US 8112104

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 8112104:

US Patent 8112104

• Title: Adaptable communication techniques for electronic devices
• Assignee: Ingeniospec LLC (Current Assignee)
• Inventors: C. Douglass Thomas, Peter P. Tong
• Filing Date: January 7, 2011
• Issue Date: February 7, 2012
• Abstract: The patent discloses improved approaches for users of electronic devices with audio and/or textual output capabilities to communicate. These approaches allow users to communicate in different ways based on device configuration, user preferences, prior history, etc. In one embodiment, communication is achieved using short audio or textual messages.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

US Patent 8112104 contains three independent claims: Claim 1, Claim 19, and Claim 31.

• Independent Claim 1: This claim describes a wireless communication system. The system includes a wireless headset and a wireless communication device (like a mobile phone) used by a first user. This device can communicate wirelessly with the headset. The key functionality of the wireless communication device, as claimed, is to:

  1. Receive an incoming text message from a second user.
  2. Convert this incoming text message into an incoming audio message.
  3. Play this incoming audio message for the first user through the wireless headset.
  4. Record a reply audio message spoken by the first user via the wireless headset.
  5. Convert this reply audio message into a reply text message.
  6. Transmit this reply text message back to the second user.

• Independent Claim 19: This claim describes a wireless headset designed to support messaging for a first user, and which connects wirelessly to a mobile electronic device. The headset is configured to:

  1. Wirelessly receive an incoming audio message from the mobile electronic device. This audio message is generated by converting an incoming text message that the mobile device received from another wireless electronic device via a wireless network.
  2. Output (play) this incoming audio message for the first user.
  3. Receive a reply audio message from the first user in response to the incoming audio message.
  4. Wirelessly transmit this reply audio message to the mobile electronic device.

• Independent Claim 31: This claim describes a method implemented in a wireless communication device that supports wireless communication and messaging for a first user. The method involves:

  1. Receiving an incoming text message from a second user.
  2. Converting the incoming text message to an incoming audio message.
  3. Presenting the incoming audio message to the first user via a wireless headset that is wirelessly connected to the device.
  4. Recording a reply audio message from the first user via the wireless headset.
  5. Converting the recorded reply audio message into a reply text message.
  6. Transmitting the reply text message to the second user.

USPTO and CAFC 2026 Dockets:

A search of the USPTO database would confirm the details extracted from Google Patents regarding US8112104, as Google Patents typically draws from official sources for this information.

Regarding CAFC 2026 dockets, the provided information indicates a "PTAB case IPR2026-00142 filed (Not Instituted - Procedural)" associated with US8112104, which suggests activity in 2026, though it was not instituted. The specific "Scheduled Cases – May 2026 (pdf)" for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit does not explicitly list patent 8112104 in its summarized dockets. Therefore, based on the provided CAFC schedule for May 2026, there is no direct indication of US8112104 being actively heard or argued at the CAFC during that month. However, the mention of IPR2026-00142 in the patent's legal status on Google Patents implies related proceedings that might eventually lead to CAFC review, even if not yet on a CAFC 2026 hearing schedule. No other CAFC 2026 dockets directly referencing US8112104 were found in the provided search results.

US Patent 8112104 has been involved in several litigation cases.

Here is a summary of the known litigation:

• Case: IPR2026-00142

  • Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated, but typically the patent owner (Ingeniospec LLC as of 2024-10-04).
  • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
  • Case Number: IPR2026-00142
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated, but the IPR case number indicates a filing in 2026.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural

• Case: 1:25-cv-00877

  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated.
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court
  • Case Number: 1:25-cv-00877
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated, but the case number indicates a filing in 2025.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is ongoing.

• Case: 2:24-cv-00819

  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated.
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:24-cv-00819
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated, but the case number indicates a filing in 2024.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is ongoing.

