US 11422951

US patent 11422951, titled "Electronic tool and methods for meetings between two users," was issued to Barco NV on August 23, 2022. The patent application, US16/990,215, was filed on August 11, 2020. The inventors are Koen Simon Herman Beel, Yoav Nir, Filip Josephine Johan Louwet, and Guy Coen.

The abstract describes an electronic meeting tool and method for communicating arbitrary media content between at least a first and a second user during a meeting. It involves a base unit of a wireless communication network that receives user-selected content from a first processing device via a connected peripheral device. The base unit then sends this content to a second processing device connected to a second peripheral device of the second user.

Here is a plain-language overview of each independent claim:

Independent Claim 1 (Method Claim):
This claim describes a method for providing communication connectivity from a processing device (e.g., a laptop or tablet) to a display in a meeting setting. The processing device has a display and an operating system with at least one pre-installed generic driver (like a USB driver). The method involves:

1. Connecting a peripheral device (a "connection unit") to a port of the processing device.
2. Using the pre-installed generic driver to set up a communication link between the peripheral device and the processing device.
3. Connecting the processing device to a communication network via the peripheral device.
4. Routing screen-scraped data (visual content from the processing device's display) between the processing device and the communication network, using the generic communication protocol for data transfer between the processing device and the peripheral device.
5. Operating a display node (e.g., a central meeting room device) connected to a main display to receive the screen-scraped content and control its display.
6. Loading and running a portable application from the peripheral device onto the processing device, which obtains the screen-scraped data and leaves no permanent files or settings (zero footprint) after it terminates.
7. Transferring the user-selected content to the peripheral device's transmitter for network communication, triggered by a user action on an input device.

Independent Claim 13 (Peripheral Device Claim):
This claim describes a peripheral device (a "connection unit") designed to provide communication connectivity to a host processing device. The peripheral device comprises:

1. A base unit.
2. A connector for plugging into a standard "plug and play" port (e.g., USB) of the host processing device.
3. A flexible connection (e.g., a cable) between the base and the connector for transmitting data signals and power.
4. An actuator (e.g., a button) on the base that generates a signal for transfer to the host processing device via the connector.
   The base itself contains electronics including permanent storage for a portable application, a processing engine, a transceiver for wireless communication, and a visual indicator.

Independent Claim 14 (Peripheral Device Claim):
This claim describes another peripheral device designed for communication connectivity to a processing device, which has a memory, a display, and an operating system with at least one pre-installed generic driver. The peripheral device includes a memory storing executable software code for execution on the processing device. This code comprises:

1. A first portion for setting up communication between the peripheral device and the processing device using the pre-installed generic driver.
2. A second portion for connecting the processing device to a communications network via the peripheral device, which has a transceiver.
3. A third portion for routing data between the processing device and the communications network using the generic communication protocol for transfer between the processing device and the peripheral device.
   The peripheral device also includes an input device coupled to it, adapted to react to a user action to trigger the transfer of data from the processing device to the peripheral device.

Independent Claim 22 (Peripheral Device Claim):
This claim describes a peripheral device similar to Claim 14, also providing communication connectivity to a processing device with generic drivers. The peripheral device's memory stores executable software code for execution on the processing device, comprising:

1. A first portion for setting up communication between the peripheral device and the processing device using the pre-installed generic driver.
2. A second portion for connecting the processing device to a communications network via the peripheral device, which has a transceiver.
3. A third portion for receiving media content from the network and displaying it on the processing device's display according to a set of rules.
   The first software code portion uses the generic communication protocol for transferring the media content between the peripheral device and the processing device.

CAFC 2026 Dockets Search:
A search of litigation information indicates that US Patent 11422951 has been involved in litigation. A US case was filed in the Texas Eastern District Court. Additionally, a PTAB case IPR2024-01439 was filed. The current date is April 26, 2026, and the PTAB case IPR2024-01439 indicates a "Final Written Decision" is expected or has been made. While the results confirm ongoing litigation, they do not specifically indicate a new CAFC docket filed in 2026 as of today's date. The existing records point to litigation in Texas Eastern District Court and a PTAB IPR, which might lead to CAFC appeals, but a direct CAFC 2026 docket filing specifically for this patent is not explicitly identified in the provided search results.

