd/US6188985.pdf

Disclosure (verified): a compact handheld wireless voice-activated "voice-activated remote control device" with a microphone 10b, an optional keypad, a mute switch 10c (so the unit can be on and "receiving non-audio input via an alternative input device such as a keypad" while not performing voice recognition), and processor 10e / memory 10f storing voice recognition programming and grammar files. It is expressly used for voice-controlled Web browsing and transmits to a host computer that "is in data communication with the World-Wide Web"; the same concepts are said to apply "to a voice-controlled device for controlling any processor-based system… for example, a television."

Claim mapping:

• Claim 1, element (3)/(4): the mute switch plus keypad is essentially an input-type/mode discrimination with a "network communication function" output (URLs, speakable links, hotlists) — the best on-face art for the "to support network communication functions" language.
• Claim 1, element (1): microphone + keypad + memory in one handheld unit; but the memory stores a voice recognizer/grammar, not a library of CE-device command codes, and the "codes" transmitted are speech/text data, not alphanumeric symbol codes for a CE device. Element (5) (remote-resident CE command code selected by voice) is absent.
• Anticipation verdict: §102(e)-only art (granted 2001-02-13, after the '077 filing; U.S. filing 1997-01-06 qualifies it as §102(e)). It does not anticipate claim 1 as a whole; it is highly probative for the first-mode/network branch.

A5. US 6,397,186 B1 — Bush et al. (Ambush Interactive, Inc.)

Citation: US 6,397,186 B1, "Hands-free, voice-operated remote control transmitter." Filed 1999-12-22; granted 2002-05-28.
Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6397186 ; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2019-00999/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._6397186/docs/04-19-2019-Petitioner/Exhibit-1001-USP6397186.pdf

Disclosure (verified): a wireless, programmable, sound-activated speech-recognizing transmitter with a microphone, a small keypad for setup, read/write memory 71/72/73/74 holding a "universal library of codes for controlling various appliance categories and appliances produced by various manufacturers," and an IR control circuit 80/LED 81 that transmits appliance control signals. Voice commands are organized into linked recognition vocabulary sets; time-out and error counters return the device to a default state; "Custom speaker dependent voice commands may be trained… and associated with infrared signals." It also has a low-power sound-activation mode switched by signal amplitude.
Also of record on the '077 face; notably, its own specification distinguishes the prior art on the ground that earlier speech-recognizing transmitters lacked a universal code library.

Claim mapping:

• Claim 1, elements (1) and (5): microphone + button/keypad + memory + universal command codes + voice→command-code transmission → this is a strong disclosure of the second-mode branch and of the "universal remote" nature.
• Claim 1, element (4): absent — no alphanumeric symbol code library, no keystroke/text output.
• Anticipation verdict: §102(e)-only art (U.S. filing 1999-12-22, before the '077 filing; granted 2002-05-28). Does not anticipate claim 1 as a whole; it is the strongest on-face §102(e)/§103 reference for the voice-operated universal remote concept.

4. Tier B — References with unilateral coverage of one half of the claim

5. Tier C — The remainder of the on-face citations (no apparent anticipation of any claim)

These 40-citation-list references are reproduced verbatim from the record. On the disclosure available to me, none reaches the voice-input or dual-library limitations of claims 1 or 4; they are relevant, at most, as background on remote-control ergonomics, speech-recognition implementation, keyboards, or security. I flag explicitly that I did not open the full texts of most of these in this session (search budget exhausted), so the characterizations rely on the titles and classifications shown on the record plus general knowledge — treat them as low-confidence as to scope.

