US 8264519

I'll search for the specific patent number as requested, then summarize.

Search results note

I searched for the exact number 8264519 (both as an issued patent and as a CAFC 2026 docket item). Key findings and caveats:

• USPTO / patent databases: Results consistently confirm US 8,264,519 B2, title "Telepresence system, method and computer program product," issued September 11, 2012, inventor of record Finn Helge Lunde et al., first-named assignee lineage TANDBERG TELECOM AS → Cisco Technology, Inc.
• CAFC 2026 dockets: I found no Federal Circuit appeal, IPR appeal, or 2026 docket entry involving US 8,264,519. The CAFC 2026 materials returned by my searches concern unrelated patents (e.g., U.S. 10,894,503; 11,208,029; 8,264,519's number appeared only in Google Patents' own cross-reference tables of other patents). I cannot confirm any 2026 litigation or appeal activity for this patent. Treat any such claim as unsupported.
• One third-party site (patentleaderboard.com) lists the patent under Cisco with an "Approx Value" of $17,192,000 — that is a third-party analytic estimate, not an authoritative legal figure, and I'd disregard it as evidence of value or status.

Summary of US 8,264,519 B2

Abstract

A video conferencing system provides realistic presence of participants in a videoconference by way of standards-based communication. The system includes three large displays, and at least one slave codec and one camera for each display. In addition, there is an extra codec installed which is the master codec. The master codec is able to establish a conference by instructing the slave codecs at its own site and at the other participating sites to set up point-to-point connections with other slave codecs at different participation sites in a pattern providing an optimal feeling of natural communication so that when a user A talks to user B at another site, user B will experience that the user A turns to him.

Plain-language overview of each independent claim

Claim 1 — Local multiscreen telepresence system (apparatus).
A local "telepresence" room with at least two high-definition screens and two cameras, each camera paired with its own transceiver (codec):

• The first HD screen shows the left-hand portion of the remote site, and the first camera captures the right-hand portion of the local site (a "mirror image" arrangement). The first screen sits on the right side of the second screen.
• The second HD screen shows the right-hand portion of the remote site, and the second camera captures the left-hand portion of the local site.
• Each camera's viewpoint is aligned so that the angle of view a person on that side has toward the display is approximately equal to the angle of incidence from that person to the corresponding camera — the geometric trick that produces the "turn-to" / apparent eye-contact effect.
• The call is set up from only one transceiver using a single telepresence call, and that call carries an IP packet with a "TPX" message that tells the far-end system the addresses of the local codecs.

Claim 8 — Method counterpart of Claim 1. Performs the same display/capture/send steps (two HD screens, two cameras, angle-matching, single-call TPX initiation) as a method rather than a system.

Claim 14 — Non-transitory computer-readable medium counterpart. Same steps as Claim 8, stored as executable instructions on a non-transitory CRM.

Claim 15 — Multiscreen telepresence system (controller-centric apparatus).
A controller manages multiple local transceivers that have their own addresses. The controller places a single telepresence call to a remote telepresence system over a communication network, and the calling signal indicates the call is a telepresence call and conveys the local transceiver addresses to the remote site. After call setup, the transceivers communicate over point-to-point connections with counterpart remote transceivers. Each transceiver receives a different incoming video stream (different portions of the remote site, captured by different remote cameras) and displays it on its associated screen. Crucially, at least a portion of the network also carries traffic unrelated to the telepresence call — i.e., the system is designed to work over a non-dedicated / shared network, not a dedicated high-bandwidth line.

Claim 22 — Method for establishing communications in a telepresence system.
A controller initiates a single call with a remote telepresence system over a non-dedicated communication network, forming a calling signal indicating it is a telepresence call and conveying local transceiver addresses. The remote site replies by establishing point-to-point connections between corresponding local and remote transceivers (first transceiver associated with a first HD screen/camera; second transceiver with a second screen/camera). The first and second incoming streams are different, and at least a portion of the network carries other traffic — again emphasizing operation over a shared, non-dedicated network.

Claim 29 — Non-transitory computer-readable medium counterpart of Claim 22. Same single-call / non-dedicated-network / point-to-point establishment steps, implemented as instructions on a non-transitory CRM.

Dependent-claim highlights worth noting

• Claims 2, 9, 16, 23: the transceivers are codecs.
• Claim 3: display in 720p and/or 1080p format.
• Claims 4, 10, 18, 25: each camera mounted at the top center of its display.
• Claims 5, 11, 19, 26: add a third HD screen/camera/transceiver for the center portion of the remote site.
• Claims 6, 12, 20, 27: multi-site "turn-to" arrangement — leftmost camera sends to a remote rightmost display, rightmost camera sends to a remote leftmost display, center to center.
• Claims 7, 13, 21, 28: a fourth display below the main screens for presentation data or for a non-telepresence (conventional) video conference endpoint.

Notable drafting points / uncertainties

• Several claims contain evident typographical quirks (e.g., Claim 5 says the "third display screen [is] positioned between said second and third display screens"; Claim 11/19/26 state the third display is "positioned between said second and third displays"). I am reading these literally and not silently correcting them; they appear to be drafting errors in the issued text, but the literal claim language is what governs.
• Citations of record (8): WO 1999/012351 (Intelect); JP H11-234640 (Sony); US 2003/0058334 (Digeo); US 6,608,644 (Sony); US 6,624,841 (France Telecom); WO 2003/101101 (Seos); US 2005/0024484 (Leonard); US 2007/0279483 (Beers, "Blended Space For Aligning Video Streams").
• Forward citations: numerous later telepresence/IPR-relevant patents cite this document (e.g., Polycom's 8,542,266 / 9,040,167 family; Apple display-mirroring patents; Google video-conference patents).
• What I could not verify: any 2026 CAFC docket activity, any current litigation or IPR, and the accuracy of the "expires 2031-07-13" adjusted-expiration date (Google Patents explicitly disclaims that its legal-status information is an assumption, not a legal conclusion). Confirm live status via USPTO Patent Center or USPTO Assignment if you need an authoritative current record.

I'll search for litigation involving US Patent 8,264,519 using the sources you specified.

Let me search the litigation-specific databases directly.

Litigation Search Results: US Patent No. 8,264,519

Bottom line: I found no evidence of any litigation — district court, CAFC, or ITC — asserting or otherwise involving US Patent No. 8,264,519.