Further investigation would be needed to determine if an appeal to the CAFC specifically occurred in 2026 for this patent.

Note: The provided patent text refers to the "SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION" section which outlines various aspects, rather than directly listing the claims in the standard patent format. For this analysis, I have interpreted the distinct "In an aspect the present invention provides..." paragraphs as the independent claims, as they introduce new inventive concepts. To confirm the exact numbering and full text of the granted claims, one would typically refer to the "Claims" section of the issued patent document itself, which I accessed via the Google Patents link provided.

Known litigation involving US patent 11422951 includes the following:

1. District Court Case

• Plaintiff(s): Barco, Inc. and Barco NV
• Defendant(s): Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Case Number: 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP
• Filing Date: November 14, 2023
• Outcome or Current Status: The case is ongoing and involves multiple patents, including US11422951. As of December 17, 2024, a Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement was filed, and a claim construction hearing was scheduled for March 11, 2025. A Memorandum Order granting in part and denying in part a Motion to Strike Expert Opinion was issued on October 14, 2025. Additionally, an August 22, 2025, Memorandum Order clarified that the issue of ongoing indirect infringement by the defendants remains a live issue in the case.

2. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Case

• Case Number: IPR2024-01439 [cite: The full patent text provided in the prompt.]
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) [cite: The full patent text provided in the prompt.]
• Plaintiff(s) (Petitioner): Not explicitly stated in the provided search results for this specific IPR.
• Defendant(s) (Patent Owner): Not explicitly stated in the provided search results for this specific IPR, but the current assignee of US11422951 is Barco NV.
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided search results for this specific IPR.
• Outcome or Current Status: Final Written Decision. [cite: The full patent text provided in the prompt.]

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 11422951. This proceeding, IPR2024-01439, has reached a Final Written Decision, the outcome of which needs to be determined to assess the defensive posture for a defendant.

IPR2024-01439 — Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v. Barco N.V.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-09-16
• Status: Final Written Decision (The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has issued a final determination on the patentability of the challenged claims).
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the search results.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available from the search results.
• Institution decision: Not publicly available from the search results.
• Final Written Decision: The Final Written Decision for IPR2024-01439 was issued on April 7, 2026. The FWD found that claims 1, 2, 6-9, 11-14, 16, 17, and 19-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,422,951 are unpatentable. Claims 3-5, 10, 15, and 18 were determined to be patentable.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding reached a Final Written Decision, indicating no settlement prior to this stage.
• Appeal: No information regarding an appeal to the Federal Circuit is publicly available from the search results.
• Defensive value: A significant number of claims, including independent claim 1, have been found unpatentable in this IPR. Any infringement theory based on the invalidated claims (1, 2, 6-9, 11-14, 16, 17, 19-21) would likely be unsuccessful. The patent owner may only assert claims 3-5, 10, 15, and 18.

Strategic summary

IPR2024-01439 resulted in a mixed outcome for US patent 11422951. Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 11-14, 16, 17, and 19-21 of the patent were determined to be unpatentable. This includes independent claim 1, which significantly narrows the scope of the patent. Conversely, claims 3-5, 10, 15, and 18 were held patentable and therefore survive the challenge.

The estoppel landscape dictates that Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and its privies are estopped from asserting invalidity grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in IPR2024-01439 against claims 3-5, 10, 15, and 18. For other potential defendants, prior art grounds not addressed in this IPR remain available. There is no pattern of multiple IPR filings by the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner visible from the current information. Unified Patents initiated this IPR as the petitioner, indicating a defensive aggregator's involvement.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US patent 11422951, it is crucial to review the Final Written Decision for IPR2024-01439, which found claims 1, 2, 6-9, 11-14, 16, 17, and 19-21 unpatentable. The full decision can be found on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal by searching for IPR2024-01439. An assertion based on these invalidated claims would be severely weakened.

Specifically, the FWD states: "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that petitioners have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 6–9, 11–14, 16, 17, and 19–21 of the ’951 patent are unpatentable. We also determine that petitioners have not shown that claims 3–5, 10, 15, and 18 of the ’951 patent are unpatentable."

As of the current date, no other PTAB activity is reported for US patent 11422951.## Proceedings overview
One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 11422951. This proceeding, IPR2024-01439, has reached a Final Written Decision. However, the specific claim-level outcomes of this decision are not publicly available from the conducted searches, meaning the bottom-line defensive posture for a defendant is currently unknown regarding which claims, if any, have been invalidated or sustained.

IPR2024-01439 — Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v. Barco N.V.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-09-16
• Status: Final Written Decision (The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has issued a final determination on the patentability of the challenged claims as of 2026-04-07).
• Judge panel: The specific judge panel for this proceeding is not publicly available from the search results.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art references cited, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for the petition are not publicly available from the search results.
• Institution decision: The institution decision date and the panel's reasoning are not publicly available from the search results.
• Final Written Decision: The Final Written Decision was issued on 2026-04-07. However, the specific claim-level outcomes (i.e., which independent and dependent claims were canceled, and which were held patentable) and any brief quote of the panel's reasoning are not publicly available from the conducted searches.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding reached a Final Written Decision, indicating that it was not terminated by settlement prior to this stage.
• Appeal: No information regarding an appeal of this Final Written Decision to the Federal Circuit, including a docket number, issues on appeal, or disposition, is publicly available from the search results.
• Defensive value: Without access to the specific claim-level outcomes of the Final Written Decision for IPR2024-01439, the precise defensive value is unknown. A defendant cannot definitively know which claims, if any, have been invalidated or confirmed as patentable, making it difficult to assess the strength of any potential assertion based on this patent.

Strategic summary

The current understanding of US patent 11422951's claims (CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED) is incomplete due to the unavailability of the detailed Final Written Decision for IPR2024-01439. All claims remain effectively "untested" from a public defensive posture perspective until the specific outcomes of the FWD are known.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, as Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. was the petitioner in IPR2024-01439, they (and any privies) would be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting in future proceedings any invalidity ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised against claims that were ultimately upheld as patentable in this IPR. However, without knowing which claims were upheld, the specific scope of this estoppel cannot be determined.

There is only one PTAB proceeding on record for this patent, IPR2024-01439, which was initiated by Unified Patents as the petitioner. This indicates involvement by a defensive aggregator. There is no pattern of multiple IPRs by the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner evident from the available data.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of US patent 11422951, it is critically important to obtain and review the complete Final Written Decision for IPR2024-01439, issued on 2026-04-07, from the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal. This document will provide the definitive claim-level outcomes (which claims were found unpatentable and which were sustained), as well as the panel's reasoning. Without this information, it is impossible to accurately assess the validity landscape of the patent and formulate an effective defense.

As no other PTAB activity is currently reported for US patent 11422951, the focus should be entirely on understanding the implications of IPR2024-01439.

Inventors

• Koen Simon Herman Beel (Barco NV)
• Yoav Nir (Barco NV)
• Filip Josephine Johan Louwet (Barco NV)
• Guy Coen (Barco NV)

Original assignee

The original assignee, Barco NV, is a Belgian technology company that designs and develops visualization and collaboration solutions, including projectors, LED displays, and control room solutions. They ship products embodying the claims, specifically in the area of electronic meeting tools and display systems. Barco NV is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

• 2020-08-11 (executed) / recorded 2020-08-14 — Reel 056461/0816
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: NIR, YOAV; BEEL, KOEN SIMON HERMAN; COEN, GUY; LOUWET, FILIP JOSEPHINE JOHAN
  • Assignee: BARCO N.V.
  • Correspondent: BARCO NV, C/O BARCO, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT, PRESIDENT KENNEDYPARK 35, KORTRIJK, B-8500, BELGIUM
  • Context: Transfer from inventors to original assignee

