Opinion ID: 2761163
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Skullcandy’s Cross-Appeal

Text: On cross-appeal, Skullcandy argues that the Board erred in finding claims 1–4 and 6–74 of the ’090 patent invalid as anticipated or obvious. Specifically, Skullcandy contends that the Board improperly placed the burden on Skullcandy, the patentee, to establish that Smith failed to disclose various claim limitations and that the Board’s anticipation rejections of claims 1, 25, 36, and 59–74 were based on an improper combination of distinct embodiments disclosed in Smith. Skullcandy also contends that Smith fails to disclose (1) a “portable apparatus”; (2) a “coupling device independent from the audio and two-way communication devices”; and (3) receiving audio signals from “substantially arbitrarily selectable” devices, as required by claim 1. In response, CSR argues that the Board made all of the necessary findings of fact to support its conclusions and that the Board did not err in finding anticipation based on the combination of two different examples from Smith where the two examples are related. CSR also contends that Smith discloses (1) a “portable apparatus”; (2) a “coupling device independent from the audio and two-way communication devices”; and (3) receiving audio signals from “substantially arbitrarily selectable” devices, as required by claim 1. We agree with CSR that the Board did not err in re- versing the examiner and finding claims 1–4 and 6–74 of the ’090 patent invalid as anticipated or obvious. As an initial matter, we note that the Board made findings of fact to support its anticipation conclusions and did not place the burden on Skullcandy to establish that Smith failed to disclose various claim limitations. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[The PTO] satisfies its initial burden of production by adequately CSR, PLC v. SKULLCANDY, INC. 13 explain[ing] the shortcomings it perceives so that the applicant is properly notified and able to respond.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Board supported its conclusions and then observed that Skullcandy had failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. See, e.g., ’090 Opinion at  (“Patent Owner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the adapter/module of Smith is also not portable . . . . In fact, as described above, Smith explicitly discloses the adapter/module is portable.”). We also conclude that the Board correctly conducted the anticipation analysis. A “claim is anticipated if each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.” Whitserv, LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc., 694 F.3d 10, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). While the elements of a prior art reference “must be arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim . . . , the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Board found, inter alia, that claim 1 was anticipated based on a combination of figures 5 and 6 of Smith. Skullcandy argues that the Board incorrectly combined the portable wireless adapter disclosed in figure 5 with the “several connectors” from figure 6. According to Smith, “[f]igure 5 illustrates how a pair of legacy headphones can be connected to a portable version of the wireless communication adapter or module which can be carried around by . . . the user.” Smith at 3. Smith explains that “[f]igure 6 shows another version of the wireless communication adapter or module which has the capability to allow the connection of several legacy equipment units . . . which can then be used to operate with a legacy amplifier which has a corresponding wireless communication adapter . . . .” Id. 14 CSR, PLC v. SKULLCANDY, INC. The descriptions of figures 5 and 6 must be read in the context of the rest of the disclosure in Smith, which provides that “[t]his invention relates to a reconfigurable wireless communications adapter or module with interchangeable and optionally re-programmable interface circuitry and connector means for use with legacy equipment.” Id. at 1. Thus, beginning with a disclosure that the interface circuitry and connecting means are interchangeable, there is no reason to conclude that the Board erred in combining figures 5 and 6. Each figure is an example of the “reconfigurable wireless communications adapter or module with interchangeable and optionally re-programmable interface circuitry and connector means,” not isolated embodiments of the invention. Id. In other words, Smith discloses a wireless adapter that can communicate wireless signals with a wide range of legacy equipment. As a result, the Board’s finding that figures 5 and 6 may be combined in an anticipatory rejection is supported by substantial evidence. With respect to Skullcandy’s final argument, we agree that the Board did not err in finding that Smith discloses (1) a “portable apparatus”; (2) a “coupling device independent from the audio and two-way communication devices”; and (3) receiving audio signals from “substantially arbitrarily selectable” devices, as required by claim 1. We also conclude that the Board’s finding that Smith discloses a “portable apparatus” is supported by substantial evidence. As the Board found, Smith explicitly discloses a “portable version,” id. at 8, of a “wireless communication adapter or module 2,” id. at 6. See also id. at figs. 4–6. Whether the “home hi-fidelity unit” is portable, as disputed by Skullcandy and discussed by the Board, is irrelevant if the adapter/module of Smith is portable as required by the claim. Thus, the Board’s finding that Smith discloses a “portable apparatus” is supported by substantial evidence. CSR, PLC v. SKULLCANDY, INC. 15 The Board’s finding that Smith discloses a “coupling device independent from the audio and two-way communication devices” is also supported by substantial evidence. As the Board found, although the mobile telephone and compact-disc player of Smith may be connected to the adapter, the mobile telephone and compact-disc player are individually fully operational and there is no indication that either is in any way dependent on the adapter to operate. Similarly, Smith discloses a wireless adapter that can operate by connecting to any number of legacy devices and is capable of transmitting signals regardless whether it is connected to any particular audio or two-way communication device and is therefore also independent. See, e.g., id. at 8. Thus, the Board’s finding that Smith discloses a “coupling device independent from the audio and two-way communication devices” is also supported by substantial evidence. Finally, the Board’s finding that Smith discloses receiving audio signals from “substantially arbitrarily selectable” devices is supported by substantial evidence. As the Board found, Smith discloses a “connector 1c” that may “be changed to that required to interface to the desired legacy equipment.” Id. at 6. Smith therefore discloses that the adapter/module may receive audio signals from a selection of legacy equipment. Nowhere does Smith disclose any limitations on modifications to the interface. As a result, the Board’s finding that Smith discloses receiving audio signals from “substantially arbitrarily selectable” devices is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Board’s findings that claims 1–4 and 6–74 of the ’090 patent are invalid as anticipated or obvious were thus supported by substantial evidence.