PTAB

IPR2015-00077

Plantronics Inc v. Callpod Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Mobile Conferencing and Audio Sharing Technology
  • Brief Description: The ’758 patent describes a conference call system where multiple participants use wireless devices, such as headsets, connected to a central conferencing device with an audio mixer. The technology purports to improve convenience and mobility by allowing wireless participation, and it specifically claims an audio mixer comprising a "summer" to sum audio inputs and a "divider" to divide the sum equally across the audio outputs.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over McMillen, Yoakum, and Peters - Claims 1-9, 11-23, and 25-29 are obvious over McMillen in view of Yoakum and Peters.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: McMillen (Application # 2005/0286443), Yoakum (Application # 2004/0058674), and Peters (Application # 2003/0012148).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that McMillen taught the core architecture of the claimed invention: a teleconferencing system with a central hub (mixer) that wirelessly connects to multiple local "conferencing nodes" and can also interface with remote participants via a voice system. However, McMillen described its nodes generically as devices with speakers and microphones. Yoakum was introduced to teach that such nodes were commonly implemented as wireless headsets in similar conferencing systems. For the key limitation of the audio mixer comprising a "summer" and a "divider," Petitioner asserted that while McMillen taught mixing audio signals, the specific sum-and-divide algorithm was explicitly taught by Peters. Peters described a simple algorithm for mixing audio from two callers, (A+B)/2, which Petitioner argued was a well-known, fundamental form of audio mixing.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references for predictable results. A POSITA would have been motivated to implement McMillen's generic conferencing nodes as headsets, as taught by Yoakum, to achieve the known benefits of increased user mobility and privacy. Furthermore, a POSITA implementing the audio mixer in McMillen’s hub would have been motivated to use the simple, well-known sum-and-divide algorithm from Peters as an obvious design choice to combine audio signals while maintaining a valid, undistorted output. McMillen itself suggested that its components could be combined in various ways and with substitutions.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because combining a known conferencing system (McMillen) with a common peripheral (Yoakum's headsets) and a basic mixing algorithm (Peters) involved using known technologies for their intended purposes and would predictably result in a functional wireless conferencing system.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Bell, Yoakum, and Peters - Claims 1-9, 11-23, and 25-29 are obvious over Bell in view of Yoakum and Peters.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bell (Patent 6,405,027), Yoakum (Application # 2004/0058674), and Peters (Application # 2003/0012148).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented Bell as an alternative primary reference to McMillen. Petitioner argued Bell taught a mobile handset that functions as a central hub for a group call, capable of combining a cellular call with multiple local calls to other Bluetooth-enabled devices. This handset included a baseband section with a DSP and microprocessor for mixing and distributing audio signals, meeting the "audio mixer" limitation. As in the first ground, Yoakum was cited to show the obviousness of using headsets as the "Bluetooth enabled communication terminals" that connect to Bell's central handset. Peters was again relied upon to supply the explicit teaching of the sum-and-divide mixing algorithm that Bell's mixer would perform.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was similar to Ground 1. A POSITA would combine Bell and Yoakum because Bell's system was designed to connect with various wireless terminals, and using headsets was a well-known option for such terminals to enhance user experience. Bell itself noted that "numerous modifications are possible within the intended spirit and scope of the invention." Incorporating the simple sum-and-divide mixing from Peters into Bell's audio processor was presented as an obvious implementation choice to achieve the fundamental goal of combining audio streams from multiple participants.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be a predictable integration of established technologies. Modifying Bell's mobile handset hub to work with headsets (Yoakum) and employ a basic mixing algorithm (Peters) would have been straightforward for a POSITA and would have predictably resulted in the claimed conferencing system.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Pairing Limitations - Claims 10 and 24 are obvious over the primary combinations in view of the Bluetooth Specification.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: McMillen, Bell, Yoakum, Peters, and the Bluetooth Specification (Version 1.1, Feb. 2001).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed dependent claims 10 and 24, which added limitations requiring the selection of wireless channels by sequentially activating pairing buttons on the central device and the headsets. Petitioner argued that since the primary combinations already established the use of Bluetooth for communication (as taught by McMillen, Bell, and Yoakum), a POSITA would naturally turn to the official Bluetooth Specification for implementation details. The Bluetooth Specification, specifically its Headset Profile, described a standard, sequential connection process where an audio gateway (e.g., a cell phone) initiates a connection that is then accepted by the headset, often through a user-initiated action like pressing a button.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was not to combine disparate art, but to use a standard's documentation to implement that standard. A POSITA building a Bluetooth-enabled conferencing system as taught by McMillen or Bell would have considered the Bluetooth Specification "essential reading" and would have been directly motivated to use its standard pairing protocols, which included the claimed steps of sequential button activation to establish a connection.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "mixes": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "combines audio inputs according to the operation of the claimed summer and divider." It argued that because the claims already explicitly recite the function of the summer and divider, the separate term "mixes" is largely redundant.
  • "equalized audio output": Petitioner proposed construing this term as "an output that has been amplified or de-amplified," based directly on the patent's specification, which states: "mixing means summing an audio input from a number of audio interfaces, dividing the sum by the number of audio interfaces and providing an equalized audio output to each of the number of audio interfaces."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-29 of the ’758 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.