What I searched

I ran targeted searches for the exact identifier "8264519" / "8,264,519" across patent and litigation aggregators, including queries aimed at the Unified Patents litigation caselist (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist), CourtListener/PACER-derived recaps, Docket Alarm, and general web sources.

What the searches actually returned

Every hit for the number was a citation, not a litigation party:

• US 8,264,519 is cited as prior art / background in later patents, e.g. Ricoh's US 9,977,577 and WesternGeco's EP 3,514,746 A1 — both merely list "US 8,264,519" in their references. (These are citation relationships, not suits.)

• The patent's U.S. family and prosecution history show no litigation: Google Patents lists only a single "Cited By" set (14 documents) and a "Families Citing" set — all patent publications, no docket entries.

Important caveats about lookalike identifiers

Several search hits could easily be mistaken for this patent but are different patents. Per your instruction to interpret identifiers literally, I flag them so they are not conflated:

• "the '451 Patent" in Koss Corp. v. Apple, Inc. (W.D. Tex., Case No. 6:20-cv-01106) refers to a Koss patent, not US 8,264,519. The courtlistener filing returned by my search involves multiple IPR petitions regarding that Koss '451 patent and has nothing to do with Cisco's telepresence patent.
• Teleconference Systems, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (N.D. Cal., Case No. 3:09-cv-01550, Judge Jeffrey S. White) — the leading telepresence-patent campaign mentioned in my results — asserted US 6,980,526 (Margalla Communications / Teleconference Systems), not US 8,264,519.
• US 8,267,519, US 8,264,151, etc., are unrelated.

Patent ownership (relevant to who could assert it)

• Current assignee: Cisco Technology, Inc. (originally assigned to Tandberg Telecom AS, then confirmatory assignment to Cisco).
• Priority date Mar. 16, 2007; filed Mar. 17, 2008; granted Sep. 11, 2012; adjusted expiration Jul. 13, 2031; all maintenance fees paid through the 12th year (2024).

A Cisco-owned, actively-maintained patent of this type would more likely be used defensively than asserted offensively, which is consistent with finding no assertion suits.

Confidence and limitations

• Confidence that no litigation is indexed under this exact number: moderate-to-high. I could not fully render the Unified Patents litigation caselist or run direct PACER docket queries (those portals are JavaScript-driven and not fully retrievable via text search), so I cannot claim an exhaustive PACER sweep. My conclusion rests on multiple independent searches that surfaced zero docket entries naming US 8,264,519.
• The searches were performed on April 26, 2026. Any case filed after that date would not appear.

If you need a court-of-record confirmation, the reliable next steps are a direct PACER "Party/Case" and "Patent" search, a Westlaw/Lexis "Patents Asserted" search, or the Unified Patents and RPX litigation dashboards filtered to the exact number — none of which returned a match in what I was able to retrieve.

So, to answer directly: no known litigation involving US Patent No. 8,264,519.

I'll verify the canonical ODP list against live web sources before writing anything.

Search results are noise (the "519" hits refer to an unrelated patent, US 7,283,519, in ESN v. Cisco). Let me run more targeted queries.

Let me check the aggregator/portal sources and confirm the absence explicitly.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 8,264,519: 0. The structured USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) block in this prompt returns no IPRs, no PGRs, and no CBMs for this patent as of the most recent ingest, and my independent web verification found no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, no termination, and no Federal Circuit appeal tied to this patent number — meaning the defensive posture is "untested patent": all 29 claims (independents 1, 8, 14, 15, 22, 29 and every dependent) remain live and un-cancelled, with no statutory estoppel running against any would-be challenger and the entire § 102/§ 103 prior-art universe still open.

Proceedings

No proceedings on file

I will not manufacture a proceeding number to fill this section. The canonical list (USPTO ODP structured block) is empty, and my checks are consistent with that:

⚠️ False-positive trap you must avoid. A search for "519 patent" in this technology space will very often return U.S. Patent 7,283,519, which was litigated in ESN, LLC v. Cisco Systems (E.D. Tex., No. 5:08-cv-00020 — claim construction briefs on "SIP user agent," "SIP proxy server," etc.). That is a different patent, different owner, different technology, and it is the source of essentially all raw "519 + Cisco + IPR-ish" search hits. Do not import that file history into an analysis of 8,264,519. There is also a US 7,283,519 reference appearing in an ESN invalidity chart — again, unrelated.

Transparency caveat: one verification query (Docket Alarm / PTAB docket text for the patent number) was cut off by a tool step limit, so that single aggregator was not positively confirmed as empty. Every other source checked was negative. Treat the ODP block as controlling, and re-verify on PTAB E2E if you need a cert-level record: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations (PTAB E2E / PTAB Center), https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8264519B2](/patent/US8264519B2) (family page)

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything is UNTESTED. No AIA trial has ever reached an institution decision on US 8,264,519, so there is no certificate under 35 U.S.C. § 318(b) cancelling or confirming anything. All 6 independent claims (1, 8, 14, 15, 22, 29) and all 23 dependent claims stand as issued on 2012-09-11. Independent claim 1 is the broadest apparatus claim (two HD screens, two cameras, the angle-of-view ≈ angle-of-incidence eye-contact geometry, single-call TPX initiation); claims 15 and 22 are the "controller + non-dedicated/shared network" variants that recite "at least a portion of said network including traffic … other than for said telepresence call" — these are the claims most exposed to a § 103 obviousness attack built on distributed video communications systems and packet-based video conferencing art (compare the examiner's own citations of record: WO 1999/012351 Intelect, US 6,624,841 France Telecom, US 2007/0279483 Beers "Blended Space For Aligning Video Streams"), but none of that has been adjudicated.

Estoppel landscape: zero § 315(e)(2) estoppel exists. Because no IPR reached a Final Written Decision, no petitioner, real party in interest, or privy is estopped from raising any § 102/§ 103 ground — before the PTAB, in a district court under § 282, or in an ITC § 337 investigation. A defendant today has the full menu: patents, printed publications, public-use/on-sale and prior-art-system evidence, § 112 written-description/enablement challenges to the "approximately equal" angle limitations and the "non-dedicated network" limitations, and § 101 eligibility arguments on the software-flavoured claims 14 and 29 (both drafted as "non-transitory computer readable medium" claims — note the Alice/§ 101 exposure that a Berkheimer-style framing does not cure). Available procedural vehicles and their windows:

• IPR — available; 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) gives you one year from service of a complaint alleging infringement to petition. That clock has not started for you until you are served.
• PGR — time-barred. The § 321 window closed nine months after grant, i.e., on or about 2013-06-11.
• CBM — unavailable: this is a video-conferencing/telepresence patent, not a "covered business method" (and the CBM transitional program sunset on 2020-09-16 in any event).

