US 10123907

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent number, including any 2026 litigation activity.

US 10,123,907 — Summary

Caveat up front: My searches did not surface a primary-source USPTO document new to me (the patent text supplied in the prompt is Google Patents' rendering); the litigation information below comes from third-party docket aggregators, not PACER/CAFC primary sources, and should be treated as provisional.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (verbatim)

"A mud visor formed by a substantially transparent sheet is attached to a goggle lens. The mud visor may be attached to the goggle lens using a substantially transparent adhesive or adhesive tape. Thus, the mud visor may provide clear and improved field of view for the user. Further, the mud visor may be configured to cover and guide a top portion of a roll-off film as the roll-off film is conveyed across the goggle lens. A top portion of the mud visor may be inserted into the lens groove of a goggle frame along with the goggle lens when the goggle lens is attached to the goggle frame. The mud visor also may stretch across the goggle lens and overlap with film canisters at both sides to provide a seamless coverage to prevent mud from entering behind the mud visor or the roll-off film."

Independent claims — plain language

The patent has 20 claims, of which only claims 1 and 14 are independent.

Claim 1 — apparatus (goggle lens + mud visor). Two transparent physical things: (a) a substantially transparent goggle lens, and (b) a substantially transparent mud visor that is removably attached to that lens and that spans and covers a top portion of the viewable area the wearer actually looks through. The visor itself has two functional zones:

• a lens contacting portion sitting on the lens and directly covering that top viewable area, and
• a film covering portion coupled to (or adjacent to) the lens contacting portion that covers and directly contacts the top edge of a roll-off film, so that the film's top edge is sandwiched between the visor and the lens.

Plain reading: the distinguishing idea is a transparent visor that (i) itself sits in the wearer's upper field of view without blocking it, and (ii) forms a shroud over the top margin of the roll-off film so mud cannot get behind the film. The "directly cover[ing]" and "directly contact[ing]" language is notable — it appears designed to exclude the prior-art arrangement described in the specification, where an opaque spacer foam layer separated the film from the covering layer and reduced field of view ("conventional mud visors may include a layer of plastic film attached to a lens via a layer of opaque spacer foam…").

Claim 14 — method of attaching a mud visor to a goggle system. Essentially claim 1 recast as method steps: provide a substantially transparent goggle lens; then removably attach a substantially transparent mud visor to it, the visor spanning and covering the top portion of the viewable area and comprising the same two portions (lens contacting portion directly covering the top viewable area; film covering portion covering and directly contacting the top of the roll-off film, sandwiching the film against the lens).

Notable dependent claims (for context)

• 3 – overhang portion protruding away from the lens plus a film contacting portion extending back toward the lens to press the film against it.
• 5–7 – a goggle frame with a lens groove that receives the lens and an upper portion of the visor together; frame may be an adaptor attachable to another frame (claim 6); upper portion has a partially circular cutout (claim 7).
• 8 – the full system: roll-off film, dispensing canister, receiving canister, with the canisters covering the visor's side ends, and those side ends transitioning from an overhang shape to a substantially flat shape.
• 10 – attachment by substantially transparent material applied to a perimeter area of the lens contacting portion.
• 11 – double-layer version: inner layer on the lens, outer layer over it, film sliding between the two, with an elastic foam spacer between the layers guiding the film below the spacer.
• 12 / 19 – the "top portion of the viewable area" is defined as running from the lens top edge down to the top of the roll-off film, with the visor curvature parallel to the lens curvature, and the visor sized so substantially all of that area is covered — i.e., the viewer looks through the visor.
• 15–17 – method steps: apply adhesive along the perimeter, align top perimeter edges of visor and lens, adhere, insert lens + visor upper portion into the lens groove; and the full roll-off operation (attach canisters, cover visor end portions, stretch film, tuck the film's top portion under the visor's lower portion, convey and guide the film).

Internal drafting notes worth flagging (these are in the document as published, not search-derived): the reference numeral "616" is used both for a coupling mechanism and for a "triangular shaped surface" of the lower wing portion of front casing 604; FIG. 21 text refers to "lens 10" rather than "lens 108"; and claim 1's "removably attached" sits in tension with claim 10's permanent-adhesive attachment. I flag these only as observations — I have not verified whether a certificate of correction or reexamination has altered the claim text.

Litigation / CAFC 2026 search results

• S.D.N.Y. 1:26-cv-05566 — 100% Speedlab, LLC et al. v. The Individuals… Identified in Schedule A, filed 2026-06-30, assigned to Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, filed by Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, plaintiffs 100% Speedlab, LLC and Saule, LLC. The docket includes an "AO 120 FORM PATENT – CASE OPENING SUBMITTED" and an "Exhibit 2 – Patents," and third-party TRO trackers describe it as trademark + design-patent enforcement (identifying USD727398S, USD727400S, USD756445S, USD860302S and the marks 100%, ACCURI, STRATA, BRISKER, SPEEDCRAFT, RACECRAFT, HIPER, RACETRAP). I could not confirm from any source that US 10,123,907 is among the patents asserted in that case — the reported asserted patents are design patents, and '907 is a utility patent. Do not state that '907 is in suit in 26-cv-05566 without primary-source verification. (Sources: trohub.com, kjtro.com, maijiaxingqiu.com — aggregators, not PACER.)
• S.D. Cal. 3:15-cv-02620 — 100% Speedlab, LLC v. H&H Sports Protection USA, Inc. (filed 2015-11-20; terminated 2017-02-22 per CourtListener docket entries). Filed after '907's application but before its 2018 issuance, so '907 itself could not have been asserted; the complaint pleads patent infringement, trade dress, and California state claims. (Source: CourtListener docket 4193560.)
• CAFC 2026 dockets: No Federal Circuit 2026 docket referencing 10,123,907 was found. I have low confidence in this negative, because the CAFC docket is not fully indexed by the general web search I used; a PACER/CAFC check would be required to state it authoritatively.

What I could not verify

• Any assignment recorded after issue (Google Patents shows 100% Speedlab, LLC as both original and current assignee, but describes assignee data as possibly inaccurate).
• Whether the '907 claims have been amended, corrected, or subjected to post-grant proceedings (IPR/PGR/reexam).
• Current maintenance-fee / expiration status beyond the listed "Active" tag and adjusted expiration of 2035-11-18.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 10,123,907. Let me run several searches across litigation-tracking sources.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases for this specific patent.

Litigation Search: US Patent 10,123,907

Bottom line: I could not identify any known litigation that specifically asserts U.S. Patent No. 10,123,907 ("Mud visor for roll-off film system").

What I searched

I ran searches across patent-litigation aggregators and general web indexes, including queries targeting the patent number directly ("10,123,907", "10123907"), the patent title ("mud visor"), the assignee (100% Speedlab, LLC), and the Unified Patents litigation portal and CourtListener/RPX/Justia-style sources. The searches were constrained to the correct, literal patent number.

What the searches did and did not return

Results that matched the literal number 10123907 did NOT relate to this patent. They were false positives, e.g.:

• An IEEE/EMBS conference paper (NER 2023) with the identifier "10123907" (epiretinal implant modeling) — unrelated to the patent.
• A municipal legal notice in Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico bearing "R. No. 10123907" — unrelated.

Related litigation by the assignee (100% Speedlab, LLC) exists, but does not concern the '907 patent. For example:

• 100% Speedlab, LLC v. H&H Sports Protection USA, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-02620 (S.D. Cal., filed Nov. 20, 2015) — asserted U.S. Design Patent No. D711,960 ("Goggle") and trade dress, not the '907 patent.
• 100% Speedlab, LLC v. Vampire Optical Coatings Incorporated, No. 2:25-cv-00415 (S.D. Ohio, filed April 17, 2025) — asserted U.S. Design Patent No. D1,028,050 ("Tear-Off"); dismissed with prejudice by stipulation (Doc. 9, Aug. 21, 2025). Not the '907 patent.
• 100% Speedlab, LLC et al. v. The Individuals... (Schedule A), No. 1:26-cv-05566 (S.D.N.Y., filed June 30, 2026) — trademark and design patent enforcement against online sellers (asserted designs included USD727398S, USD727400S, USD756445S, USD860302S). No indication the '907 utility patent is asserted.
• Pantone v. 100% Speedlab, LLC, No. 3:25-cv-01490 (S.D. Cal.) — appears to be a matter adverse to 100% Speedlab; not shown to involve the '907 patent.

Important caveats

• No affirmative finding of "no litigation" should be treated as certain. District-court complaints are not always indexed, and a case asserting the '907 patent could exist without surfacing in these searches.
• The related 100% Speedlab enforcement matters above are grounded in design patents and trademarks, not this utility patent. I found no complaint, claim chart, or docket entry tying the '907 patent to any defendant.
• I did not retrieve a result from the Unified Patents litigation portal or a CourtListener docket that specifically names US 10,123,907.

Suggested next steps to confirm

To be conclusive, this should be verified directly against:

• USPTO Patent Center / Assignment records for the '907 patent (to identify current owner and any recorded licenses/enforcement transfers).
• PACER / CourtListener RECAP full-text docket search for "10,123,907" and "10123907."
• Unified Patents litigation portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation) and RPX Insight / Docket Navigator filtered by patent number.
• Lex Machina / Darts-IP patent-case lookup by the specific number.

Summary table

If your research requires a definitive negative, I'd recommend a direct PACER full-text query; the web searches available here did not surface any litigation specifically involving US Patent No. 10,123,907.

I'll verify the structured data with targeted searches before concluding.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 10,123,907: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings (active: 0 / claims invalidated: 0 / claims sustained: 0 / settled: 0 / institution denied: 0), and independent web checks for petitioner filings naming the '907 patent or its owner, 100% Speedlab, LLC, surfaced none — so the patent stands completely untouched at the PTAB, with all 20 claims (independent claims 1 and 14, and dependents 2–13 and 15–20) intact and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel to exploit. The defensive posture this gives a defendant is the unfavorable one: there is no pre-cancelled claim to point at, no FWD to cite, and no petitioner-ready invalidity record — any IPR you file would be a first-instance merits fight on a patent whose owner has shown a long history of enforcing its goggle IP.

Caveat on sourcing: the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block is canonical here and shows none. My searches (PTAB E2E via ptacts.uspto.gov, Google Patents "Cited By"/family data, and general web queries for "10123907" + PTAB/IPR/Speedlab) found no proceedings either. I cannot rule out a very recently filed, not-yet-indexed petition — verify directly at PTAB E2E and USPTO PatentCenter for application 14/701,434 before relying on the zero count.

Proceedings

None to report. There are no proceeding numbers, petitioners, panels, institution decisions, Final Written Decisions, settlements, or Federal Circuit appeals to list. Per the operating rules, I will not manufacture docket numbers, claim dispositions, or panel names for proceedings that do not exist, and I will not attribute holdings to an FWD that was never issued.

Nearby activity worth knowing about (NOT PTAB proceedings — context only)

Strategic summary

Claim status. All of US 10,123,907 is UNTESTED. Nothing is canceled, nothing has been judicially or administratively construed, and no claim has been held patentable over a petitioner's art. Independent claim 1 is directed to a substantially transparent goggle lens plus a substantially transparent, removably attached mud visor having a lens contacting portion that "directly cover[s]" the top portion of the viewable area and a film covering portion that "directly contact[s]" a top portion of the roll-off film, with the film sandwiched between the visor and the lens. Independent claim 14 is the method analogue; claims 15–17 add adhesive-perimeter, lens-groove insertion, and canister-covering steps. The double-layer/spacer embodiment is claimed in claim 11. Because there is no FWD, there is no narrowing amendment or cancellation to exploit and no claim-construction record to leverage.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estoppel is a non-issue — it only attaches to petitioners, real parties in interest, and privies who have been through an instituted IPR to FWD. No one is in that chain for this patent, so every § 102/§ 103 ground is available to a defendant today, including art that a hypothetical earlier petitioner "reasonably could have raised." Conversely, there is no petitioner-side work product to free-ride on: no instituted ground, no expert declaration, no Board crediting of any reference. The practical asymmetry is that the patent owner has had seven-plus years of litigation exposure (2015 and 2026 matters) and no one has yet filed — which may reflect the narrow commercial space rather than patent strength. Two independent claims with a "removably attached … substantially transparent … directly contact" limitation set, read against the admitted prior-art mud flap 1008 disclosed in the same specification, are a plausible § 103 target.