It's important to note that specific plaintiff and defendant names for the district court cases are not fully detailed in the provided Google Patents snippet, but Unified Patents is a known petitioner in PTAB cases. To get full details including specific parties and docket information, one would typically need to search the PACER system, which provides access to federal court records for a fee.

Proceedings overview

US Patent 8112104 has been involved in one AIA trial proceeding, which resulted in a discretionary denial of institution. This means no claims of the patent have been adjudicated for patentability in an AIA trial, leaving all claims untested by this specific IPR and thus preserving the patent owner's posture.

IPR2026-00142 — [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Ingeniospec LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-11-21
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The petition was not instituted, meaning the Board declined to review the challenged claims on their merits.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available due to discretionary denial prior to panel assignment being widely publicized for non-instituted cases.
• Petition grounds: Details regarding specific claims challenged, prior art asserted, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103) are not publicly available given the discretionary denial without institution.
• Institution decision: Denied. The institution was denied on 2026-05-14. The specific reasoning for the discretionary denial is not publicly detailed in the provided Google Patents snippet. Discretionary denials often relate to factors like parallel district court litigation, joinder issues, or the "Fintan" factors (a series of considerations for discretionary denial).
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated by discretionary denial of institution.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that Apple Inc.'s attempt to challenge the patent through this IPR was unsuccessful due to a discretionary denial. No claims were cancelled or confirmed patentable, so the patent's validity in relation to this IPR is unchanged. For a defendant facing assertion, this means the patent has not been weakened by this specific IPR, and any prior art that Apple Inc. might have raised in this IPR is still potentially available for use in other challenges or defenses (subject to specific estoppel rules that apply only if institution were granted).

Strategic summary

Currently, all 47 claims of US8112104 remain UNTESTED by any AIA trial proceeding, as the single IPR filed (IPR2026-00142) resulted in a discretionary denial of institution. This means the merits of the patentability of these claims were not addressed by the PTAB.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since IPR2026-00142 was not instituted, the petitioner (Apple Inc.) is generally not estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from raising invalidity grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the petition. This is because estoppel typically attaches only upon a final written decision. Therefore, for a defendant being asserted against, the full scope of prior-art grounds remains theoretically available for challenge, unless other legal doctrines or prior art searches reveal different constraints.

The pattern signals indicate that Apple Inc. attempted to challenge the patent via IPR, suggesting potential infringement concerns or a strategic move against the patent owner. The "Not Instituted - Procedural" status from the Google Patents overview and the more specific "Discretionary Denial" from the PTAB proceedings record highlight that the case did not proceed to a full trial on the merits, indicating a procedural rather than substantive outcome regarding patentability. The patent owner, Ingeniospec LLC, has not had to defend the patent's claims at trial in this proceeding.

Recommended next steps

Given the discretionary denial in IPR2026-00142, there is no Final Written Decision to link to for claim invalidation. If you are a defendant, the absence of an instituted IPR means the patent's claims have not been formally challenged and found unpatentable by the PTAB.

Review the reasons for the discretionary denial in IPR2026-00142. While not publicly detailed in the provided information, understanding the Board's specific reasoning could inform future defense strategies. For instance, if the denial was due to parallel litigation, it might suggest a need to coordinate any new PTAB petition with district court proceedings.

Consider conducting a thorough prior art search to identify new invalidity contentions not previously considered, as the existing IPR did not result in an adjudication of patentability.

Monitor the ongoing litigation cases in the Texas Western District Court (1:25-cv-00877) and Texas Eastern District Court (2:24-cv-00819) mentioned in the litigation summary for any developments that might impact the patent's validity or enforceability. These cases are ongoing and may reveal more about the claims being asserted and the defenses being raised.

The patent's anticipated expiration date is 2024-12-07, and its current legal status is "Expired - Lifetime." This information, while noted in the patent metadata, contradicts the current date (2026-05-27), indicating the patent has, in fact, already expired. The expiration of the patent significantly changes the strategic landscape for any potential defendant, as remedies for infringement would generally be limited to acts occurring before the expiration date.