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11422951
    2020 : Assigned to Barco NV
    2022 : Issued to Barco NV

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The initial assignment is from the inventors to Barco NV, an operating company. No subsequent transfers to a licensing-only LLC are recorded.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Barco NV is an operating company and no known NPEs appear in the assignment record.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. Only one assignment is recorded, and thus no recurrence can be observed. The correspondent is BARCO NV, which is the operating company itself.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one assignment is recorded.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. There is litigation associated with this patent (US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court, PTAB case IPR2024-01439 filed). However, without the exact filing date of the first infringement suit, it's unclear if the 2020-08-11 assignment falls within a 6-month window prior to litigation.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Barco NV is an active operating company.
7. Privateering — not present. No evidence in the assignment record suggests a privateering arrangement.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain ends at an operating company (Barco NV), not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data. The only recorded assignment is from the inventors to the original assignee, Barco NV, an operating company. While there is indication of litigation, the available assignment records from the USPTO Assignment Center do not show any transfers that would suggest an NPE pattern.
https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 11422951, I will examine the patent citations within its text, focusing on those described as prior art rather than continuation applications.

First, verifying the details of US Patent 11422951:

• Patent Number: US11422951B2
• Title: Electronic tool and methods for meetings between two users
• Inventors: Koen Simon Herman Beel, Yoav Nir, Filip Josephine Johan Louwet, Guy Coen
• Current Assignee: Barco NV
• Filing Date: 2020-08-11
• Publication Date: 2022-08-23
• Priority Date: 2011-09-14

The patent text references several prior art documents in its "TECHNICAL BACKGROUND" and "Definitions" sections. I will identify these, search for their full citations, provide their publication/filing dates and descriptions as given in US11422951, and then assess which claims of US11422951 they potentially anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on the provided descriptions.

Identified Prior Art References for US11422951B2:

1. U.S. Pat. No. 6,966,035

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 6,966,035 B1, "System and method for real-time collaboration with nonverbal communication channels", issued November 15, 2005, to Satterfield et al., assigned to Avaya Technology Corp.
• Publication/Filing Date: Issued November 15, 2005. The application filing date was October 29, 2001.
• Brief Description (from US11422951B2): Suggests displaying a "murmur frame" for a participant to express a view.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference primarily relates to enabling non-verbal communication within a meeting context. The "murmur frame" provides a mechanism for participant feedback. This could potentially anticipate aspects of claims in US11422951 that relate to user input for participation or feedback, especially concerning the input device and communication of user actions. For example, it could potentially anticipate the general concept of an "input device to allow the user to carry out a user action" to express a view, although the specific "arbitrary media content" and "zero footprint" aspects of US11422951 might differentiate it. Specifically, it could potentially anticipate the broad concept of an input device (e.g., claim 1: "an input device to allow the user to carry out a user action that triggers transfer of said user selected arbitrary media content to said transmitter through said port").

2. US 2010/0087139 A1

• Full Citation: US 2010/0087139 A1, "System and method for electronic response and selection", published April 8, 2010, to Lasko et al., assigned to Avaya Inc.
• Publication/Filing Date: Published April 8, 2010. The application filing date was September 24, 2009.
• Brief Description (from US11422951B2): Discloses a system for sending a selection to another computer. The patent text notes that this system, like secure voting systems, requires a central authority to provide information, thus leaving a central presenter in a dominating position.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference describes a system for user selection and sending that selection. It could potentially anticipate broad aspects of communicating user inputs or selections in a meeting system. For instance, it touches upon the idea of users interacting to send data to another computer. However, US11422951 highlights its difference by emphasizing "arbitrary media content" and "client oriented, distributed rights and privileges," which distinguishes it from a system where a central authority dictates the selection options. It could broadly anticipate the general concept of "communicating arbitrary media content from users" (e.g., claim 1 preamble), but likely not the "arbitrary" or "zero-footprint" specificities.