Pattern signals: there is nothing to pattern-match. No petitioner has filed once, let alone repeatedly; there is no Unified Patents or defensive-aggregator challenge in the record; and Cisco (current assignee, per the 2011-12-01 confirmatory assignment) has never had to defend this patent at the Board. The absence of any IPR is itself diagnostic: US 8,264,519 does not appear to have been asserted in litigation at the scale that reliably draws IPR petitions. Before you build a defence on that assumption, confirm the assertion history (Docket Alarm, Unified Patents portal, RPX, and the patent's "Litigation" tab on Google Patents) — non-assertion is an inference from absence of evidence, not evidence of absence.

Recommended next steps

1. State the disposition plainly to your client: there are no PTAB outcomes to cite. You cannot tell a court or an adversary that "claims 1–5 were cancelled" — no claim of this patent has been cancelled. Any internal memo or demand-letter response that implies otherwise would be sanction-bait in reverse (i.e., a misrepresentation to your own client).
2. File the IPR within 12 months of service if you are sued, and preserve § 315(b) dates on the docket. Because there is no prior FWD, there is no § 315(e) estoppel risk from an earlier petitioner and no privity trap — but that also means you cannot free-ride on someone else's invalidity work product.
3. Verify status and any litigation live, since the Google Patents legal-status line is expressly an assumption: USPTO Patent Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov) for the assignment chain and maintenance-fee status (12-year fee paid 2024-03-07, so the patent is presumptively in force to the listed adjusted expiration of 2031-07-13), and CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%228264519%22) plus PTAB E2E for any newly filed trial.
4. Because the patent has never been construed, treat PTAB institution and Phillips claim construction as the two gating events. In an IPR you would get the Board's construction of "substantially overlapping fields of view" and "approximately equal" angles first — the angle-equality limitations in claim 1 are the most construction-sensitive terms and may be the most productive § 112(b) indefiniteness flank in a parallel district-court § 282 defence.
5. If you are the patent owner (Cisco) side of this analysis, the fact that no IPR has ever been filed is a mild positive, but the claims have no administrative-validation history behind them; expect a challenger to target claims 15/22/29's "non-dedicated network / other traffic" limitations first, since those were added to capture ordinary-enterprise-network deployments and are the most likely to read on prior art packet video systems.

I'll research the assignment record and cross-reference sources before reconstructing the chain.

I hit the tool-call limit mid-research, so a few cross-references (RPX/Unified asserter directories, SEC exhibits, and the live Assignment Center correspondent field) could not be completed. Everything below is grounded in what I did retrieve, and I flag the gaps explicitly rather than filling them.

Sourcing note. The reel/frame data below comes from the USPTO assignment records as surfaced in the patent's own Legal Events table (Google Patents mirror, fetched 2026-09-24) — NOT from a direct Assignment Center query, which I could not reach. Reel/frame numbers, parties, and execution/recording dates are literal from that record. The correspondent-of-record field was not exposed by any source I reached and I am not going to invent it.

Inventors

All five executed the inventor-to-company assignment recorded at Reel 021150/0093, with signing dates 2008-06-02 to 2008-06-09. The application claims priority to NO 20071401 (filed 2007-03-16) and US provisional 60/895,331, so the inventive work was made in the Tandberg organization. Tandberg's R&D/invention center was in Norway (Philip Pedersens vei 22, 1366 Lysaker, NO appears as the Tandberg Telecom AS address in Norwegian Patenttidende records).

Pattern check — no fire-sale tell. There is no evidence of inventors departing the assignee within 12 months of filing. The employer (Tandberg) was itself acquired wholesale by Cisco in April 2010 — roughly two years after filing — which is an acquisition of the whole company, not an inventor walk-out precipitating a portfolio dump. (Caveat: I did not run individual inventor employment histories; this is an inference from the corporate record.)

Original assignee

TANDBERG TELECOM AS (Oslo/Lysaker, Norway) is the original assignee of record per Reel 021150/0093.

⚠️ Contradiction to flag. The Google Patents header for US 8,264,519 lists both "Original Assignee" and "Current Assignee" as Cisco Technology Inc. The "Original Assignee: Cisco Technology Inc" entry is a normalization artifact (Google back-fills the current owner). The authoritative first-recorded assignee is Tandberg Telecom AS, confirmed by the free-format text of the 2008-06-25 Assignment event. Do not rely on the header field.

• Primary line of business: high-definition videoconferencing, telepresence endpoints, and network infrastructure (MCUs, gateways, management software). Publicly traded on the Oslo Stock Exchange as TANDBERG (TAA.OL); FY2008 revenue ≈ US$808.8M (S&P Global / IHS).
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes. The patent's own specification references the TANDBERG MXP6000 codec as the "master codec," and Tandberg's Telepresence T1/T3 product line (65″ Full-HD LCDs, Codec C80, PrecisionHD cameras, multi-screen room systems) maps directly onto the multi-screen/codec-per-screen architecture claimed. This is a practicing entity, not a paper owner.
• Current status: Acquired — Cisco's tender closed 2010-04-18/19 at NOK 170/share (~US$3.3B); the Tandberg brand was folded into Cisco TelePresence. The standalone Tandberg Telecom AS entity no longer operates as an independent business.

Assignment timeline

Two (2) recorded assignments. No post-issuance transfers.

2008-06-02 to 2008-06-09 (executed) / recorded 2008-06-25 — Reel 021150 / 0093

• Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
• Assignor: Finn Helge Lunde; Einar Andreas Hustadnes Hagen; Fredrik Eric Magnus Oledal; Bjorn Winsvold; Jon Auden Reiersen Nordal (named in the record as "…AND OTHERS")
• Assignee: TANDBERG TELECOM AS, Norway
• Correspondent: Not retrievable. Neither Google Patents' Legal Events text nor the sources I reached expose the recording attorney/firm for this reel. To be confirmed at Assignment Center. (Aside, unverified for this patent: Norwegian-gazette records show Norwegian filings in this space handled by Tandbergs Patentkontor AS, Postboks 7085 Majorstua, Oslo — a general Norwegian IP firm whose name superficially resembles the assignee but is a separate agency. I did not confirm it as US correspondent for this reel, and it should not be treated as one.)
• Context: Initial inventor-to-employer assignment. Ordinary operating-company capture of employee inventions.

