Opinion ID: 2774486
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rejection of Claims 1-5

Text: Independent claim 1 recites an electronic device including a memory for storing digital images, a display for displaying the images, and an input device for receiving a request for communication. The device includes a housing that stores first and second wireless communication modules. The first wireless communication module is a cellular communication module, and the second wireless communication module is a “low power high-speed” communication module. The examiner rejected claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5 as obvious over the combination of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,762,791 (Schuetzle), 6,223,190 (Aihara), and 7,173,651 (Knowles). The central dispute is whether Schuetzle discloses a second wireless communication module. Schuetzle discloses a system where a camera 30 can send image information to a computer system 20 via a wireless communication interface, via a tethered interface, and/or by inserting a removable memory card 35 into system 20. Schuetzle col. 1 ll. 20-30, col. 4 ll. 16-25, Fig. 1 (below). IN RE IMES 3 The examiner found that Schuetzle’s wireless communication interface in Figure 1 discloses the first wireless communications module and that Schuetzle’s removable memory card 35 discloses the second wireless communications module. The examiner concluded that removable memory card 35 was “wireless” because to communicate information to computer system 20, it “must be removed from [camera] 30 and inserted into the computer system 20. In other words, no wire is utilized.” J.A. 175 (emphasis added). The examiner thus construed “wireless” as including communication along the metal contacts of the removable memory card and the computer system when the memory card is inserted into the computer. According to the examiner, the metal contacts are not a wire. The Board affirmed the rejection, noting that Schuetzle’s “wireless data communication transfer from a removable media card” discloses a “wireless communication module.” We review the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo. In re Kotzab, 4 IN RE IMES 217 F.3d 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In this case, we review the Board’s claim construction de novo. 1 We hold that the Board erred in concluding that Schuetzle’s removable memory card 35 discloses the claimed second wireless communication module. Whether removable memory card 35 is a wireless communication module turns on the construction of the term “wireless.” The Patent Office’s construction of “wireless” to include communications along metal contacts of the removable memory card and the computer system is inconsistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification. The construction of “wireless” is straightforward. The ’423 application expressly and unambiguously defines wireless: “[w]ireless refers to a communications, monitoring, or control system[] in which electromagnetic or acoustic waves carry a signal through atmospheric space rather than along a wire.” ’423 application p. 46 l. 26 - p. 47 l. 1. The ’423 application consistently uses the term “wireless” to refer to methods and devices that carry waves through atmospheric space, such as Bluetooth and various cellular protocols. E.g., id. p. 15 l. 20 - p. 16 l. 29, 46 ll. 20-25. The metal contacts of a removable memory card do not carry a signal through atmospheric space using electromagnetic or acoustic waves, and thus removable memory card 35 is not a wireless communication module under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term in view of the specification. For the first time on appeal, the Patent Office ad- vances an additional theory for why removable card 35 1 Nothing in this case implicates the deference to fact findings contemplated by the recent decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841-42 (2015). IN RE IMES 5 discloses the second wireless communications module. Under this new theory, the Patent Office argues that memory 34 and removable card 35 can each communicate their data wirelessly through camera 30’s wireless communication interface, such that memory 34 coupled with the wireless communication interface forms a first wireless communication module and removable card 35 coupled with the same wireless communication interface forms a second wireless communication module. This rationale was not articulated by the examiner or the Board, and we will not consider it for the first time on appeal. Even if the Board had used this reasoning below, it would have constituted a new ground of rejection because it relies on “new facts and rationales not previously raised to the applicant by the examiner.” In re Leithem, 661 F.3d 1316, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We therefore reverse the rejection of claims 1-5 without considering the Patent Office’s new rationale articulated for the first time on appeal.