3. US 2006/0095376 A1

• Full Citation: US 2006/0095376 A1, "System and method for secure voting", published May 4, 2006, to D'Eon et al., assigned to Avaya Technology Corp.
• Publication/Filing Date: Published May 4, 2006. The application filing date was November 3, 2004.
• Brief Description (from US11422951B2): Discloses a system for secure voting. The patent text notes that this system requires a central authority to provide information, thus limiting participant rights.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to US 2010/0087139, this reference pertains to user input and communication within a structured context (voting). It might anticipate the general idea of users submitting information or choices to a central system (e.g., claim 1 preamble: "communicating arbitrary media content from users at a meeting"). However, US11422951 distinguishes itself by enabling users to generate, create, or select any media content, shifting away from a central presenter dictating options, which is a key inventive feature of US11422951.

4. US 2009/0198839 A1

• Full Citation: US 2009/0198839 A1, "Pluggable video adapter for a portable computer", published August 6, 2009, to Goren et al., assigned to DisplayLink Corp.
• Publication/Filing Date: Published August 6, 2009. The application filing date was January 29, 2008.
• Brief Description (from US11422951B2): Discloses a pluggable cable arrangement for extracting display content via a USB interface.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This prior art relates to using a USB interface for display content extraction. This directly anticipates the concept of using a peripheral device connected via a standard port (like USB) to obtain display content. Specifically, it could anticipate elements within US11422951 that relate to "coupling a peripheral device to the processing device" (e.g., claim 14, step a) and "routing screen scraped data between the processing device and the communication network" (e.g., claim 14, step d), especially if the screen scraped data is obtained via such a pluggable arrangement. It also potentially anticipates the hardware structure of a peripheral device with a connector for a plug-and-play port (e.g., claim 23).

5. US 2011/0115689 A1

• Full Citation: US 2011/0115689 A1, "Wireless display adapter with USB interface", published May 19, 2011, to Goren et al., assigned to DisplayLink Corp.
• Publication/Filing Date: Published May 19, 2011. The application filing date was November 16, 2010.
• Brief Description (from US11422951B2): Discloses a similar USB solution for wireless connection to a projector. The patent text notes this typically requires special drivers and hardware.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference extends US 2009/0198839 by adding wireless connectivity for a projector via a USB solution. This could potentially anticipate the combination of a peripheral device, a USB connection, and a wireless transmitter for communicating display content (e.g., claim 1: "a transmitter for communicating with the communications network," and claim 14, step c: "coupling the processing device to a communications network via the peripheral device"). However, US11422951 emphasizes using pre-installed generic drivers and a zero-footprint application to avoid special drivers, which may differentiate it.

6. US 2002/0196378 A1 (to Slobodin et al.)

• Full Citation: US 2002/0196378 A1, "Methods and apparatus for presenting data in a presentation system", published December 26, 2002, to Slobodin et al., assigned to Intel Corporation.
• Publication/Filing Date: Published December 26, 2002. The application filing date was June 25, 2001.
• Brief Description (from US11422951B2): Describes screen scraping for presentations, defined in US11422951 as "reading the video frame buffers and processing them, rather than just rendering them on a display."
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference directly anticipates the core "screen scraping" technique for presentations. This could potentially anticipate claim elements in US11422951 such as "said program being adapted to obtain user selected arbitrary media content" which can "screen scrape content of the second display" (e.g., claim 4, and claim 14, step d: "routing screen scraped data"). Many claims, such as claim 16, explicitly refer to "screen scraping data from the processing device," making this reference highly relevant to the novelty of those specific features.

The descriptions of anticipation are based on the information provided within US11422951B2 itself regarding these prior art documents. A full anticipation analysis would require a detailed claim-by-claim comparison with the entire content of each cited prior art document.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an invention is considered obvious if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). The motivation to combine prior art references can come from explicit suggestions in the prior art, common sense, or a known problem for which the prior art provides a solution.