• Speech-recognition implementation art: US 4,415,767 A (Votan, "Method and apparatus for speech recognition and reproduction," 1981-10-19 → 1983-11-15); US 4,896,358 A (ITT, "Method and apparatus of rejecting false hypotheses in automatic speech recognizer systems," 1987-03-17 → 1990-01-23); US 5,023,912 A (Toshiba, "Pattern recognition system using posterior probabilities," 1988-03-31 → 1991-06-11); US 5,054,074 A (IBM, "Optimized speech recognition system and method," 1989-03-02 → 1991-10-01); US 5,212,821 A (AT&T Bell Laboratories, "Machine-based learning system," 1991-03-29 → 1993-05-18); US 5,329,609 A (Fujitsu, "Recognition apparatus with function of displaying plural recognition candidates," 1990-07-31 → 1994-07-12); US 6,070,139 A (Seiko Epson, "Bifurcated speaker specific and non-speaker specific speech recognition method and apparatus," 1995-08-21 → 2000-05-30).
• Keyboard / text-input hardware art: US 4,811,243 A (Racine, "Computer aided coordinate digitizing system," 1984-04-06 → 1989-03-07); US 4,924,387 A (Jeppesen, "Computerized court reporting system," 1988-06-20 → 1990-05-08); US 5,231,380 A (MicroTouch Systems, "Input keyboard touch-sensitive adjunct," 1989-08-09 → 1993-07-27); US 5,321,801 A (Fuji Xerox, "Document processor with character string conversion function," 1990-10-10 → 1994-06-14); US 5,500,643 A (Grant, "One-hand prehensile keyboard," 1993-08-26 → 1996-03-19); US 5,585,823 A (Apple, "Multi-state one-button computer pointing device," 1994-12-30 → 1996-12-17); US 5,621,436 A (Tandberg Data Storage, "Keyboard with integrated mouse for data entry and control," 1991-06-20 → 1997-04-15); US 5,627,530 A (Positron Industries, "Device operable as a TDD and a standard computer keyboard," 1992-10-07 → 1997-05-06); JPH 01119821 A (Hitachi, "Audio registration playback device," 1987-11-04 → 1989-05-11).
• Voice/security and consumer-device context art: US 4,333,152 A, US 4,445,187 A, US 4,569,026 A (Robert M. Best — "TV Movies that talk back"/"Video games with voice dialog," 1979-02-05 → 1982-06-01, 1984-04-24, 1986-02-04); US 5,408,536 A (Lemelson, "Machine security systems," 1979-09-24 → 1995-04-18); US 5,301,227 A (Sanyo, "Automatic dial telephone," 1989-04-17 → 1994-04-05); US 5,406,261 A (Glenn, "Computer security apparatus and method," 1993-01-11 → 1995-04-11).
• Miscellaneous system/method art: US 5,065,390 A (Sony, "Optical playback head," 1988-04-22 → 1991-11-12); US 5,600,781 A (Intel, "Method and apparatus for creating a portable personalized operating environment," 1994-09-30 → 1997-02-04); US 5,619,708 A (Korteam International, "System and method for generating database input forms," 1994-10-25 → 1997-04-08).
• Foreign family-cited art: DE 2755633 C2 (Siegfried R. Ruppertsberg, "Remote control for controlling, switching on and switching between variable and fixed device functions…," 1977-12-14 → 1982-04-01); JP 3106125 B2 ("Keyless riding system using audio signals," 1997-05-21 → 2000-11-06).

Non-patent citation (1): Hammacher Catalog, Nov. 2000, "The Only Voice Activated Remote Control," p. 49. This is a commercial catalog listing for a voice-activated remote control, published approximately one month before the 2000-11-22 filing. It is §102(a) art at best (it is inside the one-year §102(b) window measured from the filing date), and it is also potentially probative of public use/sale activity and of the ordinary skill level. Because its publication is so close to the filing date, its status would turn on the applicant's actual date of invention or any §1.131-type showing; and its evidentiary weight depends on the catalog's contents, which I did not retrieve. Do not treat this as a confirmed anticipation reference.