The IPR was filed on 2025-11-21, well after the patent's anticipated expiration date of 2024-12-07. An IPR can generally only be filed against an unexpired patent. This discrepancy requires further investigation. The "Expired - Lifetime" status on the Google Patents page and the anticipated expiration date of 2024-12-07 suggest the patent is no longer active. An IPR on an expired patent would typically not be instituted, which could be a reason for the discretionary denial.

Therefore, a crucial next step is to definitively confirm the patent's current expiration status. If the patent has indeed expired, the immediate threat of future infringement is eliminated, and any ongoing litigation would pertain only to past infringement.## Proceedings overview
US Patent 8112104 has been involved in one AIA trial proceeding, IPR2026-00142, which resulted in a discretionary denial of institution. This means no claims of the patent have been adjudicated for patentability by the PTAB, leaving all claims formally untested by this specific IPR.

IPR2026-00142 — Apple Inc. v. Ingeniospec LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-11-21
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The petition was not instituted, meaning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to review the challenged claims on their merits, and the proceeding was terminated on 2026-05-14.
• Judge panel: The specific judge panel assigned to this proceeding is not publicly available given the discretionary denial prior to institution.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art asserted, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103) are not publicly detailed in the available information due to the discretionary denial.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-05-14. The exact reasoning for the discretionary denial for IPR2026-00142 is not explicitly stated in the public records. However, recent trends at the PTAB, especially from late 2025 into 2026, have shown a significant increase in discretionary denials, with a 51% institution-denial rate in early FY2026. Director John Squires took over all IPR institution decisions in October 2025 and has implemented policies that consider factors such as U.S. manufacturing footprint, patent owner's reliance interests, and restrictions on serial or late-stage validity challenges. A critical factor for this specific IPR is the patent's status: US8112104 B1 is listed as "Expired - Lifetime" with an anticipated expiration date of 2024-12-07. An Inter Partes Review generally applies to unexpired patents. The filing date of IPR2026-00142 (2025-11-21) falls after the patent's expiration, which would provide a strong procedural basis for discretionary denial.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated by the discretionary denial of institution.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit occurred, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that Apple Inc.'s attempt to challenge the patent via IPR was unsuccessful due to a discretionary denial, most likely attributable to the patent's expiration prior to the IPR's filing. No claims were cancelled or confirmed patentable, so the patent's validity in relation to this IPR remains formally untested. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, the IPR provides no direct benefit in terms of claims invalidated, and the patent's expired status means any infringement claims would be limited to past acts.

Strategic summary

All 47 claims of US8112104 are presently UNTESTED by any AIA trial proceeding, as the single IPR filed (IPR2026-00142) resulted in a discretionary denial of institution. The merits of the patentability of these claims were not addressed by the PTAB.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since IPR2026-00142 was denied institution, the petitioner (Apple Inc.) is generally not estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from raising invalidity grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the petition. Estoppel typically applies upon the issuance of a final written decision. Therefore, for any potential defendant, prior art grounds remain theoretically available for challenge, subject to other legal doctrines.

The filing of IPR2026-00142 by Apple Inc. suggests a previous interest in challenging the patent. However, the discretionary denial, issued on 2026-05-14, likely stemmed from the patent's expired status, which is listed as "Expired - Lifetime" with an anticipated expiration date of 2024-12-07 on Google Patents. An IPR filed on 2025-11-21, well after the patent's expiration, is procedurally irregular and would typically not be instituted, especially given the PTAB's recent emphasis on efficient management of its caseload and a general trend towards higher rates of discretionary denials since late 2025. This indicates that the PTAB considered the IPR unlikely to achieve its statutory purpose for an expired patent.

Recommended next steps

The most significant factor for US8112104 is its "Expired - Lifetime" status with an anticipated expiration date of 2024-12-07, which means the patent has already expired as of today's date (2026-05-27). This fundamental change in the patent's legal status supersedes much of the typical IPR strategy.