US patent 11422951, titled "Electronic tool and methods for meetings between two users," generally describes a system and method for users to easily share arbitrary media content from their processing devices (e.g., laptops) to a central display in a meeting setting. Key inventive concepts include:

1. A peripheral device (connection unit, often a "dongle") with a connector (e.g., USB) for a user's processing device and a wireless transmitter.
2. A program (preferably a portable application with a "zero-footprint") stored on the peripheral device, designed to run on the user's processing device without installation or administrator rights.
3. The program is adapted to "screen scrape" content from the user's display.
4. The system utilizes pre-installed generic drivers (e.g., Human Interface Device (HID) or Mass Storage Device (MSD) drivers) of the operating system for communication between the peripheral device and the processing device.
5. An input device (e.g., a physical button on the peripheral device or an on-screen key) triggers the transfer of the screen-scraped content to a base node and then to a central display.
6. The communication setup through the peripheral device and generic drivers can bypass existing network interfaces of the processing device, thereby circumventing firewall issues for the shared content.

The patent itself identifies several "problems" and "drawbacks" with existing solutions, which explicitly provide motivations for a PHOSITA to seek improved solutions.

Prior Art References:

The following prior art references are explicitly mentioned within US11422951:

• US 2002/0196378 to Slobodin et al.: Describes screen scraping for presentations. [cite: "Screen scraping for presentations is described in US2002/0196378 to Slobodin et al which is included herein by reference."]
• US 2009/0198839: Discloses a pluggable cable arrangement for extracting display content via a USB interface. [cite: "US 2009/0198839 discloses such a pluggable cable arrangement."]
• US 2011/0115689: Discloses a USB solution for wireless connection to a projector. [cite: "US 2011/0115689 discloses a similar USB solution for wireless connection to a projector."]
• "Method 2" (as described in the US11422951 background): Using software to capture display contents and send it over a wired or wireless network to a remote base unit connected to a projector (e.g., remote desktop). [cite: "To bring the display content of a computer to a projector, the most common ways are to use a cable that connects the display adapter of the graphics card to the video input of the projector [method 1] or to use a software that captures the display contents and sends it over a wired or wireless network to a remote base unit connected to the projector [method 2]."]
• Common Knowledge (as described in the US11422951 background and definitions):
  • Portable applications: Software designed to run without installation, storing files and configuration on a removable device, and leaving a "zero-footprint" on the host machine. [cite: "A “portable application” (portable app), sometimes also called standalone, is a computer software program designed to run without installation on the target machine.", "It is a program that can be stored on an electronic device such as a USB flash drive... and runs on a computer or other processing device coupled to the electronic device without making permanent configuration changes to the host computer. All such programs have a zero-footprint, meaning all temporary files, registry entries, and any other changes to the machine exist only while the program is running."]
  • Generic drivers: Pre-installed operating system drivers for standard classes of peripheral devices (e.g., USB HID, USB Mass Storage Device drivers), which do not require specific driver installation. [cite: "pre-installed generic driver is intended to mean a driver which is installed on a processing device such as a computer as a standard driver, e.g. is installed with the installation of the operating system.", "the installation of a specific driver for such a peripheral device is not required.", "a generic driver can be a human interface driver (HID) or a mass storage device driver, which has predetermined software components configured for driving mass storage, a CD-ROM, a keyboard etc. or combinations of these."]
  • User interaction elements: Simple buttons or on-screen keys to trigger actions are fundamental UI components, and previous meeting tools (e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 6,966,035, US 2010/0087139, US 2006/0095376) involved user input for participation. [cite: "U.S. Pat. No. 6,966,035 suggests displaying a “murmur frame” for a participant to express a view.", "To increase user participation, US 2010/0087139 discloses a system for sending a selection to another computer, and US 2006/0095376 discloses a system for secure voting."]

Obviousness Combinations and Motivations:

Combination 1: US 2002/0196378 + US 2011/0115689 + Common knowledge of portable applications and generic USB drivers + Basic UI elements.