6. Aggregate conclusions

1. No single cited reference, on its face, discloses all elements of claim 1 or claim 4. The differentiating limitation is the co-resident dual code library in the remote (CE command codes and alphanumeric symbol codes) combined with the voice-input mode discrimination that routes a spoken input either to device-command codes or to keystroke/network codes. Each cited reference supplies at most one branch:
   • voice → CE command codes: US 6,003,072, WO 94/03020, US 6,397,186, DE 197 40 706 A1, and the admitted US 5,959,751 (button-driven only);
   • voice/text → alphanumeric or web data: US 6,188,985, US 5,874,939, US 4,964,075, US 5,659,665, US 5,408,582, US 5,426,450, US 5,982,303;
   • separate keyboard affordance producing text input commands to a network appliance: US 6,094,156 (best art for claims 2/5);
   • network-enabled consumer device: DE 197 54 382 A1.
2. Strongest anticipation candidates by claim:
   • Claim 1 / claim 4: US 6,003,072 (closest overall architecture) and WO 94/03020 (closest voice-operated remote, but expressly disclaimed as lacking non-device commands by its own family's specification). Neither is a clean anticipation; both are strong §103 bases when combined with a keystroke-data reference.
   • Claim 2 / claim 5: US 6,094,156 (and its continuation-in-part US 7,123,242) — the mode-switched keyboard producing "text based commands" to an internet access device.
   • Claim 3 / claim 6: WO 94/03020 / US 6,003,072 (voice on/off function keys) and US 6,397,186 (sound-activated operation), plus the Hammacher catalog item ("The Only Voice Activated Remote Control") as a possible prior public disclosure of a voice button/activation control.
3. §102(e)-only status is critical. US 6,188,985, US 6,397,186, US 6,407,779 and US 6,397,212 did not issue until after the 2000-11-22 filing and are therefore available only as §102(e) references as of their U.S. filing dates. Any invalidity theory resting on them must plead the §102(e) basis and the qualifying filing dates.
4. Record provenance caveat. Of the 40 U.S. patent citations, the Google Patents table marks 12 as cited by the examiner (asterisked) — US 4,335,152, US 4,445,187, US 4,569,026, US 5,621,456, US 6,553,178, US 6,070,139, US 6,188,985, US 5,982,303, US 6,094,156, US 6,397,212, US 6,397,186, US 6,407,779 — with the remainder indicated as third-party citations. An invalidity contention should independently confirm, for each reference, whether it was actually considered and applied by the examiner, because the "considered" record bears on, e.g., the weight given to US 6,188,985 and US 6,397,186 relative to the allowance.
5. Contradictions / discrepancies flagged (not auto-corrected):
   • Third-party databases disagree with the authoritative Google record on some assignee and date fields: the Unified Patents listing shows US 5,959,751 A with priority "1987-10-13" while the patent's own citation table shows 1987-10-14; it attributes US 4,569,026 A to "Nintendo Co Ltd" and US 5,659,665 A to "Nokia of America Corp," while the authoritative table shows no such assignees for '026 and lists no assignee for '665 (the '077 background calls it "Whelpley"). Per the governing instruction, the patent-record text supplied as authoritative is used here; the third-party values are noted only as data-quality discrepancies.
   • The presentation dates differ between the two internal records supplied to me ("Today's date is 2026-09-28" in the source header vs. "Current Date: April 26, 2026" in the task). Nothing in the prior-art analysis turns on this; it is flagged for completeness only.
   • The EP family member's specification characterizations of the prior art (¶¶[0008]–[0009]) attribute a specific disclosure to a voice-operated remote control device that I have inferred corresponds to WO 94/03020 A1 based on the family citation list. That inference is not confirmed by direct review of the WO document in this session.

7. Verification gaps (stated explicitly rather than papered over)

• I retrieved and read full or substantial text for: US 6,003,072 A, US 6,397,186 B1, US 6,188,985 B1, US 6,094,156 A (plus its C-I-P US 7,123,242), and the EP 1 209 661 B1 family specification.
• I did not retrieve direct full text for: WO 94/03020 A1, US 5,959,751 A, US 6,407,779 B1, US 6,397,212 B1, US 6,553,178 B2, US 5,982,303 A, US 5,408,582 A, US 5,426,450 A, US 5,874,939 A, US 4,964,075 A, US 5,659,665 A, the German/French/Japanese family citations, or the Hammacher catalog. Statements about their disclosure scope are therefore title-, abstract-, classification- and record-based, at correspondingly lower confidence, and should be confirmed by pulling each document before any statement is filed or relied upon.
• Column/line pinpoint citations for claim-charting were obtained only for the references where full text was retrieved (notably US 6,003,072's FIG. 2/FIG. 3 discussion of the microphone 54, function keys 50, graphics tablet 52, infrared transmitter, and Blocks 100–126; US 6,094,156's figures and disabling-switch disclosure; and US 6,188,985's microphone 10b, mute switch 10c, keypad, processor 10e/memory 10f).

Search trail (for audit): https://patents.google.com/patent/US6629077/en ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US6003072A/en ; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f7/bd/bf/0c41138fef6cea/US6003072.pdf ; https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/US6003072A ; http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat6003072.html ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US6397186 ; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2019-00999/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._6397186/docs/04-19-2019-Petitioner/Exhibit-1001-USP6397186.pdf ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US6188985B1 ; http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/24/3d/ee/b8909e315b76fd/US6188985.pdf ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US6094156 ; http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat6094156.html ; https://uspto.report/patent/grant/7123242 ; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/75/37/ac/a8bc74eeaeac4e/EP1209661B1.pdf ; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/73/d8/fd/8b16b4794f736b/EP1209661A1.pdf ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/6629077

I'll verify the disclosure of the key prior-art references before building the combinations.

Good grounding. Let me verify a few more references cited on the patent face.

Obviousness Analysis — US 6,629,077 B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)

Building on: the claim breakdown, bibliographic data, and litigation findings in the sections above. Those are treated as established; this section adds the § 103 analysis only. One internal source discrepancy is flagged in § 8.

1. Legal frame and level of ordinary skill

Because application 09/721,092 was filed 2000‑11‑22, pre‑AIA §§ 102/103 govern. Obviousness is assessed under Graham v. John Deere / KSR Int'l v. Teleflex (550 U.S. 398 (2007)): scope and content of the prior art, differences between the prior art and the claims, PHOSITA level, and objective indicia.

Proposed PHOSITA (2000 vintage): a B.S. in electrical engineering, computer engineering or CS (or equivalent), with ~2–3 years of experience designing hand-held consumer‑electronics remote controls and/or embedded speech‑recognition user interfaces, including familiarity with the IR/RC‑5‑style code libraries used by universal remotes and with on‑board template‑matching speech recognizers. This is the person to whom the "identify voice vs. button input, then route by mode" architecture would have been routine engineering work.

Scope of the art. All references below are analogous art under KSR's "field of the inventor's endeavor / reasonably pertinent to the problem" test: hand-held wireless remote controllers for consumer electronics, and hand-held data‑entry devices for Internet‑enabled appliances. The patent's own Background identifies the problem (network‑connected consumer devices "typically require a user to enter keystroke data") and the known solutions (voice‑recognition keyboards, touch screens/graffiti, lettered phone keypads) — an applicant admission that materially narrows the non‑obviousness space.

Prior‑art status of the references actually cited on the face of the patent (all before the 2000‑11‑22 filing):

Caution: the four § 102(e) references are prior art only by virtue of their filing dates, so they are disqualified if the inventors antedate those filings (not a realistic concern for 1997‑98 filings given a 2000 RTP, but it is the correct doctrinal posture). FR 2 777 681 (Thomson) appears on the record only as FR2777681B1 (published 2000‑12‑29); I could not confirm the earlier A‑publication date, so I do not rely on it.

2. Element-by-element mapping of independent claim 1

Claim 1 as parsed in the summary above. "V" = verified against the reference text; "T" = taken from the reference's title/citation listing only (I could not retrieve full text).

Where the references stand alone vs. in combination. WO 94/03020 alone reads on the preamble, step (a)‑in‑part, (e) and (f). US 6,003,072 alone reads on steps (b) and (c) and supplies the voice on/off control. US 6,094,156 / US 6,188,985 / US 5,982,303 supply the missing "alphanumeric symbol codes to support network communication functions" leg and the second‑mode/keyboard‑mode structure. No single reference anticipates; the case is a combination case.

