Federal Circuit disposition — 24-1935

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IN RE: ESTECH SYSTEMS IP, LLC,
Appellant
______________________
2024-1935
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 90/014,804.
______________________
Decided: December 23, 2025
______________________
J OHN WITTENZELLNER, Williams Simons & Landis
PLLC, Philadelphia, PA, argued for appellant. Also repre-
sented by MARK J OHN E DWARD M C CARTHY , F RED
WILLIAMS , Austin, TX.
MICHAEL S. F ORMAN, Office of the Solicitor, United
States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, ar-
gued for appellee John A. Squires. Also represented by
MICHAEL T YLER.
______________________
Before D YK, P ROST , and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
D YK, Circuit Judge.
Estech Systems IP, LLC (“Estech”) appeals a decision
of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an ex
Case: 24-1935 Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 12/23/2025

-- 1 of 8 --

IN RE: ESTECH SYSTEMS IP, LLC 2
parte reexamination affirming an examiner’s rejection of
claims 29–41 of U.S. Patent No. 7,068,684 (“’684 patent”)
as unpatentable as obvious. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
All of the challenged claims relate to methods for im-
proving quality of service in voice over internet protocol
(“IP”) telephone systems by giving priority to audio infor-
mation. ’684 patent, title. The methods are intended “to
give the multimedia traffic priority during peak traffic
loads,” thus “providing increased multimedia traffic band-
width when needed.” ’684 patent, col. 2 ll. 16–30.
Claim 29, which is representative of most of the issues
relevant to this appeal, recites:
In an information handling system comprising a
hub, a multimedia server (“multimedia server”)
coupled to the hub, a telephone coupled to the hub,
a workstation coupled to the hub through the tele-
phone, and a data server coupled to the hub, a
method comprising the steps of:
transferring data from the workstation to
the telephone, wherein the data sent from
the workstation is addressed for transmis-
sion to the data server;
communicating audio information between
the telephone and the multimedia server;
and
sufficiently throttling the data sent from
the workstation to the telephone to in-
crease a rate of transfer of the audio infor-
mation during the communicating step,
wherein the throttling step further com-
prises the step of monitoring an amount of
Case: 24-1935 Document: 41 Page: 2 Filed: 12/23/2025

-- 2 of 8 --

IN RE: ESTECH SYSTEMS IP, LLC 3
the audio information being received by the
telephone from the multimedia server.
’684 patent, claim 29 (emphases added). In each claimed
method, the data sent from the workstation to the tele-
phone is “sufficiently throttl[ed] . . . to increase the rate of
transfer of the audio information.” ’684 patent, claims 29–
41. Claims 36 through 41 recite different limitations as to
the “sufficiently throttling” step but otherwise have the
same scope as claim 29.
On July 16, 2021, Cisco Systems, Inc. requested an ex
parte reexamination of claims 29–41 of the ’684 patent.
The examiner granted the request for ex parte reexamina-
tion, determining the request’s combination of prior art ref-
erences Chiu1 and Bustini2 raised a substantial new
question of patentability that affected these claims. Chiu
discloses a system that includes almost all of the claimed
features, which may be used in conjunction with “collision
avoidance mechanisms well known in the networking
arts.” J.A. 948 ¶ 43. Chiu, however, does not itself disclose
throttling data, which is disclosed by Bustini. The exam-
iner issued a final rejection of claims 29–41 as unpatenta-
ble as obvious over Chiu and Bustini on November 21,
2022.
Estech appealed the examiner’s decision to the Board.
On May 29, 2024, the Board affirmed the examiner’s rejec-
tion of each challenged claim.
Estech timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
1 U.S. Patent Application Publication
No. 2002/0071424 (“Chiu”) (filed Dec. 12, 2000; published
June 13, 2002).
2 U.S. Patent No. 5,313,454 (“Bustini”) (filed April 1,
1992; issued May 17, 1994).
Case: 24-1935 Document: 41 Page: 3 Filed: 12/23/2025

