Opinion ID: 2761163
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A portable and wireless apparatus for wire-

Text: lessly integrating a two-way communication de- vice and an audio delivery device, wherein the portable and wireless apparatus is configured in size and shape to be portably carried in either a hand of a user or an article of clothing during use of the portable and wireless apparatus, the portable and wireless apparatus comprising: means for wirelessly receiving a first audio signal from a substantially arbitrarily selectable audio delivery device; means for wirelessly receiving a second audio signal from a substantially arbitrarily selectable twoway communication device; a coupling device independent from the audio and two-way communication devices, wherein the sec- ond audio signal is characterized by a threshold value, the second audio signal is accorded priority relative to the first audio signal, and the second audio signal interrupts the first audio signal upon 4 CSR, PLC v. SKULLCANDY, INC. reaching the threshold value, the coupling device comprising said means for receiving said first and second audio signals, said coupling means further comprising: means for transmitting a third audio signal com- prising at least one of the first or second audio signals to an acoustic device adapted to convert the third acoustic wave to an audio range corre- sponding to a hearing range of a user. Id. col. 6 l. 41–col. 7 l. 2 (emphasis added). Independent claim 4 of the ’948 patent, added during reexamination, is similar to claim 1 and requires that the audio delivery device and the two-way communication device be “configured in size and shape to be portably carried in either a hand of a user or an article of clothing,” and that the coupling device be “portable with the audio and two-way communication devices by the same user during use of the coupling device.” J.A. 981. In February 2010, CSR filed a request for inter partes reexamination of the ’948 patent. CSR argued that four references, including U.K. Patent Publication 2357663A of Smith (“Smith”), raised substantial new questions of patentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The PTO granted CSR’s request, but the examiner declined to adopt the proposed rejections of claims 1–6 as anticipated, obvious, or lacking adequate written description. CSR appealed to the Board. On appeal by CSR, the Board affirmed the examiner’s decision not to adopt the rejections of claims 1–6. ’948 Opinion at . CSR argued that claims 4–6 recite a coupling device that is “portable with the audio and twoway communication devices by the same user during use of the coupling device,” but that such a limitation lacks an adequate written description. Id. at  (emphases in original). But, citing figures 2 and 8 of the specification, the Board declined to adopt the written description rejecCSR, PLC v. SKULLCANDY, INC. 5 tion of claims 4–6. Id. The Board explained that the specification “discloses an ‘audio device’ and a ‘two-way communication device’ in communication with a ‘coupling device’ that can ‘route the signals . . . to an acoustic device, such as headphones.’” Id. The Board found that the audio device and two-way communication device are both “portable” devices because the specification discloses a “mobile phone” and “a portable MP3 or CD player,” and both devices further communicate with the coupling device using wireless technology. Id. (citing ’948 patent col. 3. l. 35; id. col. 3 ll. 36–37). The Board reasoned that “the Specification discloses the undisputed claim features of a portable audio device and a portable two-way communication device communicating wirelessly with a coupling device, the audio and two-way communication device being used by a user during use of the coupling device.” Id. In defense of its patent, Skullcandy had also argued that the Smith prior art fails to disclose that “the second audio signal interrupts the first audio signal upon reaching the threshold value,” as required by claim 1. Id. at . The Board found that, although Smith discloses stopping an audio signal in response to receiving a call, Smith fails to disclose a “threshold value.” Id. at . The Board thus affirmed the examiner’s decision not to adopt the proposed rejections of claims 1–6. Id. CSR filed a request for rehearing, which the Board denied.