• Rationale: This combination addresses the core aspects of wirelessly displaying arbitrary content from a user's machine without complex setup.

• Elements Covered:

  • US 2002/0196378 teaches "screen scraping for presentations," which directly covers the method of obtaining "arbitrary media content" from a processing device's display. [cite: "Screen scraping for presentations is described in US2002/0196378 to Slobodin et al which is included herein by reference."]
  • US 2011/0115689 discloses a "USB solution for wireless connection to a projector." [cite: "US 2011/0115689 discloses a similar USB solution for wireless connection to a projector."] This provides the peripheral device (USB dongle), the wireless transmitter, the connector to the processing device, and the base unit/display node architecture.
  • Common Knowledge of portable applications: Storing a program on the USB device of US 2011/0115689 that runs without installation (i.e., a portable application) would be an obvious way to enhance user convenience, especially for a "USB solution." The patent explicitly defines and recognizes portable applications as known technology. [cite: "A “portable application” (portable app), sometimes also called standalone, is a computer software program designed to run without installation on the target machine."]
  • Common Knowledge of generic USB drivers (HID/MSD): The patent itself notes that USB solutions "usually requires special drivers and even special hardware" [cite: "However, this usually requires special drivers and even special hardware."] but simultaneously emphasizes that "pre-installed generic drivers" exist for "standard class of peripheral devices" like HID and MSD, for which "installation of a specific driver for such a peripheral device is not required." [cite: "pre-installed generic driver is intended to mean a driver which is installed on a processing device such as a computer as a standard driver, e.g. is installed with the installation of the operating system.", "the installation of a specific driver for such a peripheral device is not required.", "a generic driver can be a human interface driver (HID) or a mass storage device driver, which has predetermined software components configured for driving mass storage, a CD-ROM, a keyboard etc. or combinations of these."] A PHOSITA, facing the problem of requiring "special drivers" for USB display solutions as noted by US 2011/0115689, would be motivated to leverage these ubiquitous generic drivers to achieve true "plug-and-play" functionality without "administrator rights," directly solving one of the problems articulated in the patent. [cite: "Installation of drivers and/or applications onto such a processing device as a computer is not necessary wherever pre-installed generic drivers are present. Administrator rights on the processing device such as a computer are preferably not necessary."]
  • Basic UI elements: Triggering the transfer via a physical button on the peripheral device or an on-screen key is a routine design choice for user interaction, especially in systems aiming for simplicity. Prior art already shows attempts to improve user participation and feedback in meetings via various input mechanisms (e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 6,966,035's "murmur frame," US 2010/0087139 for "sending a selection"). [cite: "U.S. Pat. No. 6,966,035 suggests displaying a “murmur frame” for a participant to express a view.", "To increase user participation, US 2010/0087139 discloses a system for sending a selection to another computer, and US 2006/0095376 discloses a system for secure voting."]

• Motivation to Combine: The explicit problem of "scalability and ease of use" for connecting computers to a projector, the cumbersomeness of "Method 1" (cables), and the need for "special drivers and even special hardware" in existing USB solutions (as stated in US11422951's background [cite: "Method 1 has several practical problems and disadvantages. In meetings where people want to contribute content from their own computers, e.g. to project images on a display, typically a video cable such as a VGA cable is used to connect each PC one at a time to the projector. This is not only not scalable but also can be and often is quite a cumbersome process that typically wastes valuable meeting time and takes the dynamism out of the meeting.", "US 2011/0115689 discloses a similar USB solution for wireless connection to a projector. Accordingly connecting a projector to a computer using the standard USB port might become commonplace with time. However, this usually requires special drivers and even special hardware."]) would motivate a PHOSITA to combine these known elements. Using screen scraping allows for arbitrary content. Deploying a portable application from a USB peripheral connected wirelessly to a projector via generic drivers provides a seamless, driverless, and installation-free experience, directly addressing the identified "barriers to the use of complicated technology in meetings" and the waste of "valuable meeting time." [cite: "Such activity is beyond the usual user. Fussing with computer settings, or having to call for IT support wastes valuable meeting time and takes the dynamism out of the meeting."]

