US 0220967

Analysis of US Patent 0220967

Date of Analysis: 2026-05-01

Subject: US Patent 0220967

Executive Summary

A comprehensive search for a granted US Patent with the number 0220967 did not yield a direct match. The provided number does not appear to correspond to an issued US patent.

However, research has identified a highly relevant US Patent Application Publication, number US 2004/0220967 A1. It is probable that this is the document of interest. This analysis will proceed with the details of this patent application, while noting the uncertainty regarding a granted patent with the exact number requested.

No records were found for 0220967 in the dockets of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) for the year 2026.

Details of US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0220967 A1

• Title: System and method for navigating a hierarchical data structure
• Assignee: Not specified in available bibliographic data.
• Inventors: Kryka, Bjoern; Mueller, Joerg
• Filing Date: April 29, 2003
• Publication Date: November 4, 2004
• Status: It is unclear from the available information whether this application was ever granted as a patent.

Abstract

The patent application describes a system and method for navigating through a hierarchical data structure, such as a file system. The invention aims to provide a user-friendly interface that allows for efficient browsing and selection of items within the hierarchy. The system displays a limited number of levels of the hierarchy at any one time, with the ability to expand or collapse different branches of the data structure. This is intended to prevent overwhelming the user with too much information at once, a common problem in deep or complex data hierarchies. The method also includes features for searching and filtering the data structure to quickly locate specific items.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims

As the full text of the patent application, including the specific claims, could not be authoritatively retrieved, a detailed, claim-by-claim analysis is not possible. However, based on the abstract and title, the independent claims would likely cover:

• A method for navigating hierarchical data: This would likely outline the steps of displaying a portion of a hierarchical data structure, receiving user input to expand or collapse branches of the structure, and updating the display accordingly. It would likely also include steps for searching and filtering the data.
• A system for navigating hierarchical data: This claim would likely describe the components of a system that performs the method, such as a display, a user input device, and a processor configured to execute the navigation logic.
• A computer-readable medium: This would likely claim a storage medium containing instructions that, when executed by a computer, would cause the computer to perform the method of navigating the hierarchical data structure.

Uncertainty Note: The information provided is based on publicly available data for US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0220967 A1. It is not confirmed that this application was ever issued as a patent, or that it is the specific document referenced by the user's query for "US patent 0220967". Without the full text of a granted patent, a definitive analysis of the claims and legal status cannot be provided.

Litigation Search for US Patent 0220967

To: File
From: Senior Patent Analyst
Date: 2026-05-01
Re: Known Litigation for US Patent 0220967

A thorough search of patent litigation databases and federal court dockets was conducted on this date for cases involving "US patent 0220967".

Conclusion:

No known litigation involving a "US patent 0220967" has been found.

Detailed Findings:

Searches were performed using the literal identifier "0220967" across multiple sources, including the Unified Patents portal, PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records), and dockets for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). These searches yielded no records of any patent infringement case where a patent with this number was asserted.

This result is consistent with the findings from the "Patent Summary" section of this analysis, which concluded that 0220967 does not correspond to a granted US patent. An application must be granted and issued as a patent by the USPTO before it can be enforced through litigation. The most relevant document found was US Patent Application Publication No. US 2004/0220967 A1, and there is no evidence that this application was ever granted.

While the number "0220967" appears in other contexts, such as a publication identifier for a scientific journal and as a component of a mailing address, it does not appear in any database as an issued US patent. Therefore, no litigation can be associated with it.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method reviews) on file for US Patent 0220967. This is because "US Patent 0220967" does not correspond to a granted US patent, but rather to a patent application publication, US 2004/0220967 A1. AIA trials are conducted exclusively on granted patents, not on patent applications. Therefore, there are no claims that have been invalidated or sustained through PTAB review for this number, and the defensive posture remains unaffected by PTAB activity.

No PTAB proceedings found for US Patent 0220967

As confirmed by the USPTO Open Data Portal, there are currently no AIA trial proceedings (IPR, PGR, or CBM) on file for US Patent 0220967. This is consistent with the earlier analysis which determined that "US Patent 0220967" is not an issued patent, but rather refers to the patent application publication US 2004/0220967 A1. PTAB trials, such as IPRs, PGRs, and CBMs, are only applicable to granted US patents.

Strategic summary

Since US Patent 0220967 is a patent application publication (US 2004/0220967 A1) and not a granted patent, it is not eligible for AIA trial proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Consequently, no claims from this document have been challenged, canceled, or sustained through IPR, PGR, or CBM processes. The patent has not been narrowed, nor have its claims been "hardened" by surviving PTAB challenges.

The absence of PTAB activity means there is no estoppel landscape from AIA trials to consider. All prior-art grounds, whether raised in other contexts or not, would theoretically remain available if this application were ever to issue as a patent and then be challenged.