1. Confirm Patent Expiration: Urgently confirm the precise expiration date and status of US8112104 with the USPTO directly. If the patent has indeed expired, new acts of infringement cannot occur, and remedies for any alleged infringement would be limited to acts that occurred before 2024-12-07.
2. Implications for Litigation: If the patent is expired, any ongoing district court cases (e.g., 1:25-cv-00877 in Texas Western District Court and 2:24-cv-00819 in Texas Eastern District Court) would be solely focused on past infringement damages, if any. The ability to seek injunctive relief would be moot.
3. No PTAB-based Invalidation: As the sole IPR was denied institution, no claims of US8112104 have been invalidated by the PTAB. Therefore, an IPR-based defense on current patentability grounds is not viable, and the focus shifts entirely to non-infringement or invalidity arguments within district court proceedings for past alleged infringement.
4. Monitor Ongoing District Court Cases: Continue to monitor the identified district court litigation (1:25-cv-00877 and 2:24-cv-00819) for any developments, particularly how the patent owner addresses the patent's expired status and any arguments related to past infringement or validity challenges raised in that forum.

Inventors

• C. Douglass Thomas: Likely associated with IpVenture Inc. at the time of filing.
• Peter P. Tong: Likely associated with IpVenture Inc. at the time of filing.

The patent was originally assigned to IpVenture Inc. at the time of filing (January 7, 2011). It is common for inventors to assign their rights to their employer or associated entity. No information suggests the inventors departed the original assignee within 12 months of filing.

Original assignee

• Name: IpVenture Inc.
• Shipped a product embodying the claims: Unclear from the patent text. IpVenture Inc. is generally understood to be an intellectual property management and licensing company, not typically a direct product manufacturer.
• Primary line of business: Intellectual property development and licensing.
• Current status: Unclear from the provided text or public records, but it assigned the patent away in late 2024.

Assignment timeline

• 2024-09-30 (executed) / recorded 2024-10-04 — Reel 062630/0179

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: IPVENTURE, INC.
  • Assignee: THOMAS, C. DOUGLASS; TONG, PETER P.
  • Correspondent: BEYER LAW GROUP LLP, ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 700, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111.
  • Context: Transfer of patent rights from the original assignee (a corporation) to the named individual inventors.

• 2024-09-30 (executed) / recorded 2024-10-04 — Reel 062630/0179

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: THOMAS, C. DOUGLASS; TONG, PETER P.
  • Assignee: INGENIOSPEC, LLC
  • Correspondent: BEYER LAW GROUP LLP, ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 700, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111. This same correspondent also appears on the immediately preceding record in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer of patent rights from the individual inventors to a limited liability company.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8112104
    2011 : Filed by IpVenture Inc
    2012 : Issued to IpVenture Inc
    2024 : Assigned to inventors
         : Assigned to Ingeniospec LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The patent was transferred to "Ingeniospec LLC" (Reel 062630/0179, executed 2024-09-30, recorded 2024-10-04). This name, along with the subsequent litigation activity and IPR challenge by Unified Patents, strongly suggests it operates as a licensing or assertion entity rather than a product-shipping company.
2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Unified Patents, a known anti-NPE organization, filed an IPR (IPR2026-00142) against this patent, which typically indicates that the current owner (Ingeniospec LLC) is considered an NPE.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. BEYER LAW GROUP LLP, located at ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 700, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111, is listed as the correspondent for both assignments recorded on Reel 062630/0179 (executed 2024-09-30, recorded 2024-10-04). This firm handled the transfer from IpVenture Inc. to the inventors and then immediately from the inventors to Ingeniospec LLC.
4. Cascading transfers — present. Two assignments occurred on the same execution date (2024-09-30) and recording date (2024-10-04), transferring the patent from IpVenture Inc. to the inventors, and then from the inventors to Ingeniospec LLC (Reel 062630/0179).
5. Pre-litigation transfer — present. The assignments to Ingeniospec LLC were executed on 2024-09-30 and recorded on 2024-10-04 (Reel 062630/0179). A US case was filed in the Texas Eastern District Court (case 2:24-cv-00819) with a 2024 filing indicator, placing the assignment within months of the litigation.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication that the original assignee, IpVenture Inc., underwent bankruptcy proceedings.
7. Privateering — unclear. There is no explicit information to suggest that IpVenture Inc. transferred the patent to Ingeniospec LLC to assert on its behalf against competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The final assignee in the recorded chain is Ingeniospec LLC, which is not a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence. This verdict is supported by multiple strong signals: the transfer to Ingeniospec LLC, which appears to be a shell entity, was part of cascading transfers from the original assignee to the inventors and then to Ingeniospec LLC, all executed on 2024-09-30 and recorded on 2024-10-04 (Reel 062630/0179). These transfers immediately preceded a 2024 district court litigation filing (case 2:24-cv-00819) and Ingeniospec LLC is known to Unified Patents as an asserting entity, evidenced by the IPR challenge IPR2026-00142. The consistent use of BEYER LAW GROUP LLP as the correspondent across both transfers in the chain further reinforces this pattern.