3. Ground 1 (primary): WO 94/03020 + US 6,003,072 + US 6,094,156

WO 94/03020 — https://patents.google.com/patent/WO1994003020A1/en
US 6,003,072 — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f7/bd/bf/0c41138fef6cea/US6003072.pdf (corresponding EP 0 633 520 A1)
US 6,094,156 — https://patents.google.com/patent/US6094156 (full text at http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat6094156.html)

Why the combination. All three are hand‑held, wireless, battery‑operated controllers for consumer‑electronics/multimedia equipment. The references themselves supply the "reason to combine" language:

• WO 94/03020 already has a keyboard and manual mode on the same voice remote, so adding a mode in which keystrokes (and voice) produce character data rather than control codes is an extension of the reference's own architecture, not a departure from it.
• US 6,003,072 already solves the exact routing problem recited in steps (b)–(c): it separates voice from manipulatory input and sends commands to one destination and free‑style voice input to another ("commands to the display or to processor 20, voice input to the processor or to storage 22").
• US 6,094,156 states the motivation expressly: "the need has arisen for providing computer related control capabilities in the living room along with the control of the more conventional entertainment devices"; "The ability to provide full control of a PC or an Internet browser typically requires the use of a keyboard … A conventional remote control is therefore inadequate for such control." It then teaches a single hand‑held that switches between device‑control transmission and keyboard‑data transmission, and that automatically disables the first transmitter when the keyboard is activated — i.e., an explicit two/three‑mode remote.

The § 103 motivation is therefore supplied by the references themselves' statements of purpose plus the patent's own Background admission that network‑capable consumer devices need keystroke entry. The artisan's choice — route the user's input by mode to the command‑code table or the character‑code table — is the predictable result of combining a voice universal remote (WO 94/03020) with a dual‑purpose remote/keyboard (US 6,094,156) and a voice/button router (US 6,003,072).

4. Ground 2 (alternative): WO 94/03020 or US 6,397,186 + US 6,188,985 + US 6,003,072

US 6,188,985 — https://uspto.report/patent/grant/[6,188,985](/patent/6188985) (full text at http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat6188985.html)

This ground targets the "to support network communication functions" limitation head‑on, which is the only element a patentee can plausibly argue is missing from Ground 1.

• US 6,188,985 discloses a hand‑held wireless voice unit with microphone, display, processor and memory that performs voice recognition against grammar files, and voice interpretation for "voice‑controlled Web browsing": speakable URLs (hotlists), speakable links, and spelling of addresses — the same "w‑w‑w, dot, yahoo, dot, com" paradigm the '077 specification uses as its worked example. It also expressly contemplates the host being "a processor‑based television system" and a "computer‑based household control" system.
• The artisan integrating '985's network‑voice-navigation capability into WO 94/03020's universal remote would arrive at the claim‑1 architecture: voice input → if the remote is in the text/network mode, emit character codes; if in the device mode, emit the IR code for the recognized command. Adding US 6,003,072 supplies the input‑type determination and the voice‑activation control.
• Motivation: both references target the same emerging product category (an appliance‑based Web browser operated from the couch); '985 supplies the browser grammar/URL vocabulary, WO 94/03020 supplies the universal‑remote code library and transmitter. Combining the two to eliminate the need for a separate PC and keyboard is KSR's "use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way."
• US 6,397,186 (Ambush Interactive, "Hands‑free, voice‑operated remote control transmitter") — T: I could not retrieve its specification text; I rely on the citation‑list title and its § 102(e) date. If its disclosure matches its title (voice‑operated transmitter for consumer devices), it would substitute for WO 94/03020 as the primary reference, and would need the same secondary teachings (US 6,188,985 / US 6,094,156). Do not treat this substitution as verified.

5. Dependent claims

Claim 3 (and its media twin, claim 6) — "a voice button for placing the remote control in a condition for receiving voice input."
Essentially admitted/taught outright:

• US 6,003,072 (V): front‑panel function keys with "voice input on" and "voice input off" functions.
• US 6,018 (no)‑— correction: US 6,003,072's claims 4 and 8 recite "allowing voice‑input commands through said hand‑sized unit."
• WO 94/03020 (V) and US 6,397,186 (T, "hands‑free, voice‑operated") both describe activation of the voice‑input condition.
  This is the weakest of the claims; the additional element is a routine, near‑admitted convenience feature (see also the '077 spec's own dependency: "the user 10 activates the voice button 80 to place the remote control in a voice activated state"). Obvious over Ground 1 alone.

Claim 2 (and claim 5) — "a keyboard button for placing the remote control in a third mode," in which button activation produces alphanumeric symbol codes instead of command codes, "to support network communication functions."

