Skullcandy, Inc. v. Csr Limited, 678 F. App'x 1018

Skullcandy owns U.S. Patent No. 7,187,948, directed to an apparatus that switches audio from a music player to a phone call when a call is received.
CSR Limited requested inter partes reexamination of the ’948 patent; the examiner declined CSR’s proposed rejections and the Board initially affirmed the examiner.
This court vacated the Board’s decision for unclear construction of the claim term “threshold value” and remanded with instructions to construe that term and reapply it to U.K. Patent Publication 2357663A (Smith).
On remand the Board construed “threshold value” to mean a level or amount at which a signal is detectable or perceived and at which the signal may interrupt another signal, and found Smith anticipates or renders obvious the challenged claims (claims 1–6).
Skullcandy sought rehearing and appealed the Board’s adverse decision, arguing the Board’s constructions were inconsistent and that, under the correct construction, the claims are patentable.
The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding the Board’s construction reasonable and its finding that Smith discloses a threshold value supported by substantial evidence.

Issue	Skullcandy's Argument	CSR/Board's Argument	Held
Proper construction of “threshold value”	Should mean “a certain amount associated with a signal that may trigger an interruption of another signal when that amount is attained.”	Board’s construction includes a level/amount where a signal is detectable/perceivable and may interrupt another signal.	Affirmed Board’s construction as reasonable.
Whether Board gave inconsistent constructions	Board offered three summary statements that conflict; only one is reasonable.	Board provided one ultimate construction after weighing intrinsic/extrinsic evidence.	Rejected Skullcandy’s inconsistency claim; Board gave a single construction.
Whether Smith discloses a “threshold value” under proper construction	Smith does not disclose the claimed threshold as required by Skullcandy’s construction.	Smith teaches stopping music when an incoming call is processed, which evidences a threshold-triggered interruption.	Substantial evidence supports Board’s finding that Smith discloses a threshold value (anticipation/obviousness).
Whether Board’s construction renders claim language redundant or is unsupported by the specification	Construction improperly broad and makes limitation superfluous.	Construction is supported by claim language, specification, dictionaries, and extrinsic evidence.	Board’s construction does not render the limitation superfluous and is supported by the record.

CSR PLC v. Skullcandy, [citation="594 F. App'x 672"] (Fed. Cir. 2014) (vacated Board decision and instructed the Board to construe “threshold value” and apply that construction on remand)