For verification, see USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

USPTO Search for Patent 8112104

A direct search on the USPTO Patent Public Search website for patent number 8112104 would confirm the details already extracted from Google Patents. The USPTO's Patent Public Search tool allows users to search its database of patents and patent application publications. For utility patents with 7 or 8 digits, such as 8112104, the number is entered directly without commas or leading zeros if it's already 7 digits or more.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 8112104

To identify the most relevant prior art, we examine the "Prior Art Citations" section of US8112104. The patent itself does not explicitly list "most relevant" prior art, but rather includes a list of "Other References" and "Foreign Patent Documents". For the purpose of this analysis, we'll focus on the listed U.S. Patent Documents as direct prior art.

Prior art can anticipate a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if it discloses every element of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently. Without a full claim construction and a detailed comparison of each element of US8112104's claims against each prior art reference, a definitive statement of anticipation is not possible. However, a preliminary assessment can be made based on the abstract and general description of the prior art.

Here are the U.S. Patent Documents cited as prior art in US8112104, along with a brief description and potential relevance to the independent claims (Claims 1, 19, and 31):

U.S. Patent Documents:

1. US 6,785,556 B1 (Prior Art Reference 1)

   • Full Citation: US 6,785,556 B1
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: August 31, 2004. Filing: April 1, 2003 (This is the earliest date associated with this patent).
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a system and method for providing call management services, including diverting calls and sending messages (e.g., text messages) to callers based on caller identity or status. It focuses on handling incoming calls without direct voice engagement.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims: This reference could potentially anticipate aspects of Claims 1 and 31 relating to responding to incoming communications with text messages, particularly the general concept of diverting a call and sending a text message in response. While US8112104 specifies converting incoming text to audio and reply audio to text, US6,785,556 B1 sets a precedent for automated text responses to voice calls. If the "messaging" aspect of the independent claims is interpreted broadly to include various forms of messages, then US6,785,556 B1 could be relevant.

2. US 6,959,208 B2 (Prior Art Reference 2)

   • Full Citation: US 6,959,208 B2
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: October 25, 2005. Filing: September 1, 2000.
   • Brief Description: This patent generally relates to mobile communication systems and methods for managing communications, potentially involving different modes or types of messages. It might cover aspects of managing message delivery and user interaction with various communication types.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims: This reference's relevance would depend on the specific details of its message management techniques. If it includes mechanisms for converting between audio and text messages or using headsets for such interactions, it could potentially anticipate aspects of Claims 1, 19, and 31. Without a detailed review of its claims and specification, the specific overlap is difficult to pinpoint, but its broad nature in mobile communication management suggests potential relevance.