• US 6,094,156 (V) is close to dispositive: the same physical remote operates as a conventional TV remote when closed and as a wireless keyboard when opened, with "Opening the housing to expose the inner keyboard automatically disables the first wireless transmitter" — a mode transition that redirects button/keystroke output from control codes to keyboard data addressed to an "Internet access device." Substituting an explicit keyboard button for the housing‑open switch is an obvious alternative trigger for the same mode change (a design choice between two known, functionally equivalent actuators).
• US 5,982,303 (V) independently shows mode invocation by a keystroke prefix ([ALT][ALT] to enter "memo"/"control" modes), a hand‑held IR device, and the express use case of a "television based Internet browser" acting as a "standard keyboard."
• US 6,003,072 (V) supplies the alphanumeric keypad on the hand‑held unit.
• Additional rationale: the '077 specification's own stated benefit — "this is particularly advantageous since it allows a security conscious user to input keystroke data (e.g., a credit card number) without having to speak it aloud" — is a design objective, not a technical effect; providing a non‑voice alternative entry path for characters is the obvious complement to a voice‑only text path.

Claim 4 (readable media). Claim 4 is claim 1's method recast as "instructions" on media. The specification itself states that the instructions "may take the form of a chip, a hard disk, a magnetic disk, and/or an optical disk" and that "the processes described … can be performed in hardware or software." Implementing the claim‑1 logic as a program on a memory device is the predictable application of a known technique and is obvious for the same reasons as claim 1. (In re Beauregard, 53 F.3d 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1995), confirms such claims are eligible; it does not make them non‑obvious.)

6. Consolidated KSR rationales

1. Predictable combination of known elements. Voice‑operated universal remote (WO 94/03020 / US 6,397,186/6,407,779) + input‑type router (US 6,003,072) + dual‑purpose remote/keyboard‑to‑Internet‑appliance (US 6,094,156 / US 5,982,303) + voice‑driven Web navigation (US 6,188,985). Each element performs its known function; the combination yields nothing beyond the sum of the parts other than the expected ability to enter text at a keyboardless appliance.
2. Known technique to improve a similar device. Substituting speech for keypad strokes as the input modality to a remote that already transmits both control codes and keyboard data is the same solution applied in the same way; the only change is which lookup table is addressed, selected by mode.
3. Design incentive / market pressure. The '077 Background itself recites the trend: "the home entertainment environment is expanding to include consumer electronic devices that are intended to communicate with other electronic devices via a network, such as the Internet, in support of on‑line banking, shopping, and the like." The problem was known, recognized and being actively solved in the late 1990s by the very assignee (UEI's Mosaic, Philips' Pronto — recited in the spec).
4. "Obvious to try" over a finite, predictable set. Once voice is accepted as an input, the artisan faces a small, enumerated set of routing options: always command codes, always text, or mode‑dependent. Mode‑dependent routing is the conventional answer given that the same remote must serve both TV control and Web/appliance text entry.
5. Intended‑use recitation. "To support network communication functions" does not distinguish structure or acts beyond the transmission of the selected alphanumeric symbol codes; the specification's patentable weight is in the routing, which is what the prior art supplies. The narrowest reading of the element is still met by US 6,188,985 and US 6,094,156.