Pattern signals. There is no serial-petitioner pattern (no petitioner has filed once, let alone multiple times), no PTAB-appeal pattern (no FWD to appeal), and no defensive-aggregator chain — I found no Unified Patents, RPX, or similar filing involving this patent, and the patent's "Cited By" list shows only the owner's own later filings and unrelated third parties. The owner does not appear to be an aggressive PTAB appellant because it has never been before the Board. Bottom line: this is a clean-slate patent — hardened by neglect, not by adjudication.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant facing assertion of the '907 patent: do not expect a shortcut. There is no FWD to cite, no canceled claim to disclaim, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel to invoke. Confirm the zero-count directly before you budget: PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/), USPTO PatentCenter for application 14/701,434, and the PTAB decisions library (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions). If nothing appears, your options are (a) a first-instance IPR/PGR of your own — note the patent's 2014-05-16 priority date means AIA § 102 applies and PGR eligibility (nine months post-grant) has long since expired for the '907 patent, leaving IPR under §§ 311–319 — or (b) a § 282 district-court invalidity case built on the specification's own admitted prior art (mud flap 1008, element in FIGS. 10–11).
• Scope your petition to the whole family, not just the '907 patent. US 11,013,636 and US 11,737,922 are Active continuations off the same 2014-05-16 priority chain with materially different claim language (e.g., the '922 method claims require coupling a back surface of a first portion "using an adhesive member" and extending the roll-off film between a second portion and the lens). A win against the '907 claims alone may leave you exposed on the continuations.
• If an IPR does get filed after this report: the statutory clock is one year from institution to FWD (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)), with the patent owner's preliminary response due three months after notice (§ 313) and the institution decision due within six months of the petition's filing date (§ 314(b)). Track milestones at PTAB E2E and, for any appeal, the Federal Circuit docket and CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/).
• No PTAB activity is itself the signal. A patent that has been commercially asserted since at least 2015 and still has zero IPR filings is unusual; either the accused products occupy a narrow niche or the asserted claims have not been worth the $300k+ of a contested IPR. Verify the docket posture of the 2026 S.D.N.Y. Schedule A case (1:26-cv-05566) to see whether the '907 patent is actually in suit — my sources indicate it is not, and that the campaign rests on trademarks and design patents — because that determines whether the absence of PTAB activity is anomalous or simply expected.

I'll start by pulling the assignment and ownership records from primary and secondary sources.

Let me dig into the specific assignment records, the reel/frame numbers, and the assignee's corporate status.

Let me look for the specific reel/frame number and any later security agreements or transfers.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 10,123,907 B2

Patent: US 10,123,907 B2 — "Mud visor for roll-off film system"
App. No.: 14/701,434 · filed 2015-04-30 · granted 2018-11-13 · priority 2014-05-16 (Prov. 61/994,665) and 2014-10-02 (Prov. 62/059,065)
Adjusted expiration: 2035-11-18 · Status: Active

Data caveat up front. My tool run hit its step limit before I could open the USPTO Assignment Center result set for this patent. Everything below is sourced from the Google Patents legal-events block supplied in the full text, the patent front page, and secondary databases. I could not retrieve the reel/frame number for the single recorded assignment, and I will not invent one. The one assignment that is documented is stated below with the date and parties as recorded by Google Patents; the reel/frame field is reported as not retrieved.

Inventors

All three are named inventors on the sibling provisional/utility filings (e.g., US 9,839,558 "Roll-Off Film System"; US 2015/0320600 "Sport Goggles and Adaptors for Sport Goggles"; design patent D755,278 "Canisters for a Roll Off Film System", applied for 2014-05-13 by the same trio). On the priority provisional 61/994,665 the entity was the same. Foreign filings list the same inventors c/o 100% Speedlab, LLC, first at 9630 Aero Drive, San Diego CA 92123 and later at 4141 Ruffin Road, San Diego.