-- 3 of 8 --

IN RE: ESTECH SYSTEMS IP, LLC 4
D ISCUSSION
Estech raises several issues on appeal.
First, Estech contends that the Board erred by incor-
rectly construing the claim term “telephone,” which ap-
pears in claims 29–41, and, under the correct construction,
the required features of the “telephone” are not disclosed in
Chiu. Under Estech’s proposed construction, the claimed
“telephone” must have a dialing interface, a speaker, and a
microphone. However, the ’684 patent itself defines an “IP
telephone” or “telephony device” as “any apparatus, device,
system, etc., that can communicate multimedia traffic us-
ing IP telephony technology.” ’684 patent, col. 4 ll. 24–27.
As the specification “is the single best guide to the meaning
of a disputed term,” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the claimed “telephone” may not be
construed to require elements not found in the specifica-
tion’s own definition. In any event, we see no error in the
Board’s finding that Chiu disclosed a telephone with a di-
aling interface, speaker, and microphone.
Second, the parties agree that the “telephone” is a sep-
arate device from the “workstation.” Estech contends that
Chiu’s telephone is not separate from its computer, which
the Board mapped to the claimed “workstation.” The Board
found that one embodiment of Chiu’s “IP telephone periph-
eral”3 is “a hardware based telephony apparatus” that “is a
standalone IP telephone client device,” which is separate
from the computer. J.A. 12–13 (quoting J.A. 945 ¶ 25). We
see no error in the Board’s conclusion that Chiu therefore
discloses the claimed “telephone,” which is separate from
the claimed “workstation.”
3 The Board found that Chiu used “IP telephone pe-
ripheral” and “IP telephony peripheral” interchangeably.
J.A. 14.
Case: 24-1935 Document: 41 Page: 4 Filed: 12/23/2025

-- 4 of 8 --

IN RE: ESTECH SYSTEMS IP, LLC 5
Third, Estech argues that the proposed combination
does not disclose the limitation of claims 29 through 35
that requires “sufficiently throttling the data sent from the
workstation to the telephone to increase a rate of transfer
of the audio information.” This is so, Estech argues, be-
cause the claimed throttling must be based on monitoring
the amount of audio information being received by and des-
tined for the telephone. But the claims do not require that
the claimed throttling is “based on” this audio information.
’684 patent, claim 29. So long as a method both “suffi-
ciently throttl[es] data sent from the workstation to the tel-
ephone to increase a rate of transfer of the audio
information during the communicating step” and “moni-
tor[s] an amount of audio information being received by the
telephone from the multimedia server,” the “sufficiently
throttling” limitation is satisfied. ’684 patent, claim 29. By
contrast, other claims of the ’684 patent expressly include
limitations that require throttling based on monitoring
specific types of data. E.g., ’684 claim 14 (claiming a sys-
tem “wherein the first IP telephony device includes first
circuitry for throttling the data sent from the first network
device in response to the first monitoring circuitry deter-
mining that the amount of multimedia data being received
by the first IP telephony device . . . falls below the first pre-
determined threshold” (emphasis added)). As Estech
properly conceded at oral argument, Bustini discloses mon-
itoring audio information in a queue. Oral Arg. 9:16–9:43.
Further, the Board agreed with the examiner’s finding that
“Bustini monitors an amount of audio data being received
in order to assign it higher priority . . . . As a result, the
audio data rate is increased over what the audio data rate
would have been in the presence of congested, bursty traf-
fic.” J.A. 20–21. We see no error in the Board’s conclusion
that the proposed combination discloses the “sufficiently
throttling” limitation.
Fourth, Estech argues that the Board incorrectly found
that, again with respect to the “sufficiently throttling”
Case: 24-1935 Document: 41 Page: 5 Filed: 12/23/2025