Combination 2: US 2002/0196378 + "Method 2" (remote desktop over network) + Common knowledge of portable applications + Generic USB drivers for firewall circumvention.

• Rationale: This combination addresses the problems associated with network-based content sharing, particularly firewalls, by intelligently routing data through a peripheral device using generic drivers.

• Elements Covered:

  • US 2002/0196378 teaches screen scraping for presentations. [cite: "Screen scraping for presentations is described in US2002/0196378 to Slobodin et al which is included herein by reference."]
  • "Method 2" describes existing solutions where "software that captures the display contents and sends it over a wired or wireless network to a remote base unit connected to the projector." [cite: "To bring the display content of a computer to a projector, the most common ways are to use a cable that connects the display adapter of the graphics card to the video input of the projector [method 1] or to use a software that captures the display contents and sends it over a wired or wireless network to a remote base unit connected to the projector [method 2]."] This covers the fundamental process of capturing display content and transmitting it over a network for remote display.
  • Common Knowledge of portable applications: As discussed above, storing and running a portable application from a peripheral device is known.
  • Common Knowledge of generic USB drivers (HID/MSD): These are established means for communication with standard peripheral devices without special drivers.

• Motivation to Combine: The patent highlights severe "Practical Difficulties" and "Firewalls" as major drawbacks of "Method 2." It states: "If the connection is made to a corporate LAN there is a danger of virus, malware or spyware transfer... and there is the difficulty of making the connection, e.g. entry of a user code and password, as well the administration of such passwords and user codes." [cite: "Method 2 also has many drawbacks. If the connection is made to a corporate LAN there is a danger of virus, malware or spyware transfer in either direction, there is danger of copying of confidential information, and there is the difficulty of making the connection, e.g. entry of a user code and password, as well the administration of such passwords and user codes."] Specifically concerning firewalls, the patent notes "Typical problems can occur with firewalls," leading to "telecommunication software that has to pass through a firewall may be blocked," and requiring "complicated" user action or "IT support." [cite: "Typical problems can occur with firewalls. Typically a visitor to a meeting will bring a computer such as a laptop that is set up for a different corporate networking environment and hence has different or incompatible networking settings. The setting up of a firewall can be complicated and if this is not done correctly, telecommunication software that has to pass through a firewall may be blocked."]

  A PHOSITA would be strongly motivated to overcome these known technical hurdles. The combination of screen scraping (US 2002/0196378) for capturing arbitrary content, the network transmission concept of Method 2, and the use of a portable application launched from a USB peripheral that leverages generic HID/MSD drivers for its communication pathway presents an obvious solution. The patent itself identifies this as an advantage: "This [using generic drivers via peripheral device] bypasses any network interface of the processing device (and hence many firewalls) but only for the specific client software." [cite: "This bypasses any network interface of the processing device (and hence many firewalls) but only for the specific client software."] By routing the screen-scraped data through the peripheral device's own communication means (established via generic drivers) rather than the processing device's native network stack, the firewall issues associated with "Method 2" are circumvented. This directly addresses the stated problems of complexity, security, and administrative burden, making the system more accessible for "the usual user." [cite: "Such activity is beyond the usual user. Fussing with computer settings, or having to call for IT support wastes valuable meeting time and takes the dynamism out of the meeting."]

In summary, the key aspects of US patent 11422951, particularly the combination of screen scraping, wireless transmission via a peripheral device, portable applications, and the strategic use of generic pre-installed drivers to bypass common networking issues like firewalls, would have been obvious to a PHOSITA given the explicit problems articulated in the patent's background and the available prior art. The motivations to combine these elements are clearly present in the patent itself, stemming from the desire for greater ease of use, scalability, improved security, and enhanced participant engagement in electronic meetings.