Andrea Electronics (ANDR)

[the submariner]

Decision Highlights...that give a .03 stock hope over Apple,lol.

ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v. APPLE INC. 12We also reject Apple’s reliance on the fact that, in its original decision, the Board found claim 25 unpatentable over the combination of Hirsch and Martin and that An-drea did not appeal the finding. Claim 25 recites an adap-tive array comprising a plurality of microphones for receiving an audio signal. ’345 patent col. 11 ll. 5–7. In the context of claim 25, Apple presented why a skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate “conventional adaptive microphone arrays” from Martin into Hirsch, and the Board found that Andrea provided no evidence or argu-ment to rebut Apple’s contentions. Prior Board Decision, at *7. However, any finding of motivation for claim 25 re-garding the physical array of microphones is irrelevant to whether a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Martin’s algorithm into Hirsch’s algorithm. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s deci-sion finding that Martin discloses the limitations of claim 9 of the ’345 patent but vacate the Board’s final written de-cision and remand for further findings on the motivation to combine Hirsch and Martin with respect to claims 6–9. AFFIRMED IN PART, AND VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART