PTAB

IPR2025-00491

Yealink USA Network Technology Co Ltd Yealink Network Technology Co Ltd v. Barco NV

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and System for Making Functional Devices Available to Participants of Meetings
  • Brief Description: The ’972 patent discloses a system for video conferencing where a user's processing device (e.g., a laptop) connects to a base unit via a first peripheral device (e.g., a USB dongle). The base unit is connected to functional devices (e.g., cameras, microphones, displays), and the system makes these functional devices available to the user's processing device for use in unified communication applications like Skype.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-18 are obvious over Beel in view of Dinka, Applicant-Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), and optionally Christison.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Beel (Application # 2015/0169477), Dinka (Patent 8,369,498), AAPA, and Christison (Patent 7,761,627).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Beel, which is assigned to the Patent Owner and was admitted in the ’972 patent's specification, discloses the core architecture of the challenged claims. This includes a processing device, a first peripheral device (USB dongle), a base unit, and connected functional devices (cameras, microphones). Beel also allegedly taught the use of USB "endpoints" for these devices, a key limitation added during prosecution. Petitioner asserted that Dinka, a Skype patent, remedies any deficiency in Beel by explicitly teaching the use of a unified communication system (Skype) for multi-party video calls using webcams and other peripherals. The AAPA from the ’972 patent itself was used to show that using Skype for conferencing was well known.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Beel and Dinka to improve Beel's conferencing system by incorporating a widely used and well-known unified communication application like Skype. This combination would predictably result in a more capable and commercially relevant web conferencing system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as integrating known software (Skype from Dinka) into a hardware conferencing system (Beel) was a common and straightforward practice in the art.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that Christison was optionally included to teach a specific method of "exposing" a remote device's functionality by modifying USB device descriptors, if the Board were to adopt a narrow construction of that term.

Ground 2: Claims 1-18 are obvious over Kaplan in view of Van de Laar, AAPA, and optionally Christison.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kaplan (Application # 2010/0295994), Van de Laar (Application # 2016/0014172), AAPA, and Christison (Patent 7,761,627).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kaplan discloses a system for wirelessly transmitting content from a computer (processing device) to a remote display (functional device) using a paired USB transmitter (first peripheral device) and receiver (base unit). Kaplan’s system used standard USB protocols and endpoints. Petitioner asserted that Van de Laar teaches a wireless docking system where multiple user devices connect to a host that manages various peripherals (displays, webcams, etc.) and explicitly discloses using unified communication protocols, including Skype, for communication.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Kaplan and Van de Laar to enhance Kaplan's simple wireless display system with the advanced, multi-peripheral, and multi-user unified communication capabilities taught by Van de Laar. This would improve usability by allowing users to access not just a display, but a full suite of conferencing peripherals during a unified communication call.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved integrating known unified communication features into a wireless peripheral system, which was a predictable and well-understood design choice with a high expectation of success.
    • Key Aspects: The argument structure mirrors Ground 1, with Kaplan providing the base hardware system and Van de Laar supplying the key "unified communication" element that was critical for allowance of the ’972 patent.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "unified communication": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "audio or audio/visual communication," consistent with the patent’s explicit examples of Skype and Skype for Business. This construction broadens the term to cover well-known conferencing technologies.
  • "at least one fixed or a configurable endpoint...of the functional device exposed or made available on the first peripheral device": Petitioner asserted this lengthy limitation, added to overcome prior art, is met by standard USB specifications. The petition argued that USB devices inherently have "endpoints" that function as data sources/sinks. It further argued that "exposed or made available" simply means transferring data between the peripheral and functional device, a basic function taught by the prior art.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • §325(d) - Previously Considered Art: Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §325(d), asserting that the core prior art combinations were not previously considered by the USPTO. It was argued that Dinka, Kaplan, and Van de Laar were never presented to or evaluated by the examiner. While Beel was cited in an IDS, Petitioner contended the examiner never substantively analyzed it in a rejection, and thus materially erred by failing to appreciate its disclosure of the very limitations (unified communication, endpoints) upon which the patent was granted.
  • §314(a) - Fintiv Factors: Petitioner stated that the Fintiv analysis is inapplicable and the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’972 patent as unpatentable.