Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01384/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01384-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CSR Limited
Appellee
CSR, PLC
Appellee
Skullcandy, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SKULLCANDY, INC.,

Appellant

v.

CSR LIMITED,

Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1384

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/001,305.

______________________ 

Decided: March 2, 2017

______________________ 

 GREGORY A. CASTANIAS, Jones Day, Washington, DC, 

argued for appellant. Also represented by JOSHUA R.

NIGHTINGALE, Pittsburgh, PA.

 JEFFREY ERIC OSTROW, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, 

LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued for appellee.

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge. 

Case: 16-1384 Document: 43-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/02/2017
2 SKULLCANDY, INC. v. CSR LIMITED

This case returns to us following remand to the Board. 

Skullcandy, Inc. (“Skullcandy”) appeals from the U.S. 

Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Patent Trial and 

Appeal Board (“Board”) decision in an inter partes reexamination reversing the examiner’s decision not to reject

claims 1–6 of U.S. Patent 7,187,948 (the “’948 patent”) as 

unpatentable as anticipated (claims 1 and 4) or obvious

(claims 2, 3, 5, and 6). See CSR PLC v. Skullcandy, Inc., 

No. 2013-000114, 2015 WL 1941091 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 

2015). Because the Board did not err in its unpatentability findings or conclusions, we affirm. 

Skullcandy owns the ’948 patent, which is directed to 

an apparatus that allows a user to listen to music on a 

portable device and, when a telephone call is received, to 

substitute the audio signal from the music device with the 

audio signal from the phone. ’948 patent col. 1 ll. 55–67, 

col. 2 ll. 41–47. The PTO granted CSR Limited’s (“CSR”) 

request for inter partes reexamination. The examiner, 

however, did not adopt CSR’s proposed rejections, and the 

Board affirmed the examiner’s decision. CSR appealed to 

this court.

On appeal, we vacated the Board’s decision because 

“the Board failed to construe ‘threshold value’ in a manner that would permit meaningful appellate review.” 

CSR, PLC v. Skullcandy, Inc., 594 F. App’x 672, 677 (Fed. 

Cir. 2014). We instructed the Board on remand to “construe ‘threshold value’ and apply the construction to” U.K. 

Patent Publication 2357663A (“Smith”). Id. at 678. 

On remand, the Board reversed the examiner’s decision and rejected claims 1 and 4 as anticipated by Smith 

and claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 as obvious over Smith and U.S. 

Patent 6,006,115 (“Wingate”). In construing “threshold 

value,” the Board first stated what the term means based 

on the following information in isolation: (1) “the words of 

the claims themselves in proper context”; (2) dictionary 

definitions; and (3) the specification. CSR, 2015 WL 

Case: 16-1384 Document: 43-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/02/2017
SKULLCANDY, INC. v. CSR LIMITED 3

1941091, at *5. Weighing all of this evidence, the Board 

construed “threshold value” “to include a level or amount 

at which a signal is detectable or able to be perceived and 

at which the signal may interrupt another signal.” Id.; 

see also J.A. 16. The Board then found that Smith discloses a “threshold value.” CSR, 2015 WL 1941091, at *5; 

see also J.A. 18. Skullcandy requested rehearing by the 

Board, which the Board denied. J.A. 19.

Skullcandy timely appealed to this court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). 

On appeal, Skullcandy argues that the Board erred in 

its construction of “threshold value” and that, under the 

correct construction, the claims are not unpatentable. 

Skullcandy contends that (1) the Board provided three 

separate, inconsistent constructions of “threshold value,” 

only one of which is reasonable; (2) the broadest reasonable interpretation of “threshold value” is “a certain 

amount associated with a signal that may trigger an 

interruption of another signal when that certain amount 

is attained,” Appellant’s Br. 19 (quoting CSR, 2015 WL 

1941091, at *5); and (3) the Board failed to apply that

construction. 

We disagree. Although the Board made three summary statements about what “threshold value” means 

based on subsets of information, it ultimately provided 

one construction of the term. See CSR, 2015 WL 1941091, 

at *5 (“Hence, the weight of the evidence strongly points 

to the proper construction of the term ‘threshold value’ as 

would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in 

the art to include a level or amount at which a signal is 

detectable or able to be perceived and at which the signal 

may interrupt another signal.”). Moreover, the Board 

confirmed that it had provided a single construction in 

denying Skullcandy’s rehearing request. See J.A. 16. 

Furthermore, the Board’s construction of “threshold 

value” was not unreasonable based on the intrinsic record 

Case: 16-1384 Document: 43-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/02/2017
4 SKULLCANDY, INC. v. CSR LIMITED

and the extrinsic evidence relied on by the Board. The 

written description and claim language neither define 

“threshold value” nor compel Skullcandy’s proposed 

construction. The Board’s construction does not render 

the “threshold value” limitation superfluous or redundant. 

In any event, the Board’s finding on rehearing that 

Smith discloses a “threshold value,” even under Skullcandy’s proposed construction, is supported by substantial 

evidence. For example, Smith discloses a wireless communication adapter that can receive signals from multiple 

devices, e.g., a music player and a telephone. Smith 

teaches that an “incoming [call] would be processed and 

routed to the headset . . . [and] the other signal (music in 

this example) would be stopped so the user and the person 

on the other end of the phone would not hear the music.” 

J.A. 1553. Those teachings constitute substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that Smith discloses 

a “threshold value.” 

We have considered Skullcandy’s remaining arguments, but find them to be unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s decision.

AFFIRMED

Case: 16-1384 Document: 43-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/02/2017