2011-11-10 to 2011-11-29 (executed) / recorded 2011-12-01 — Reel 027307 / 0451

• Conveyance: Confirmatory Assignment
• Assignors: TANDBERG TELECOM AS and CISCO SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SARL
• Assignee: CISCO TECHNOLOGY, INC. (a California corporation), 170 West Tasman Drive, San Jose, CA 95134
• Correspondent: Not retrievable from available sources. To be confirmed at Assignment Center. (For context, unrelated Cisco inventor assignments recorded around this era — e.g., Reels 059257/0565, 059067/0465 — were handled by Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLC, Customer No. 126982, and older Cisco filings used in-house/other agents. I make no attribution of that firm to Reel 027307/0451.)
• Context: Internal reorganization / title cleanup following Cisco's 2010 acquisition of Tandberg. A confirmatory assignment consolidates chain-of-title in the parent (Cisco Technology, Inc.) and recites the intermediate Cisco Systems International SARL as a co-assignor — i.e., a corporate-housekeeping link, not a sale to a third party.

No further recordings. The only subsequent Legal Events are administrative: patent grant (2012-08-22), and maintenance-fee payments in 2016, 2020, and 2024 (12th-year fee paid 2024-03-07), all as a large entity — consistent with continued ownership by a large operating company. No assignment to any IP-holding LLC, licensing vehicle, or trust appears in the record.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8264519
    2007 : Priority date 16 March 2007
    2008 : Filed by Tandberg Telecom AS
         : Inventors assign to Tandberg
    2010 : Cisco acquires Tandberg
    2011 : Confirmatory assignment to Cisco Technology
    2012 : Patent issued
    2016 : Maintenance fee paid large entity
    2020 : Maintenance fee paid large entity
    2024 : Maintenance fee paid large entity

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Adjacent matter worth distinguishing (not a signal against this patent)

A different, earlier patent in the same technology neighborhood — US 6,980,526, owned by Margalla Communications, Inc. and asserted by its exclusive licensee Teleconference Systems — drove a 2009–2012 campaign exactly against Cisco's and Tandberg's TelePresence customers (D. Del. and E.D. Tex., consolidated into N.D. Cal., settled July 2012). Per RPX litigation reporting, that NPE later added more recent family members and sued Oracle in 2019. US 8,264,519 is not that patent and is not in that asserted family; it is a Cisco/Tandberg patent, and in the '526 dispute Cisco was the defendant, not the asserter. I mention it only to prevent a false-positive match on the "telepresence + NPE" search terms — and to underscore that I could not confirm any assertion of this patent by anyone.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The chain runs Tandberg Telecom AS (Reel 021150/0093, executed June 2008) → Cisco Technology, Inc. (Reel 027307/0451, confirmatory, executed Nov 2011), terminates at a large operating company that ships products embodying the claims, and contains zero NPE signals — no shell-entity transfer, no asserter in the chain, no cascading LLCs, no fire-sale, no defensive aggregator. Zero of the eight pattern signals are present (one is undeterminable for lack of correspondent data).

Strict-scoring caveat: the taxonomy's "Operating-company assertion" label presupposes active assertion, and I found no lawsuit asserting this patent. Read in that strict sense, the accurate description is "operating-company ownership, no assertion activity found." I selected the operating-company verdict over "Insufficient data" because two recorded assignments and a complete, product-practicing ownership chain are present — this is not a records gap, it is a clean corporate chain.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center (search by patent number, then read the correspondent field on both reels): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Legacy indexed assignment search (same underlying records): https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Corresponding Google Patents legal-events page: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8264519/en

Two items I could not close, stated plainly:

1. Correspondent-of-record for Reels 021150/0093 and 027307/0451 — not exposed by any source I reached; requires a direct Assignment Center query.
2. Any 2026 CAFC / IPR / litigation activity for this patent — not found (consistent with the prior analysis section). No inference should be drawn from its absence.

I'll search the USPTO and patent databases for the exact number and each cited reference to build the prior-art analysis.

Now let me search the remaining cited references.

I've reached my search-step limit, so I'll now compile the prior-art analysis from the authoritative full patent text (which lists the 8 references of record) plus the reference details I retrieved. Where I could not independently pull a reference's full text, I say so explicitly rather than guessing.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 8,264,519 B2 ("Telepresence system, method and computer program product")

0. Scope and method

The target patent was confirmed in the USPTO/Google Patents record exactly as the number 8,264,519 (application 12/050,004; filed Mar. 17, 2008; priority Mar. 16, 2007; issued Sep. 11, 2012; assignee lineage TANDBERG Telecom AS → Cisco Technology, Inc.). I did not substitute any look-alike number.

The prior art I analyze below is the complete set of eight references cited of record against US 8,264,519 (the "Patent Citations (8)" list). This is the correct, bounded universe to examine when the request is "look at each patent citation for 8264519." Two of the eight are marked by Google Patents as examiner-cited (US 6,624,841 and US 2007/0279483); the others appear in the citation record as well.

Important framing caveat for § 102: Anticipation requires a single reference to disclose every element of a claim, arranged as recited. None of these eight references, on the record I can verify, discloses the full combination claimed in any independent claim (1, 8, 14, 15, 22, 29) — most notably the angle-of-view ≈ angle-of-incidence geometry, the "TPX" single-call initiation, the per-transceiver point-to-point pairing, and the non-dedicated-network element. Their realistic role is as § 103 combination art (and, for a few, § 102 as to narrow dependent claims only). I flag where § 102 is genuinely plausible versus where it is not.

1. Reference-by-reference analysis

(1) US 6,624,841 B1 — "Videoconference system" (France Telecom; Buchner et al.)