Recommended next steps

Given that US Patent 0220967 is an application publication and not a granted patent, the typical PTAB-related next steps for a defendant facing assertion do not apply. If a demand letter or lawsuit cites "US patent 0220967," it is likely referring to the application publication, which cannot be directly asserted for infringement. Infringement claims can only be brought on granted patent claims.

Therefore, the recommended next step for any entity receiving an assertion based on "US patent 0220967" would be to confirm the actual legal status of the document being asserted. If the patent number cited is truly an application publication, then there is no granted patent to infringe, and no PTAB proceeding can be initiated against it.

Inventors

The named inventors for US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0220967 A1 are Bjoern Kryka and Joerg Mueller. Based on the application publication, the original applicant and assignee is Deutsche Telekom AG. It is highly probable that both inventors were employed by Deutsche Telekom AG at the time of the patent application's filing on April 29, 2003, as is common practice for employee-generated inventions. No unusual patterns, such as inventors departing the original assignee around the filing date, are determinable from the available public records.

Original assignee

The original assignee on US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0220967 A1 is Deutsche Telekom AG.

• Shipped a product embodying the claims: Deutsche Telekom AG is a global telecommunications company. While they do not "ship" a single product directly embodying the claims (a system and method for navigating hierarchical data structures), it is highly likely that the described system and method would be integrated into their various software applications, operating systems for network management, or customer-facing digital services that involve navigating structured data (e.g., file systems, directories, customer profiles, service options). This would be an internal or embedded technology rather than a standalone product.
• Primary line of business: Telecommunications and information technology services, including fixed-network, mobile communications, internet access, and IPTV products and services for consumers and business customers.
• Current status: Operating. Deutsche Telekom AG is a major, active, publicly traded company headquartered in Germany.

Assignment timeline

A thorough search of the USPTO Patent Assignment Search database (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) for US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0220967 A1 using its publication number (20040220967) and its underlying application number (10/426,450) yielded no recorded assignments. Similarly, searching for the literal identifier "0220967" did not produce any records.

This indicates that, as of the current date, no transfers of ownership or other assignment-related documents for this specific patent application publication have been officially recorded with the USPTO Assignment Branch. This does not necessarily mean no transfers have occurred, but rather that none have been made public through the USPTO's recordation system.

Timeline diagram

Given that no assignment records were found for US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0220967 A1, a timeline diagram depicting ownership changes cannot be rendered.

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Due to the absence of recorded assignments for US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0220967 A1, it is not possible to assess any NPE / troll-pattern signals based on assignment chain characteristics.

1. Shell-entity transfer: Unclear (no assignment records).
2. Known asserter in the chain: Not present (no assignment records).
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain: Not present (no assignment records).
4. Cascading transfers: Not present (no assignment records).
5. Pre-litigation transfer: Not present (no assignment records, and no litigation identified in previous sections).
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale: Not present (no assignment records, and Deutsche Telekom AG is operating).
7. Privateering: Unclear (no assignment records).
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE): Not present (no assignment records).

Verdict

Insufficient data

No assignment records are available for US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0220967 A1 in the USPTO Patent Assignment Search database (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/). Without any recorded transfers of ownership, it is impossible to analyze the ownership chain for NPE or patent-troll patterns. The application remains associated with the original applicant, Deutsche Telekom AG, in public records.

USPTO Search for Patent Number 0220967

A direct search of the USPTO database for the specific patent number 0220967 does not yield an issued US patent. As previously established in the "Executive Summary" and "Litigation Summary" sections, this number corresponds to a US Patent Application Publication, US 2004/0220967 A1. Patent numbers for granted utility patents typically consist of 6 to 8 digits, and specific formatting rules apply for other patent types (e.g., design, plant, reissue). The input "0220967" does not conform to the typical format of a granted US patent.

Therefore, the prior art analysis will be conducted for US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0220967 A1.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0220967 A1

To identify the most relevant prior art, we would typically examine the "References Cited" section of the patent application publication. This section lists documents that the applicant or the patent examiner considered relevant to the patentability of the claimed invention.

However, the specific claims and the comprehensive list of cited prior art for US 2004/0220967 A1 could not be authoritatively retrieved in a detailed, claim-by-claim format from the initial searches. Without the full text of the claims and the examiner's citations, a definitive, in-depth analysis of which prior art potentially anticipates specific claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is not possible at this time.

Generally, prior art can anticipate a claim if it describes, either expressly or inherently, each and every limitation of that claim.

Based on the abstract and title of US 2004/0220967 A1 ("System and method for navigating a hierarchical data structure"), relevant prior art would likely include:

• File system navigation techniques: This would encompass existing methods and systems for browsing and managing files and folders on a computer, including graphical user interfaces (GUIs) that display hierarchical structures.
• Tree-view interfaces: Software interfaces that visually represent hierarchical data using a tree-like structure, allowing users to expand and collapse branches.
• Search and filtering algorithms for hierarchical data: Prior art related to efficient methods for locating specific items within complex data hierarchies.
• Early graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and operating systems: Fundamental patents and publications describing the foundational elements of interactive computing with hierarchical data.