Unusual patterns:

• No inventor-departure pattern. None of the three inventors appears to have left 100% Speedlab; Blanchard, Boinnard and Sigismondo continue to appear as inventors on the company's later filings (e.g., D961,647 issued 2022-08-23; D1,065,471 issued 2024). Boinnard is still named CEO in the company's 2021 settlement announcement. This is the inverse of the departure-then-fire-sale signature.
• Founder-as-inventor duality. Boinnard is simultaneously a named inventor and the CEO of the assignee. That means the assignment is a founder-to-own-company transfer, not an arms-length sale of employee inventions to a third party.
• No inventor co-inventor outside the core team on this particular patent (unlike US 2015/0320600, which adds Jonathan Knight of Lisburn, IE).

Original assignee

100% SPEEDLAB, LLC — a California limited liability company, principal place of business San Diego, CA (9630 Aero Drive, later 4141 Ruffin Road, now 9635 Distribution Ave, San Diego CA 92121). Original assignee on the issued patent; also listed as applicant on the underlying publication US 2015/0328050 A1.

• Products embodying the claims: yes. 100% is a premium sports-equipment brand — motocross/MTB/snow goggles, sunglasses, helmets, gloves, apparel. Its Racecraft, Accuri, Accuri 2 and Strata goggles have been sold in the US since January 2012 as roll-off/tear-off equipped motocross goggles — the exact product category the '907 mud-visor claims sit on top of.
• Primary line of business: design, manufacture and sale of sports eyewear, helmets and protective gear. Roughly 11–50 employees by one profile. The company describes itself publicly as "the global leader in goggle technology."
• Current status: operating and asserting. Active plaintiff in multiple IP suits. Justia/Patents-Review profiles show ~26–30 granted US patents, with grants extending into 2026, indicating a live R&D and filing program, not a run-off portfolio.
• Ownership note — Saule, LLC. 100% Speedlab is routinely a co-plaintiff with Saule, LLC (e.g., Saule, LLC et al. v. FXR Factory Racing Inc., 3:19-cv-01238 S.D. Cal.; and the 2026 NYSD Schedule A case 1:26-cv-05566). A secondary (Chinese-language seller-warning) source states that Saule, LLC acquired the 100% business in 2010. However, 100% Speedlab's own Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure statement in the 2026 case states "No Corporate Parent." There is no recorded assignment of the '907 patent to Saule, and I explicitly decline to infer one. Treat the Saule relationship as a brand/co-plaintiff arrangement, not a documented transfer of this patent.

Assignment timeline

I found one recorded assignment of this patent in the sources I could reach. There is no evidence of any post-issuance transfer.

• 2015-04-30 or earlier (executed — exact date not retrieved) / recorded 2015-05-01 — Reel/Frame: not retrieved (Assignment Center result set not opened before tool limit)
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (original employer assignment)
  • Assignor: Blanchard, Marc Guy; Boinnard, Ludovic Francis; Sigismondo, Kevin Michael — the three named inventors, jointly
  • Assignee: 100% SPEEDLAB, LLC (a California LLC, San Diego)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved for the assignment record. For context, the prosecution firm of record on the patent is Haynes and Boone, LLP (Dallas, TX) — listed as "Attorney, Agent, or Firm" on US 2015/0328050 A1 and on sibling design patent D755,278. I am flagging this only as the prosecution correspondent, not as a confirmed assignment correspondent, and I make no recurrence finding on it.
  • Context: Original inventor-to-employer assignment at filing; the assignee is the applicant, so no change of beneficial ownership took place relative to filing.

No further assignments of record. Google Patents' legal-events block for US 10,123,907 shows only this single "Assigned to 100% SPEEDLAB, LLC" event plus the ordinary filing/grant/publication events. There is no security agreement, no merger, no change of name, no release, and no transfer to a licensing entity.

Related-family filings (not assignments of the '907 patent — listed so the chain is not mistaken for a cascade):

• US 16/189,420 → US 11,013,636 B2 (continuation, filed 2018-11-13, granted 2021-05-25), 100% Speedlab, LLC.
• US 17/330,242 → US 11,737,922 B2 (continuation, filed 2021-05-25, granted 2023-08-29), 100% Speedlab, LLC.
• EP 15167212.8 → EP 2 944 297 B1, 100% Speedlab, LLC.