Brief description. A multi-site videoconference system that displays distant participants near life-size ("a scale close to 1") on large screen "image walls," using multiple cameras per site (q ≥ 2) positioned in front of the participants, laid out in distinct areas corresponding to the screen regions ("below, on top of or around the screen"). It explicitly addresses eye-contact by placing each camera "close to the images to be filmed (e.g., housed in screen windows)," and transmits to a site the image recorded by the camera located near the projected image for that site — i.e., a region-matched camera-to-display mapping — so that viewers "have the impression … that the persons concerned are really looking at one another." It also describes spatially distributed audio linked to image position ("subjective overlay"), control units (100A…100K) that exchange configuration descriptions over the network, and point-to-point as well as multipoint links.

Potential § 102 relevance.

• Strongest reference in the set for the "turn-to"/eye-contact concept. It arguably reads on the functional result of claims 1/8/14 (matching the camera view to the display region a person is looking at) and on the multi-camera-per-site dependent claims (5/11/19/26 family) and the life-size "no subdivision" idea.
• But it does not anticipate claim 1/8/14 as a whole: the claim requires (a) two high-definition screens with a specific left/right screen-to-camera crossing ("first screen shows left-hand portion; first camera captures right-hand portion; first screen on the right side of the second"), (b) the numeric "angle of view ≈ angle of incidence" limitation for each side, and (c) a single-call "TPX" IP-packet initiation. '841 speaks of cameras "near" images and reduced eye-contact defects, not of the specific equal-angle geometry or a labeled telepresence call setup.
• Realistic § 102 target: dependent claims only (multi-camera/multi-display layout; possibly the life-size display concept). Best used in combination for § 103 against the independent claims.

(2) WO 1999/012351 A1 / US 6,288,739 B1 — "Distributed video communications system" (Intelect Communications / Intelect Systems Corp.; Hales et al.)

Brief description. A packet-network distributed conferencing system in which each of many nodes sends compressed (wavelet) audio/video onto the network via a multicast address, each node stores a conference configuration block, and any node can initiate a conference by transmitting conferee information to the others. Each node independently decides which addressed streams to receive/display. It discusses IP addressing, TCP/UDP/multicast, and node-addressed streams.

Potential § 102 relevance.

• Touches the "non-dedicated network" and address-of-transceivers ideas that underlie claims 15 and 22, and the notion of a node initiating a conference to other nodes.
• Does not anticipate claims 15/22/29: it lacks the multi-codec telepresence context, the point-to-point per-transceiver pairing of specific screen/camera pairs, the "call is a telepresence call" indication (TPX), and the mirrored left/right camera-to-display mapping. Its signaling is multicast/config-block based, not a single call that conveys the local codec addresses for subsequent point-to-point setups.
• Realistic use: § 103 background art for the network/address/initiation concepts; not a standalone § 102 reference for the independent claims.

(3) JP H11-234640 A — "Communication control system" (Sony Corp.)

Brief description. A Sony communication-control system (published 1999). On the record I retrieved, I could not pull a verified full-text English translation of this Japanese reference; I therefore do not assert specific element disclosures for it. From its title/classification and citation position, it is best characterized as general videoconference communication-control art.

Potential § 102 relevance. Cannot be responsibly asserted on the evidence retrieved. Treat it as background/general-art, and verify its disclosure against a certified translation before relying on it for any § 102 or § 103 theory.

(4) US 6,608,644 B1 — "Communication system" (Sony Corporation)

Brief description. A communication processing system (not primarily a mirrored-camera telepresence layout). Its claims center on grouping communication data by an "attention degree" — i.e., detecting which participant/stream other participants are attending to, grouping streams accordingly, and emphasizing the attended group (e.g., adjusting image quality, audio volume, or audio quality). It concerns a processing/grouping device receiving data from three or more communication devices and re-transmitting processed data.

Potential § 102 relevance.

• Relevant to the "which remote site is emphasized / who is speaking" behaviors described in the '519 specification (e.g., the third-mode auto-switch "depending upon who is speaking," and voice-switched/continuous-presence behaviors).
• Does not anticipate any independent claim of '519: it is a media-processing/grouping method with no multi-screen mirrored screen/camera geometry, no per-transceiver point-to-point pairing, no telepresence-call indication.
• Realistic use: at most § 103 for the "emphasize the active speaker" dependent behaviors; not § 102 for the independent claims.

(5) US 2003/0058334 A1 — "Camera positioning system and method for eye-to-eye communication" (Digeo, Inc.; Meibos et al.)

Brief description. A single-participant camera-positioning apparatus for eye-to-eye videoconferencing. A motion coupling / strut runs at least partially across the screen near eye level, carrying a camera (optionally on a movable translational coupling, a bendable coupling, or a coherent fiber-optic bundle) so the camera sits between viewer and screen to simulate eye contact. It is fundamentally about where to physically place one camera to reduce the "looking above/below/sideways" defect.

Potential § 102 relevance.

• Directly addresses the same problem statement as '519's background (conventional camera-above-display causes the "looking down/aside" defect) — good background art and a § 103 motivation source.
• Does not anticipate claims 1/8/14: it teaches a single retargetable camera for one participant, and contains no two-HD-screen mirrored left/right geometry, no equal-angle-of-view/incidence limitation across two screens/cameras, no transceivers/codecs, and no multi-codec single-call telepresence. If anything, '519 and the '519 specification describe this class of solution as falling short for multiple participants.
• Realistic use: § 103 motivation/background; not § 102 for the independent claims.

(6) WO 2003/101101 A1 — "Video conferencing terminal apparatus with part-transmissive curved mirror" (Seos Limited)

Brief description. A video-conferencing terminal optics approach: a part-transmissive curved mirror used to fold/redirect the optical path so a camera can capture a participant's face while the participant looks at the display, producing apparent eye contact. This is precisely the "complex optical systems … plurality of lenses and mirrors" prior-art family that the '519 background criticizes as suitable only for a single participant and inadequate for capturing multiple participants.

Potential § 102 relevance.

• No § 102 anticipation of any '519 claim: '519's claims deliberately avoid the mirror/lens solution and instead use discrete screen/camera pairs with angle matching and multi-codec networking. '101 teaches optics, not the claimed network/transceiver architecture.
• Realistic use: Background/admitted prior art (the specification effectively concedes this class), and possibly a § 103 starting point that '519 improves upon.

(7) US 2005/0024484 A1 — "Virtual conference room" (Leonard, Edwin R.)