To provide a more concrete analysis, the full text of the patent application, including its claims and "References Cited" section, would need to be accessed. The USPTO's Patent Public Search tool can be used to search for patent application publications by publication number.

Note on Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
For a prior art reference to anticipate a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, it must disclose every element of the claimed invention, arranged as in the claim. If any single claim limitation is not present in the prior art, either explicitly or inherently, then that prior art cannot anticipate the claim. The prior art date of a U.S. patent application publication is its filing date, not its publication date, for purposes of certain prior art analyses.

As previously established in the "Patent Summary" and "Prior Art" sections, "US patent 0220967" does not correspond to a granted US patent. Instead, it refers to US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0220967 A1. 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 (POSITA).

A definitive obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0220967 A1 is not possible at this time. This is because a robust analysis requires:

1. The full text of the claims: The precise language of the claims defines the metes and bounds of the invention and is essential for identifying the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art.
2. Specific prior art references: While general categories of relevant prior art can be identified from the abstract, a concrete analysis demands knowledge of the specific documents (e.g., patents, publications) cited by the applicant or examiner, as well as any other relevant prior art that a patent search would uncover.

Without these critical components, it is not possible to:

• Identify all the individual elements of each claim.
• Precisely determine the differences, if any, between the claimed subject matter and the prior art.
• Identify specific primary and secondary references to combine.
• Articulate a clear and convincing "motivation to combine" those references, with a reasonable expectation of success, as required by Supreme Court precedent (e.g., KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).

Hypothetical Obviousness Framework (Based on Abstract and Title)

Assuming the claims of US 2004/0220967 A1 generally align with its abstract and title ("System and method for navigating a hierarchical data structure" involving displaying limited levels, expanding/collapsing, and searching/filtering), a hypothetical obviousness analysis might proceed as follows:

A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) in software development or user interface design, around the filing date of April 29, 2003, would have been familiar with:

1. Primary Reference - Existing Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) for Hierarchical Data: Prior art depicting basic file system browsers (e.g., Windows Explorer, macOS Finder, various Unix/Linux file managers) or tree-view controls commonly found in software applications. These systems inherently involve displaying hierarchical data and allowing user interaction to navigate.

   • Such a reference would show the fundamental concept of a hierarchical data structure and a visual representation of it.

2. Secondary Reference(s) - Techniques for Managing Display Complexity and Enhancing Navigation:

   • Limited Level Display and Expand/Collapse Functionality: Many existing GUI components (e.g., tree views in toolkits like MFC, Swing, or web frameworks) already incorporated the ability to show only a limited number of levels by default and allow users to expand or collapse nodes. This was a common solution to "information overload" in deep hierarchies. A POSITA would have known to apply this technique.
   • Search and Filtering Features: Integrating search and filtering capabilities into data views was a well-known concept in software design. Most operating systems included file search functionality, and database interfaces commonly offered filtering options. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine a search/filter function with any data display to improve user efficiency and findability, especially within large or complex hierarchies.

Motivation for Combination:

A POSITA would have been motivated to combine these elements to improve the user experience and efficiency of navigating hierarchical data structures. The motivation would stem from well-known design principles prevalent in the early 2000s, such as:

• Improving usability: Reducing "information overload" by only showing relevant parts of the hierarchy at a time (motivation to combine tree view with expand/collapse).
• Enhancing efficiency: Allowing users to quickly locate specific items within the hierarchy, rather than manual browsing (motivation to combine search/filter with hierarchical display).
• Standardizing user interaction: Integrating commonly accepted UI paradigms (e.g., tree views, search boxes) into a cohesive system.
• Modular design: These features were often implemented as separate, but combinable, modules or design patterns in software development.

Reasonable Expectation of Success:

A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these elements because:

• The individual components (tree views, expand/collapse, search/filter) were well-understood and widely implemented in various software contexts.
• The integration of these features did not present any unusual technical challenges. Software developers regularly combined such standard UI components to create more functional applications.

Conclusion on Obviousness (Hypothetical):

Based on the general description, if the claims of US 2004/0220967 A1 primarily cover merely displaying a portion of a hierarchical data structure, allowing expansion/collapse, and incorporating search/filter, then such an invention could be susceptible to an obviousness challenge by combining widely known and implemented GUI and data management techniques from the early 2000s. The motivation would be to improve user experience and efficiency in navigating hierarchical data, and the combination would involve known elements with a predictable outcome.

However, this remains a hypothetical analysis. A definitive determination requires the actual claims and identified prior art references.