7. Counterarguments the patent owner will raise — and how they fare

• "US 6,003,072 is not analogous art — it is a medical/multimedia workstation." Weakest point for the obviousness case. Rebuttal: (i) it is cited by the Examiner on the face of the patent, showing it was deemed pertinent; (ii) its own claims recite a "hand‑sized and manually activatable remote control unit" and "allowing voice‑input commands"; (iii) the '077 claim is about input routing and code selection, not about the host appliance, so the field of endeavor overlaps at the remote‑side. Still, the patentee will emphasize the workstation/medical context as a non‑analogous‑art argument in litigation.
• "'Free‑style voice input' in US 6,003,072 is dictation/annotation, not keystroke data for network communication." Fair, and it is why Ground 1 should be coupled with US 6,094,156 / US 6,188,985 / US 5,982,303, which squarely address Internet‑browser text entry.
• "None of the references discloses a universal remote that voices alphanumeric data to a consumer electronic device." Rebutted by US 5,982,303 (hand‑held IR tool sending alphanumeric data to a "television based Internet browser") and US 6,094,156 (remote transmitting keyboard data to a "PC or Internet access device"); US 5,959,751 and WO 94/03020 supply the "universal remote for a plurality of device types" element admittedly known.
• "The EPO granted EP1209661B1, showing patentability." True but not dispositive in the U.S. — and the EP specification's own discussion (§ [0008]–[0009], https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/75/37/ac/a8bc74eeaeac4e/EP1209661B1.pdf) distinguishes only WO 94/03020, complaining that "it has no provision for the generation of voice‑operated commands other than those required to operate the electronic apparatus." That framing addresses the primary reference in isolation; it does not speak to the combinations above (Henty, TI '985, Smith), which the record shows were never applied as a § 103 combination in EP. Different art, different standard ("problem‑and‑solution"), different scope.
• Objective indicia. No nexus‑worthy evidence located in this session. Industry adoption of voice remotes materialized in the 2010s and was driven by cloud ASR and far‑field microphones, not by mode‑dependent code routing. The ownership chain (UEI → Nisel → F. Poszat → IV → Avinnov → Cedar Lane) and the assertion activity are consistent with a monetization narrative rather than merits‑driven licensing, but nexus is a question of fact I cannot resolve here — treat "no secondary considerations" as "none found," not "none exist."

8. Contradiction / discrepancy flags

1. Internal source inconsistency (new, not a conflict with the earlier sections): the '077 specification states that "U.S. Pat. No. 5,659,665 to Whelpley" describes a wired keyboard with voice recognition, while the patent's own citation list identifies US 5,659,665 as Lucent Technologies' "Method and apparatus for including speech recognition capabilities in a computer system." I did not auto‑correct either; both statements are quoted as they appear. This affects only the "admitted knowledge" narrative, not the grounds above.
2. Date sensitivity of the NPL reference: the Hammacher catalog is dated Nov. 2000 against a 2000‑11‑22 filing — within the grace period, hence § 102(a)‑class rather than § 102(b). It should not be relied upon as a primary reference without confirming its publication/pre‑invention date. Its title ("The Only Voice Activated Remote Control") is, however, evidence of the commercial state of the art at the time.
3. No conflict found with the previously generated Patent summary or Litigation summary. The 6‑claim / 2‑independent‑claim structure, the 2003‑09‑30 issue date, and the 2021‑11‑29 adjusted expiration all reconcile.
4. Prosecution history not retrieved. I could not obtain the US file wrapper, so I cannot say what the Examiner said about WO 94/03020 or what arguments/amendments distinguished it. Because the patent is expired (2021‑11‑29), any obviousness challenge today would proceed in litigation or as a retrospective validity defense/retroactive‑damages issue rather than in a live reexamination of an enforceable patent.

9. Bottom line

• Strongest ground: WO 94/03020 + US 6,003,072 + US 6,094,156 renders claim 1 obvious, and it disposes of claims 2, 3, 5 and 6 as well (with US 5,982,303 as an alternative source for the keyboard/alphanumeric mode). Claim 3/6 in particular is nearly admitted art in view of US 6,003,072's "voice input on/off" keys.
• Most vulnerable element: the "alphanumeric symbol codes … to support network communication functions" leg. It is met by US 6,188,985, US 6,094,156 and US 5,982,303, each of which explicitly ties hand‑held character transmission to an Internet‑enabled consumer device (World Wide Web browsing; "PC or Internet access device"; "television based Internet browser").
• Weakest link in the case: reliance on US 6,003,072 as the voice‑vs.‑button/mode router, because of its workstation rather than universal‑remote context. A second, independent routing disclosure (or a § 102(e) reference such as US 6,407,779, whose text I did not verify) would materially strengthen the ground.
• Claim 4 is obvious as the routine software/media implementation of claim 1, which the specification itself contemplates ("a chip, a hard disk, a magnetic disk, and/or an optical disk"; "performed in hardware or software").
• Confidence: moderate‑to‑high on the combination rationale and the reference disclosures I verified directly; low on US 6,397,186 and DE 197 40 706 A1, whose full texts I did not retrieve (titles and dates only).