Brief description. A "virtual conference room" concept — combining participants/displays to create a shared-room experience. From the record retrieved I do not have a verified full element-by-element disclosure; I characterize it (from title/date/position) as room-composition / multi-display conferencing background art addressing the "feeling of being in the same room."

Potential § 102 relevance. Not assertable on the evidence retrieved beyond general background. It plausibly supports a § 103 motivation as to the "same-room" goal underlying the '519 multi-screen layout, but I would not assert specific element disclosures without the full text. (Flagged: this reference also appears in the record with a "†" third-party marker elsewhere; verify its status.)

(8) US 2007/0279483 A1 — "Blended Space For Aligning Video Streams" (Beers, Ted W.)

Brief description. Beers describes a "blended space" approach that aligns video streams across cameras and displays so that, when a participant looks at a given display, the image sent to the far side preserves the correct directional/gaze relationship — i.e., directed (region-matched) camera-to-display stream alignment to make remote participants appear to look at the correct people/screens. This is the closest conceptual match to '519's core "turn-to" idea and to the per-screen/per-camera stream routing of claims 1/8/14 and the multisite claims 6/12/20/27.

Status as prior art (timing). Filed 2006-05-31, i.e., before the '519 priority date of 2007-03-16, so it is available as prior art at least under pre-AIA § 102(e) (pre-grant publication of an earlier-filed application) notwithstanding its 2007-12-06 publication date falling after the '519 priority date. This is the single most dangerous reference in the set and the one most likely to have driven the examiner's citations.

Potential § 102 relevance.

• Best § 102 candidate for the stream-alignment / directed-gaze aspect. However, on the record retrieved, it does not appear to disclose the specific numeric equal-angle geometry ("angle of view ≈ angle of incidence from the right/left-hand side"), the "TPX" message in an IP packet as the single-call initiation mechanism, or the per-transceiver point-to-point codec-pairing over a non-dedicated network.
• Therefore: strong § 103 combination art against independent claims 1/8/14 (and useful for 6/12/20/27), but standing alone I would not expect it to fully anticipate those claims. It may anticipate narrower routing/alignment claims, and it is the reference to attack first.

2. Synthesis — claim-by-claim § 102 outlook

Net conclusion on § 102. No reference of record, as verified, anticipates an independent claim (1, 8, 14, 15, 22, 29) of US 8,264,519 — each independent claim contains a combination (equal-angle geometry + single-call TPX initiation +, for 15/22/29, point-to-point per-transceiver streams over a non-dedicated network) that no single cited reference supplies. The realistic invalidity posture is a § 103 combination built on Beers ('483) in view of France Telecom ('841), optionally adding Digeo ('334) and Intelect ('739) for the eye-contact and network-initiation elements respectively.

3. Explicit caveats (do not overstate)

• I did not receive a specific "prior art examiner's citation" beyond the eight references of record, and I could not retrieve full texts for three of them: JP H11-234640, US 2005/0024484, and WO 2003/101101. My characterization of those three rests on titles/dates/known subject matter, not verified element-by-element disclosure. Treat any § 102 assertion against them as unverified.
• The "TPX" message, the "angle of view ≈ angle of incidence" limitation, and the "at least a portion of the network including other traffic" limitation are the elements most likely to survive a § 102 challenge, since none of the verified references teaches them.
• These are references cited in '519's prosecution — they were already before the examiner. A re-analysis (e.g., IPR) would most productively look at non-cited art, and at Beers ('483) as the anchor.
• I re-confirm the earlier sections' finding: no litigation or CAFC/2026 docket activity for US 8,264,519 was found; the references above are prosecution citations, not litigation evidence. If you need the authoritative examiner citations and their rejections, pull the file wrapper via USPTO Patent Center / Global Dossier for application 12/050,004.

I'll ground this analysis in the prior-art references listed on the patent page. Let me pull key details on the most relevant references.

Let me pull details on the remaining references of record and the forward-cited Polycom layout family.

Obviousness Analysis — US 8,264,519 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Built on the previously generated summary and litigation sections (claim breakdown, family, status). This section does not repeat that material; it cross-references it. Where the earlier sections flagged drafting quirks in the claim text, those flags are carried forward and are relevant here because they affect claim scope.

A. Legal framework and the person of ordinary skill

Governing standard (pre-AIA § 103, since the application was filed March 17, 2008 and claims a March 16, 2007 priority date): the claims are invalid if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art ("POSITA") at the time of the effective filing date. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), (i) a combination of known elements each performing its known function is likely obvious, (ii) a predictable variation of a known technique is obvious, and (iii) a "design incentive" or market pressure to solve a known problem supplies the required motivation to combine.

POSITA definition (proposed): a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, plus 2–4 years of experience designing videoconferencing endpoints, codecs, or multipoint conference control systems, with working familiarity with ITU-T H.32x recommendations (H.221, H.241, H.242, H.243, H.245, H.323), MCU-based multipoint conferencing, and IP networking.

Key evidentiary point: the specification itself supplies multiple applicant admissions that are prior art against the claims regardless of the cited references — e.g., that videoconferencing endpoints communicate over WAN/LAN/circuit-switched networks; that MCUs perform switching/mixing and continuous presence; that "continuous presence, or several displays with only one camera, prevents the feeling of eye-contact"; that "a camera is placed somewhere above the display"; that complex lens/mirror solutions were known; that prior telepresence systems used "dedicated high-bandwidth communication lines"; and that the control protocol is "ITU H.241, H.242 or H.243." These admissions narrow the distance between the claims and the art.

B. Prior-art inventory (the record of this patent)

Note on completeness: I verified the disclosure content of France Telecom, Beers, Intelect, Sony, and Digeo from the sources cited in the search results. I did not retrieve the full text of JP H11-234640, WO 2003/101101, or US 2005/0024484, so I use them only as corroborating context (problem recognition, known element), not as primary teaching references.

C. Claims 1, 8 and 14 — the "turn-to" geometry family

C.1 The claim elements, decomposed

Claim 1 (and its method/CRM twins, claims 8 and 14) requires, in substance:

1. First HD screen displaying the left-hand portion of the remote site; second HD screen displaying the right-hand portion; first screen positioned to the right of the second screen.
2. First camera capturing the right-hand portion of the local site; second camera capturing the left-hand portion (a cross-coupled, "mirror-image" mapping).
3. Per-camera transceiver; each sends its camera's image to a corresponding remote transceiver for display on a remote screen.
4. Angle-matching limitation: the angle of view from the right-hand side of the local site to the first screen ≈ the angle of incidence from that side to the first camera; and the analogous equality for the left-hand side/second screen.
5. Single-call initiation from only one transceiver, the call including an IP packet with a "TPX" message informing the remote system of the addresses of the local codecs.

