N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ DIRECTPACKET RESEARCH, INC., Appellant

v.
POLYCOM, INC., Appellee

______________________
2021

- 1661

______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019

- 01233.

______________________ Decided: January 2 6 , 2022

______________________
T ERENCE P. R OSS , Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by C HRISTOPHER F ERENC , E RIC T HOMAS W ERLINGER

.
G EOFFREY P. E ATON , Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by D AVID D ALKE , Los Angeles, CA ; N OOROSSADAT T ORABI , San Francisco, CA

.

______________________ Case: 21-1661 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 01/26/2022DIRECTPACKET RESEARCH , INC

. v. POLYCOM , INC

. 2

Before M OORE , Chief Judge
, D YK and R EYNA , Circuit Judges

. M OORE , Chief Judge

. d irectPacket Research, Inc. appeals a n inter partes review final written decision holding claims 1

– 23 of U.S. Patent No. 7,773,588 would have been obvious. For the following reasons
, we vacate and remand.
B ACKGROUND directPacket owns the ’588 patent , which is titled “System and Method for Cross Protocol Communication.” Th at patent relates to facilitating multimedia communication between devices that use incompatible communication protocols. ’588 patent at 1:6

– 8; 2: 3– 5. To overcome incompatibility issues, the invention includes a communication controller, which receives a multimedia data stream from a communication device in a first protocol and converts the stream in to an intermediate protocol. Id. at 2:5

– 10. T he multimedia data stream in the intermediate protocol is transmitted to a second communication contr oller, which converts the data stream to a second protocol that is compatible with the destination communication device. Id. at 2:15

– 18. Claim 1 is representative for this appeal:
1. A method for multimedia communication comprising: receiving a multimedi a data stream at a communication controller in a first protocol from a communication device, wherein thefirst protocol comprises a signaling protocol ; detecting a type of said first protocol;converting said first protocol into an intermediate protocol; Case: 21-1661 Document: 39 Page: 2 Filed: 01/26/2022DIRECTPACKET RESEARCH , INC

. v. POLYCOM , INC

. 3

t ranslating said intermediate protocol into a second protocol, wherein the second protocol comprises a signaling protoco l; and transmitting said multimedia data streamin said second protocol to a target communication device; wherein said first protocol com prises one of a text

- based protocol and a binary protocol and wherein said second protocol comprises one of a binary protocol and a text

- based protocol. (emphasis on disputed language ). Polycom , Inc. petitioned for inter partes review of all claims of the ’588 patent
, which t he Board instituted

. Throughout the proceedings, the parties agreed th e claimed multimedia data stream could include signaling messages used to establish communications, but they disputed whether the stream must include media messages

. Polycom, Inc. v. Directpacket Rsch., Inc. , No. IPR2019

- 01233, 2021 WL 96053, at * 5– 6 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2021)

. The Board held that a multimedia data stream “does not have to consist of both signaling and media messages, and may be a signaling message only.” Id. at *8

. Based on that construction, the Board determined that all claims of the ’588 patent would have been obvious

. Id. at *33

. directPacket appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
D ISCUSSIONWe review claim construction de novo and any subsidiary factual findings based on extrinsic evidence for substantial evidence. Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n
, 873 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning
, which is the meaning one of skill in the art would ascribe to a term when read in the context of the claim s , wr itten description
, Case: 21-1661 Document: 39 Page: 3 Filed: 01/26/2022DIRECTPACKET RESEARCH , INC

. v. POLYCOM , INC

. 4

and prosecution history. See Phillips v. AWH Corp. , 415 F.3d 1303, 1313

– 14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
A multimedia data stream is a data stream that includes multiple forms of media data (e.g., soun d , video, and text data ). Th is meaning is clear from the adjective multimedia that modifies “data stream” and, as Polycom admits, means more than one media. Oral Arg. at 18:00

– 06, https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=21

- 1661_12092021.mp3

. Polycom does not dispute t hat the plain meaning of the term requires media data . Instead, it argues the claimed “multimedia data stream” must encompass a data stream that contains only signaling data for two reasons. First, Polycom argues the claim language facilitates communicat ion with “a signaling protocol” only, which is incapable of communicating media messages. Second, Polycom argues any contrary construction would exclude a preferred embodiment. We do not agree.The multimedia data stream is received “in a first protoco l

. . . wherein the first protocol comprises a signaling protocol ,” but that doesn’t limit the data stream to signaling data only. Comprises is an open

- ended word that does not foreclose the first protocol from containing other non

signaling protocols capable of communicating media

. See
, e.g. , Power Mosfet Techs., L.L.C. v. Siemens AG , 378 F.3d 1396, 1409 (Fed. Cir. 2004)

. Furthermore, t he written description explains that a co mmunication protocol may “rely

on multiple other protocols .

. . for sending and receiving multimedia traffic.” ’588 patent at 1:32

– 35 (emphasis added)

. Thus, just because the first protocol includes a signaling protocol does not mean it does not also co ntain other protocols capable of communicating media

. See
, e.g. , id. at 1:48

– 53 (listing VoIP as an example of a communication protocol). For the same reasons, the claim language requiring translation of an intermediate protocol into a second protocol t hat also “comprises a signaling protocol” does not limit the multimedia data stream

. Case: 21-1661 Document: 39 Page: 4 Filed: 01/26/2022DIRECTPACKET RESEARCH , INC

. v. POLYCOM , INC

. 5

C onstruing “multimedia data stream” to require media does not read out a n embodiment

. Polycom argues that the embodiment in figure 1A uses only the Session Initiation Protocol ( SIP) , a signaling protocol, and, therefore, construing multimedia data stream to require media would read out that embodiment. However
, figure 1A does not disclose

a SIP- only embodiment. Indeed, the figure does not mention SIP ; it me rely shows the embodiment uses text

- based and binary communication protocols

. And the associated written description identifies SIP as just one example of a text- based protocol . ’588 patent at 3:25

– 39. The written description also clarifies that “[o]the r protocols may be used as well.” Id. Thus, requiring the multimedia data stream to contain media does not read out the embodiment of figure 1A.
We construe the term multimedia data stream according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which must include media

. Because the Board applied an erroneous construction that affects every independent claim and , under the correct construction, factual issues exist on the proper outcome , we vacate the Board’s final written decision and remand for further proceedin gs consistent with this opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED
C OSTS Costs to directPacket. Case: 21-1661 Document: 39 Page: 5 Filed: 01/26/2022