These are same-family continuations by the same owner — a normal prosecution strategy, not a cascading transfer.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10123907
    2014 : Provisional 61994665 filed May 16
         : Provisional 62059065 filed Oct 2
         : Design app 29490763 filed May 13
    2015 : Utility app 14701434 filed Apr 30
         : Inventors assign to 100% Speedlab LLC
         : Assignment recorded May 1
         : Publication US 20150328050 A1 Nov 19
    2018 : Patent US 10123907 B2 granted Nov 13
         : Continuation 16189420 filed Nov 13
    2021 : Continuation 17330242 filed May 25
    2023 : Continuation issues as US 11737922

Note: the exact reel/frame for the 2015 recorded assignment is not represented above because I could not retrieve it; no reel/frame is fabricated.

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT.
There is no transfer to any "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" entity. The only recorded assignee is 100% SPEEDLAB, LLC itself. 100% is not a registered-agent mailbox: it has a functioning San Diego headquarters (9630 Aero Drive → 4141 Ruffin Road → 9635 Distribution Ave), a CEO (Ludo Boinnard), and a product catalog. Nothing in the record shows a transfer to a single-member Delaware or Texas LLC.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT.
The assignee does not match any entry on the NPE directories named in the brief (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). The only chain entity is the operating brand 100%.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — NOT ASSESSABLE / NOT PRESENT.
With a single link in the chain there is no repetition to detect, which is the definition of the signal being absent. The prosecution firm of record, Haynes and Boone, LLP (Dallas, TX), appears on this patent and on sibling filings (D755,278; US 2015/0320600) — but that is a large general-practice IP firm doing ordinary operating-company prosecution, not an NPE recording mill, and I have no evidence of the assignment correspondent's identity. One appearance by a full-service firm is not a finding.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
One assignment in ~11 years of pendency. No chained LLCs, no shared correspondent addresses, no common-principal shell stacking. The apparent "US10123907 → US11013636 → US11737922" sequence on Google Patents is a continuation-family listing, not a chain of title — all three are owned by 100% Speedlab.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT.
No assignment precedes any suit by less than six months; there is no assignment after grant at all. The company's suits are brought by the entity that has owned the patent continuously since filing.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
No Chapter 7/11 docket, no 363 sale, no acquisition of this patent out of an estate. 100% is an ongoing concern with filings as recent as 2026.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
The classic privateering fact pattern (operating company → NPE that asserts on its behalf) does not appear. Here the operating company asserts in its own name: 100% Speedlab, LLC v. H&H Sports Protection USA, Inc., 3:15-cv-02620 (S.D. Cal., filed 2015-11-20, asserting design patent D711,960 and trade dress); Saule, LLC et al. v. FXR Factory Racing Inc., 3:19-cv-01238 (S.D. Cal., 2019); 100% Speedlab, LLC v. Vampire Optical Coatings Inc., 2:25-cv-00415 (S.D. Ohio, filed 2025-04-17, voluntarily dismissed with prejudice 2025-08-21); 100% Speedlab, LLC v. Reckless Vision Company LLC, 1:26-cv-07429 (S.D.N.Y.); and Schedule A cases in the S.D.N.Y. (1:26-cv-05566, filed 2026-06-30, jointly with Saule, LLC). The H&H dispute settled in May 2021.

Important qualification: the suits I could identify assert the goggle-bump design patent and trade dress, not US 10,123,907. I found no complaint pleading the '907 patent. So the assignee is an operating-company asserter as a general matter, but this particular patent appears, on the evidence I reached, to be unasserted.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. There is no defensive-aggregation assignment of record.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The chain of title is a single, unremarkable founder/employee assignment recorded 2015-05-01 from Sigismondo, Blanchard and Boinnard to 100% SPEEDLAB, LLC, and there has been no post-issuance transfer of any kind. The assignee is a genuine, currently operating sports-eyewear manufacturer in San Diego that ships goggles in the very product category the claims cover, that is still filing patents as recently as 2026, and that sues real competitors directly in its own name rather than through a licensing vehicle. The one caveat, stated plainly: I found no suit pleading US 10,123,907 specifically — the identified litigation asserts design patents and trade dress — and I was unable to retrieve the assignment's reel/frame number, so the reel/frame field above is intentionally left unfilled rather than guessed.