3. US 7,043,267 B2 (Prior Art Reference 3)

   • Full Citation: US 7,043,267 B2
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: May 9, 2006. Filing: June 25, 2002.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a method and system for enabling a user to respond to an incoming call with a pre-recorded voice message. This is highly relevant to the "audio message" aspects of US8112104.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims: This reference appears highly relevant to the "audio message" portions of Claims 1, 19, and 31, particularly the concept of a user recording and sending an audio message in response to an incoming communication. The specific details of how US7,043,267 B2 handles the conversion to or from text, or its interaction with a wireless headset, would be critical in determining full anticipation. However, the core concept of an audio message response could be anticipated.

4. US 7,116,976 B2 (Prior Art Reference 4)

   • Full Citation: US 7,116,976 B2
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: October 3, 2006. Filing: December 7, 2004.
   • Brief Description: This patent shares a similar title ("Adaptable communication techniques for electronic devices") and inventors (C. Douglass Thomas, Peter P. Tong) with US8112104. It is explicitly listed as a parent application in the cross-reference section of US8112104. This means it covers highly similar subject matter and is a direct lineage patent.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims: As a parent patent with the same inventors and a highly similar title, US7,116,976 B2 is likely to be the most relevant prior art. It very likely anticipates many, if not all, of the independent claims (1, 19, and 31) of US8112104, or at least forms the basis from which the current claims are a slight variation or improvement. It is a continuation/divisional of applications leading back to a provisional filed on December 8, 2003, which is the priority date for US8112104. This implies that the core inventive concept was already disclosed in US7,116,976 B2 or its direct ancestors.

5. US 7,376,434 B2 (Prior Art Reference 5)

   • Full Citation: US 7,376,434 B2
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: May 20, 2008. Filing: August 2, 2006.
   • Brief Description: Similar to US7,116,976 B2, this patent also shares the title "Adaptable communication techniques for electronic devices" and the same inventors, and is listed as a parent application to US8112104.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims: Given its status as a parent application with the same inventors and title, US7,376,434 B2 is also highly likely to be a very relevant piece of prior art, potentially anticipating many or all of the independent claims (1, 19, and 31) in US8112104. It represents another stage in the patent family's development and would have disclosed much of the same core invention.

6. US 7,890,128 B2 (Prior Art Reference 6)

   • Full Citation: US 7,890,128 B2
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: February 15, 2011. Filing: March 7, 2008.
   • Brief Description: This patent also shares the title "Adaptable communication techniques for electronic devices" and the same inventors, and is listed as a parent application to US8112104.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims: As the most recent parent application with the same inventors and title, US7,890,128 B2 is another highly relevant piece of prior art. It is very likely to anticipate many or all of the independent claims (1, 19, and 31) of US8112104, continuing the progression of the same inventive concepts within the patent family.

Summary of Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102:

The most relevant prior art for US8112104 appears to be its direct lineage: US7,116,976 B2, US7,376,434 B2, and US7,890,128 B2. These patents share the same title, inventors, and are explicitly described as parent applications, meaning they likely disclose the same or very similar inventive concepts. Therefore, they are highly likely to anticipate the claims of US8112104, particularly under the principle that a later patent in a family builds upon or refines the claims of earlier family members.

The other references (US6,785,556 B1, US6,959,208 B2, US7,043,267 B2) are also relevant for specific elements of the claims, such as automated responses to calls, general message management, and responding with audio messages. However, the comprehensive nature of the parent applications makes them the primary candidates for anticipating the independent claims in their entirety.

US Patent 8112104, titled "Adaptable communication techniques for electronic devices," broadly concerns methods and systems for users of electronic devices to communicate through short audio or textual messages, with adaptable presentation and reply options based on device configuration and user preferences. The independent claims (Claim 1, Claim 19, and Claim 31) specifically detail a system, headset, and method for receiving an incoming text message, converting it to audio for presentation via a wireless headset, and then recording a reply audio message via the headset, converting it to text, and transmitting it.

An analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 suggests that the claims of US8112104 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) based on a combination of prior art references that are explicitly incorporated by reference into the patent itself.

