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

Heading: A portable apparatus for integrating a two-

Text: way communication device and an audio delivery device, wherein the portable apparatus is configured in size and shape to be portably carried in ei- ther a hand of a user or an article of clothing 6 CSR, PLC v. SKULLCANDY, INC. during use of the portable apparatus, the appa- ratus comprising: a first electrical connector configured to receive a first audio signal from a substantially arbitrarily selectable audio delivery device; a second electrical connector configured to receive a second audio signal from a substantially arbi- trarily selectable two-way communication device; a coupling device independent from the audio and two-way communication devices, the coupling de- vice connected to receive the first and second au- dio signals, and to transmit a third audio signal comprising at least one of the first or second audio signals; and an acoustic device adapted to convert the third audio signal to an acoustic wave having an audio range corresponding to a hearing range of a user; wherein: the coupling device comprises at least two physi- cally separate devices; and the at least two physically separate devices com- prise means for enabling wireless communication between the at least two physically separate de- vices. ’090 patent col. 6 ll. 25–50 (emphases added). Claim 5, depending from claim 1, further requires “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.” Id. col. 6 l. 66–col. 7 l. 2. In June 2010, CSR filed a request for inter partes reexamination of the ’090 patent. CSR argued that eleven references, including Smith, raised substantial new CSR, PLC v. SKULLCANDY, INC. 7 questions of patentability under §§ 102 and 103. The PTO granted CSR’s request, but the examiner found that only Smith raised a substantial new question of patentability. The examiner, however, ultimately declined to adopt the proposed rejections of claims 1–74 as anticipated or obvious. CSR appealed to the Board. On appeal, the Board affirmed the examiner’s decision not to adopt the proposed rejection of claim 5, but the Board reversed the examiner with respect to claims 1–4 and 6–74. ’948 Opinion at . With regard to claim 5, the Board found that Smith fails to disclose that the “connector 1c” is “physically detached from the coupling device and wirelessly communicates with the coupling device” as required by claim 5. Id. at . Instead, the Board found that the “‘connector 1c’ of Smith appears to be connected to (and not detached from) the adapter or module.” Id. The Board also reversed the examiner and adopted the proposed rejection of independent claim 1. Id. at – 6. The Board found 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. Id. First, the Board found that the coupling device in Smith was “independent” from the audio and two-way communication devices as required by claim 1. Id. at . According to the Board, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that both the phone and compactdisc player disclosed in Smith “would be individually fully operational” irrespective of whether the adapter of Smith was connected. Id. Second, the Board found that Smith discloses a “portable apparatus” as required by claim 1. Id. The Board found that Smith discloses a “portable apparatus” because it discloses a “portable version” of a “wireless communica- 8 CSR, PLC v. SKULLCANDY, INC. tion adapter or module 2.” Id. In addressing Skullcandy’s argument that the “hi-fidelity unit” of Smith is not portable, the Board also found that the ’090 patent did not provide an explicit definition of “portable,” and one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood the term ‘portable’ to indicate that the component was capable of being transported.” Id. Reasoning that the home hifidelity unit in Smith is a “home” unit, the Board found that the unit must have been transported into the home and thus must be “portable.” Id. The Board reasoned, however, that irrespective of whether the hi-fidelity unit was portable, Smith still explicitly discloses a portable adapter/module. Id. at . Finally, the Board found that Smith discloses a “substantially arbitrarily selectable two-way communication device” as required by claim 1. Id. at . According to the Board, Smith discloses a “‘connector 1c’ (see, e.g., p. 6, l. 16) that may ‘be changed to that required to interface to the desired legacy equipment’ (p. 6 ll. 20–21).” Id. As a result, because the interface in Smith can be modified to accommodate different devices, the Board found that Smith discloses “a substantially arbitrarily selectable twoway communication device.” Id. The Board thus reversed the examiner with respect to claim 1. Id. at . Both parties moved for a rehearing, and in a subsequent decision denying the request in part, the Board confirmed its earlier reasoning as to the rejections relevant to this appeal. CSR timely appealed and Skullcandy timely cross- appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).