Opinion ID: 2761163
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: CSR’s Appeal

Text: CSR also argues that the Board erred in finding that claim 5 of the ’090 patent is not anticipated by Smith. † The Board also based its refusal to reject dependent claims 2–3 and 5–6 on the same reasoning, and Skullcandy does not argue that the dependent claims would not have been obvious even if claims 1 and 4 were anticipated. CSR, PLC v. SKULLCANDY, INC. 11 According to CSR, the Board’s decision lacks substantial evidence because the Board erred by considering the wrong structure in Smith. CSR contends that the Board found that the connector in Smith “appears to be connected to (and not detached from) the adapter or module.” Appellant’s Br. 31 (emphasis in original). CSR maintains that claim 5 requires that the connector in Smith be detached from the coupling device, not the adapter or module, and that the Board thus failed to note that the relevant coupling device disclosed in Smith is the device formed by the wireless communication adapter for the headphones and the audio device. Skullcandy responds that to satisfy claim 5, the first or second electrical connectors disclosed in Smith would have to be “physically detached from the coupling device.” Skullcandy argues that, instead, Smith discloses that “a user’s legacy headphones are connected to a wireless communication adapter or module via connector 1c, which ‘is used to directly connect the wireless communication adapter or module 2 to the connector on the legacy equipment.’” Cross-Appellant’s Br. 41 (emphasis omitted). We agree with Skullcandy that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claim 5 of the ’090 patent is not anticipated by Smith. Claim 5 contains the limitation “wherein at least one of the first or second electrical connectors is physically detached from the coupling device and wirelessly communicates with the coupling device.” As the Board found, Smith discloses that the “wireless communication adapter or module 2” communicates with devices through a “connector 1c.” Smith at 6; id. at figs. 4–6. Smith discloses that the connector 1c is physically connected to the adapter/module, e.g., id. at fig. 4, which is the relevant coupling device, and not “physically detached from the coupling device,” as required by claim 5. Thus, substantial evi12 CSR, PLC v. SKULLCANDY, INC. dence supports the Board’s finding that Smith does not anticipate claim 5 of the ’090 patent.