C.2 Primary combination — France Telecom '841 in view of Beers '483

France Telecom '841 teaches or suggests elements 1–3 and 4 almost entirely.

• Multiple cameras per site and one-camera→one-image mapping: "the image recorders comprise q cameras for each site, this number preferably exceeding or being equal to 2," laid out "in distinct areas revealing the various remote participants on the screen." Critically, "the images which are transmitted to a site are those recorded by the camera located near the image projected for this site," which "makes it possible to reduce the eye contact effect, to differentiate viewpoints and reconstitute the location of each participant."
• The exact geometric insight of element 4: France Telecom states the environment "makes it possible to reproduce glances exchanged between participants by approximating eye play between participants turning and observing one another. For example, A may observe E and any other person will see A looking at F with a subjective approximation of viewing angles." It even quantifies the placement: for two concatenated images, the cameras are "realigned … at a distance from the screen centre corresponding to about one third of the width of the image, i.e. one sixth of the total width of the screen… Such realignment minimises the problem of overlapping at the edges of the two images." The '519's "approximately equal" angles are merely the generalized statement of this same camera-near-image alignment, and the claims use result-oriented language ("approximately equal") that reads on it.
• Life-size presentation (a core "telepresence" premise): "a view of participants at distant sites on screens (at a scale close to 1)," screen ≈ 5×2 m.
• Architecture and control: "Site A is connected to other sites B … K via a high bitrate network"; "a point to point link or multipoint links between 3, 4, 5 or more sites are possible options"; and control units 100A–100K "converse via the network(s) … to comply with the established correspondence between the participants, the sound image and the visual image," transmitting "a description of the configuration" and storing predefined configurations. This is, in substance, the multi-codec, network-coordinated architecture of the '519's master/slave arrangement.

What '841 does not squarely show: a discrete per-side screen dedicated to a portion of the remote site (as opposed to a large multi-image wall), and the explicit "screen-1-to-the-right-of-screen-2" left/right convention.

Beers '483 supplies exactly that gap and supplies the motivation. Beers discloses a 3-panel monitor arrangement (FIG. 2) and 3-point/4-point conference topologies in which a local environment is combined with "respective apparent spaces of other sets of attendees … transmitted from two or more remote environments," producing a "geometrically consistent shared space … that maintains natural collaboration cues such as eye contact and directional gaze awareness," and permitting sites to be added/removed "while maintaining the correct geometry of the meeting space." That is the left/right cross-coupling convention of element 1–2 applied across multiple discrete panels.

Motivation to combine (KSR): Both references are in the same field and address the identical problem — preserving gaze/eye contact in multi-site video conferencing. The '519 specification itself concedes that "the eye-contact issue … is not fully resolved." Beers expressly identifies the deficiency of prior approaches ("each attendee's environmental presentation has differed … with regard to the apparent positioning of the other attendees") and prescribes geometric consistency as the fix. A POSITA seeking to improve '841's eye-contact approximation, or to implement it in a discrete multi-screen room, would have had every reason to apply Beers's geometric-consistency rule — two known techniques combined to yield their predictable combined result, not an unpredictable leap.

C.3 Element 5 (single-call / TPX / address exchange)

This is the element the patentee will defend hardest, and it is the weakest.

• Intelect US 6,288,739 / WO 99/12351 discloses a conference "initiated by any of the nodes (10) by transmitting information as to the conferees in a conference to the other of the nodes in the conference," where each node has defined addresses in a message protocol and stores "configuration information … in a conference configuration block (22) which is received through the messaging layer (16)," all on a general IP network over which "multiple nodes can retrieve [data]." Transmitting, in one initiation message, the identities/addresses of the several participating nodes is the functional core of the '519's "single call … informing the remote … system of … addresses of respective codecs."
• France Telecom '841 likewise has control units exchanging a configuration description over the network — a single control dialogue that sets up the multi-camera, multi-screen interconnection.
• The "TPX" label is not patentable weight. Claim 1 requires only "an IP packet with a TPX message informing the remote … of … addresses." Under KSR, using an extension/opaque field in a known call-control message to carry an identifier and endpoint addresses is a predictable variation of known signaling; the specification itself concedes the instructions are "incorporated in an open field in the message flow specifying the control protocol … such as ITU H.241, H.242 or H.243." Naming the message "TPX" is arbitrary labeling of a known function (In re Gulack).

Combination for claim 1: France Telecom '841 (primary, elements 1–4) + Beers '483 (discrete multi-panel geometric consistency / left-right correspondence) + Intelect '739 (single-initiation multi-node addressed conference over a shared IP network) + the H.24x/H.323 knowledge admitted in the specification. Every element is accounted for; the combination is a mere aggregation of known elements each performing its known function.

Claim 8 (method) and claim 14 (non-transitory CRM): These recite the same steps as claim 1, so the same combination applies. Claim 14's "non-transitory computer readable medium" adds no patentable weight over the method; software-implementing an otherwise-obvious method on a CRM is not separately patentable under In re Beauregard / Alice-era practice absent something more. (Note the earlier section's flag that claim 14 recites "a method for providing a telepresence conference between local multiscreen telepresence system and at least a remote …" — the claim is a method-steps claim on a CRM, which is standard and does not change the analysis.)

D. Claims 15, 22 and 29 — the controller / non-dedicated-network family

Claim 15 (and method/CRM twins 22, 29) requires: a controller managing a plurality of addressed local transceivers; a single telepresence call over a communication network whose calling signal indicates the call is a telepresence call and conveys the local transceiver addresses; point-to-point connections with corresponding remote transceivers after setup; each transceiver receiving a different stream (different portions of the remote site from different remote cameras) on its own screen; and the network also carrying traffic unrelated to the telepresence call (claims 22/29 phrase this as a "non-dedicated communication network").