-- 5 of 8 --

IN RE: ESTECH SYSTEMS IP, LLC 6
limitation, ordinarily skilled artisans would not have a mo-
tivation to combine Chiu and Bustini or a reasonable ex-
pectation of success of combining the two prior art
references and that such a combination would violate
Chiu’s principle of operation. All of Estech’s motivation to
combine arguments, in essence, attack a hypothetical bod-
ily incorporation of Bustini into Chiu. For example, Estech
argues “there is no evidence that any of [Chiu’s] compo-
nents could implement the transmitters/receivers (‘TXRs’),
frame replay pads (‘FRPs’), and the other sophisticated
hardware needed to implement Bustini’s ICA feedback con-
trol system,” Appellant’s Br. 36, and that adopting ele-
ments of Bustini into Chiu’s telephone changes its principle
of operation. But the test for obviousness “is what the com-
bined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art,” not “whether the features
of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into
the structure of the primary reference.” In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); see also Axonics, Inc.
v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 957 (Fed. Cir. 2023). At
bottom, the Board found that “[b]oth Chiu and Bustini rec-
ognize the importance of avoiding delays for voice trans-
missions.” J.A. 18. Chiu discloses that its system could
employ traffic-control mechanisms “well known in the net-
working arts,” J.A. 948 ¶ 43, and Bustini discloses such a
“well known congestion control mechanism prioritizing
voice [that] would have been readily apparent to a skilled
artisan at the time of the invention.” J.A. 27. We see no
error in the Board’s underlying factual findings related to
motivation to combine or reasonable expectation of success.
Fifth, claim 36 recites a throttling step that “further
comprises the step of reducing a future amount of data
from being transferred from the workstation if the amount
of data exceeds a predetermined threshold.” ’684 patent,
claim 36 (emphasis added). On appeal, Estech argues that
the comparison that determines whether the claimed “pre-
determined threshold” is met “must take place at the
Case: 24-1935 Document: 41 Page: 6 Filed: 12/23/2025

-- 6 of 8 --

IN RE: ESTECH SYSTEMS IP, LLC 7
workstation before the ‘amount of data’ is transferred from
the workstation” and that Bustini does not meet these ad-
ditional requirements. Appellant’s Br. 49–50. Estech did
not raise this proposed construction before the Board, and
thus it is forfeited. In any event, Estech’s argument fails
to demonstrate any error in the Board’s decision.
Sixth, claim 37 recites a monitoring step that “further
comprises the step of the telephone sending a congestion
message to the multimedia server when the amount of the
audio information falls below the predetermined level.”
’684 patent, claim 37 (emphases added). Claim 38 is a de-
pendent claim of claim 37 and “further compris[es] the step
of the multimedia server sending a throttling signal to the
telephone in response to receipt of the congestion message.”
’684 patent, claim 38 (emphases added). Estech raises ad-
ditional arguments that the Board’s factual findings as to
claims 37 and 38 are not supported by substantial evi-
dence. Estech argues that Bustini does not disclose a “con-
gestion message” that is sent when audio information falls
below a “predetermined level,” and Bustini does not teach
an entity that is both the origin of the claimed “congestion
message” and destination of the claimed “throttling signal.”
’684 patent, claims 37–38. Estech forfeited each of these
arguments because it failed to raise them before the Board
and, in any event, they are meritless.4
4 Estech also argues that the Board should have va-
cated the request for ex parte reexamination for lack of a
substantial new question of patentability. Given that the
combination of Chiu and Bustini was not relied on in the
initial examination and that we affirm each of the Board’s
conclusions underlying its determination that the proposed
combination of Chiu and Bustini renders claims 29–41 un-
patentable as obvious, the request for ex parte reexamina-
tion clearly raised a substantial new question of
patentability.
Case: 24-1935 Document: 41 Page: 7 Filed: 12/23/2025

-- 7 of 8 --

IN RE: ESTECH SYSTEMS IP, LLC 8
Finally, Estech argues that the Board lacked jurisdic-
tion over the ex parte reexaminations once the ’684 patent
expired on June 28, 2023. We recently “confirm[ed] that
the Board has jurisdiction over ex parte reexaminations
concerning expired patents.” In re Gesture Tech. Partners,
LLC, No. 25-1075, ___ F.4th ___, 2025 WL 3439349, at *4
(Fed. Cir. Dec. 1, 2025); see also Apple Inc. v. Gesture Tech.
Partners, LLC, 127 F.4th 364, 368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (“We
confirm here that the Board has jurisdiction over IPRs con-
cerning expired patents.”), cert. denied, No. 24-1280, ___
U.S. ___, 2025 WL 3198577 (Nov. 17, 2025). The Board
properly exercised its jurisdiction over this ex parte reex-
amination.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Estech’s remaining arguments and
find them unpersuasive. We affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
Costs to appellee.
Case: 24-1935 Document: 41 Page: 8 Filed: 12/23/2025

-- 8 of 8 --