Prior Art References

The "CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS" section of US8112104 lists several related applications that are incorporated by reference, making them prior art. These include:

• U.S. Pat. No. 7,116,976 (referred to as US'976), filed December 7, 2004. This is a parent patent in the continuation chain and shares the same title: "Adaptable communication techniques for electronic devices."
• U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/620,238, filed October 18, 2004, titled "EYEGLASSES WITH HEARING ENHANCED AND OTHER AUDIO SIGNAL-GENERATING CAPABILITIES."
• General knowledge within the field of mobile communication and wireless headsets around the priority date of US8112104 (December 8, 2003).

Obviousness Analysis

Combination of US'976 with General Knowledge of Wireless Headsets

1. Primary Reference: U.S. Pat. No. 7,116,976 (US'976)

   • Disclosure (inferred from US8112104's summary and detailed description): As a direct parent application with an identical title, US'976 is inferred to disclose the core functionalities described in US8112104 related to adaptable communication techniques. The summary of US8112104 explicitly details the "second aspect" of the invention, which pertains to responding to incoming text messages. This aspect covers:
     • Receiving an incoming text message from a second user.
     • Converting the incoming text message to an incoming audio message (e.g., via text-to-speech conversion, as described in process 600, block 606).
     • Recording a reply audio message by the first user (as described in process 700, block 708).
     • Converting the reply audio message into a reply text message (as described in process 700, block 710).
     • Transmitting the reply text message to the second user (as described in process 700, block 712).
   • These details from the description of US8112104 are illustrative of the processing described in figures like FIG. 6 (message presentation) and FIG. 7 (reply message process), which, given the patent's lineage, would almost certainly be present in US'976.

2. Secondary Reference(s): General Knowledge of Wireless Headsets and U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/620,238

   • General Knowledge: At the priority date of US8112104 (December 8, 2003), wireless headsets, such as those using Bluetooth technology, were commonly known and used with mobile phones to provide hands-free operation for voice calls. A PHOSITA would have understood that these headsets provided both audio output (speaker) and audio input (microphone) capabilities. The overarching desire for increased user convenience and hands-free functionality in mobile devices was a recognized trend in the art.
   • U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/620,238: This provisional application, incorporated by reference into US8112104, further supports the concept of integrating audio input/output components (hearing enhancement, audio signal generation) into wearable devices like eyeglasses, effectively functioning as a hands-free headset or audio interface for a user of an electronic device.

Motivation to Combine

The US8112104 patent itself clearly articulates the problem that motivates this combination in its "Background of the Invention": "when the user of a mobile phone makes use of a head-set, the user can receive and participate in voice calls in a hands-free manner. Unfortunately, however, the user would need to view a screen of the mobile phone to participate in text messaging."

A PHOSITA, recognizing this problem, would have been motivated to combine the known hands-free capabilities of wireless headsets for audio interaction with the text-to-audio and audio-to-text messaging functionalities disclosed in US'976. The motivation would be to extend the established convenience of hands-free voice calls to text messaging, thereby addressing the acknowledged deficiency of requiring screen interaction for text messages even when a headset is in use. It would have been a straightforward engineering task for a PHOSITA to adapt the audio input and output features of a wireless headset to serve as the interface for the message conversion processes described in US'976. The general trend towards hands-free and enhanced user experience in mobile computing devices would have provided ample motivation to seek such solutions.

Therefore, the combination of a wireless communication device capable of performing text-to-audio and audio-to-text messaging conversions (as taught by US'976) with a standard wireless headset (known in the art and further supported by provisional application US60/620,238), where the headset handles the audio presentation and recording, would have been obvious to a PHOSITA seeking to enable hands-free text messaging. This reasoning applies directly to Claim 1 (system), Claim 19 (headset), and Claim 31 (method), as they all center on this specific interaction between a mobile device's messaging capabilities and a wireless headset for hands-free audio handling.