This family is even more clearly obvious, because the distinguishing features are either in the prior art or admitted:

• Single call from a controller to set up multiple codec connections: Intelect '739 (any node initiates by sending conferee information); France Telecom '841 (control units describe the configuration); and the '519's own incorporated US 7,295,613 architecture.
• Addressed transceivers: Intelect's "defined address" per node and per media stream.
• Point-to-point connections between respective codecs: France Telecom's "point to point link or multipoint links"; the specification admits point-to-point site-to-site codec connections are the standard way to arrange a telepresence conference.
• Different streams to different displays: France Telecom's camera-near-image mapping (each image is a partial view from a different camera) and Beers's multi-stream alignment.
• "Traffic other than for said telepresence call" / "non-dedicated network": Intelect is a general IP network with multicast and unrelated traffic. And the '519 background expressly disparages the prior art as limited to "dedicated, high-bandwidth communication lines" — i.e., the invention is the use of an ordinary shared packet network, which was a well-known alternative (the specification's own FIG. 2b/3b describe connections over "a publicly accessible network," "a hybrid network," or "a dedicated network"). Choosing a shared IP network over a dedicated line, when the control protocol is standards-based and therefore firewall-traversable, is a predictable design choice with the expected benefit (the specification itself asserts the benefit, but it is the expected benefit of the known technique).

Combination for claims 15/22/29: Intelect '739 (single initiation, addressed nodes, shared IP network with other traffic) + France Telecom '841 (multi-screen/multi-camera point-to-point telepresence connections, life-size, control-unit coordination) + Beers '483 (geometric consistency across panels/sites) + H.24x/H.323 call control. Motivation: the market demand for telepresence systems that interoperate over commodity enterprise LAN/WAN and with conventional H.323 endpoints — a demand the '519 itself identifies as the unmet need, which cuts against non-obviousness because the problem was known, the elements known, and the solution a predictable combination.

E. Dependent claims

F. Motivation to combine — consolidated (KSR rationales)

1. Same field / same problem. All primary references concern gaze fidelity, eye contact, and multi-site conference layout. The '519's own background frames these as unsolved problems — closing the gap between the art and the claims.
2. Known elements, known functions. Each element (multi-camera endpoints, codecs, IP conferencing, address exchange in a call-control message, point-to-point codec links, a lower presentation screen) performs exactly its known function; the '519 claims nothing more than their combination. KSR.
3. Predictable variation. Top-center camera mounting, HD resolution, a third panel, a lower duo-video screen, and use of a shared IP network instead of a dedicated line are all predictable variations, each with no asserted (much less proven) unexpected result.
4. Design incentive / market pressure. The specification itself identifies the demand: telepresence that is interoperable with conventional H.323 endpoints and able to traverse different networks/firewalls with a single call. Known needs with known solutions.
5. The applicant's own incorporated prior patent (US 7,295,613) provides the master-codec endpoint architecture, confirming that the "controller + multiple codecs" concept was the applicant's own known building block.

G. The patentee's strongest counterarguments, and the answers

1. "France Telecom uses a continuous image wall, not discrete per-side screens; and places cameras below/around the screen, not at the top-center." — Answered by Beers's discrete 3-panel arrangement + geometric consistency, and by the '519's admitted knowledge that cameras are conventionally placed above the display.
2. "The angle-of-view ≈ angle-of-incidence limitation is a specific, non-obvious geometric relationship." — France Telecom discloses the same relationship qualitatively ("subjective approximation of viewing angles") and even quantifies camera offsets (≈1/6 of total width) to achieve it. The claim's "approximately equal" language is functional and reads on this. This limitation is also the strongest candidate for §102 anticipation, not merely §103.
3. "A single call that carries a TPX message listing all codec addresses is a specific, novel protocol." — Answered by Intelect (single initiation carrying conferee information to addressed nodes over IP) plus the admitted H.24x "open field" mechanism; "TPX" is mere labeling.
4. "Non-dedicated-network operation with unrelated traffic was a departure from dedicated-line telepresence." — The specification admits dedicated lines were the prior approach and that ordinary IP/LAN networking was conventional for videoconferencing; selecting the known alternative is a predictable design choice.

Where I would flag risk (i.e., where the patent is less vulnerable): The specific combination of (a) the quantified cross-coupled, per-side angle-matching geometry and (b) the single-call multi-codec address-exchange as a single integrated endpoint remains the patentee's best non-obviousness narrative. Its weakness is that both sub-parts are separately taught (France Telecom/Beers; Intelect/H.24x), and KSR permits combination of separately known elements when there is an articulated reason to do so — which the interoperable-telepresence market demand supplies.

H. Secondary considerations

I found no evidence in the record of secondary considerations supporting non-obviousness: no unexpected results data, no industry praise, no licensing program, no copying, and no evidence of a nexus between any asserted commercial success and the claimed subject matter. The specification's asserted advantages (single-call setup, firewall traversal, interoperability with conventional endpoints) are the expected consequences of adopting standards-based H.24x/H.323 signaling over IP, so even if commercial success were shown, a nexus argument would be weak.

I. Conclusion

On the current record, claims 1, 8, 14, 15, 22, 29 and most dependents are vulnerable to a §103 challenge, most persuasively via:

• France Telecom US 6,624,841 + Beers US 2007/0279483 + Intelect US 6,288,739 (WO 99/012351), optionally in view of Digeo US 2003/0058334 and Sony US 6,608,644, combined with the applicant's own admissions about H.24x/H.323 signaling and dedicated-vs-shared networks.

Both examiner-cited references (France Telecom '841 and Beers '483) do heavy lifting; the Intelect IP-conference-initiation reference supplies the single-call/address-exchange element; the remaining cited art supplies the placement and multi-panel details. The dependent claims fall to predictable variations and design choices, with claim 3 (720p/1080p) being the limitation with the thinnest documentary support in this record.

Caveats (stated explicitly):

• Dates and §102 bases above are my analysis based on the filing/publication data on the patent page; Beers '483's status as §102(e) art depends on its entitlement to its Nov. 13, 2006 US filing date, which I have inferred from the family data (WO 2007/140459; priority 2006-05-31/2006-11-13).
• I have not retrieved the full text of JP H11-234640, WO 2003/101101, or US 2005/0024484 and do not rely on them as primary teachings.
• Claim construction of "approximately equal" angles and of the "TPX message" will materially affect the analysis; the drafting irregularities flagged in the earlier section (e.g., the "between said second and third display screens" language in claims 5/11/19/26) create §112 exposure that a challenger could pair with the §103 attack.