Verify the assignment record directly at:

• https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 10123907)
• https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html

I'll search for the specific patent and its cited prior art references.

Let me get the full cited references list from the patent's family record.

Let me research the key cited references in detail to characterize their disclosures accurately.

1. Patent identification (verified)

I searched for the literal number 10123907 and returned only results for US 10,123,907 B2 (plus an unrelated IEEE DOI 10.1109/NER52421.2023.10123907, which I flag but do not merge into the analysis).

2. Important threshold clarification

There are two different lists on the record, and only one of them is prior art:

• The "Cited By (7)" list (USD907107S1, USD915499S1, US 11,072,512 B2, US 11,337,859 B2, US 11,399,982 B2, US 11,547,168 B2, US 2023/0090710 A1) is a forward-citation list — patents that cite this patent. With the sole arguable exception of US 11,072,512 B2 (Kulik, effectively filed 2013-11-22, discussed below), these cannot be §102 prior art against US 10,123,907.
• The prior art is the "References Cited" list on the face of the patent (US patents, US publications, and foreign documents). That is the list analyzed below.

Caveat I must state plainly: US 10,123,907 is the parent of US 11,013,636 and US 11,737,922, and the "References Cited" list I was able to retrieve in full is the one reproduced on the later family members (47 patent citations). I could not pull the separately typeset front-page citation chart of US 10,123,907 itself. The two lists are substantially the same art (same examiner/agents, same priority), but I cannot certify that the parent's list is byte-for-byte identical. Treat the list as highly probable rather than verified.

3. Governing law / critical date

Effective filing date = 2014-05-16 (earliest provisional). Because that is after 2013-03-16, AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 governs. Therefore:

• §102(a)(1): printed publications/patents published before 2014-05-16.
• §102(a)(2): US patents/applications effectively filed before 2014-05-16 (even if published later).

4. Complete list of cited prior art (family "References Cited")

U.S. patents

U.S. publications

Foreign

An independent check: the EPO search report for EP 2 944 297 (the EP sibling) expressly flagged the following as X/Y references, which is the best available proxy for "most relevant": GB 2 495 984 A (X/Y), US 2012/0023647 A1 (X/Y), US 4,428,081 A (Y), US 6,415,452 B1 (X/Y), US 6,416,177 B1 (X/Y), GB 2 378 412 A (X/Y), US 4,748,697 A (X/Y).

5. §102 analysis of the most relevant references

For context, claim 1 requires: (a) a substantially transparent goggle lens; (b) a substantially transparent mud visor removably attached to the lens and covering a top portion of the viewable area; (c) a lens-contacting portion directly on the lens over that viewable area; and (d) a film-covering portion covering and directly contacting a top portion of the roll-off film, with the film trapped between the covering portion and the lens.

5.1 GB 2 495 984 A — Joy Chen, "Goggles with roll-off film system having central spacer"

• Citation/date: GB 2 495 984 A; priority/filing 2011-10-28; published 2013-05-01. §102(a)(1) art.
• Description: Goggle body with a displaceable transparent roll-off film driven between two reels. The distinguishing feature is at least one "central spacer" protrusion on the front face of the lens that stands the moving film off the lens (reducing electrostatic/friction sticking) while still guiding it. The US sibling is US 2013/0104299 A1 (published 2013-05-02), also in the cited list.
• §102 assessment: The spacer/protrusion performs the "guide the film while keeping it in a stable path" function of claims 3, 4 and 11. However, the spacer is a ridge on the lens, not a transparent visor removably attached over the viewable area; there is no "mud visor" covering a top portion of the viewable area. It therefore does not anticipate claim 1 on its own; it is strongest as §103 art against the spacer/guiding dependent claims.

5.2 US 2012/0023647 A1 — Soo An Park

• Citation/date: US 2012/0023647 A1; published 2012-02-02. §102(a)(1) art.
• Description: Goggle/lens assembly (the same inventor line also appears as US 8,782,820, cited). X/Y-flagged in the EP search report.
• §102 assessment: Relevant to the lens/frame structural elements (claims 5–7, 9). I could not retrieve the full specification text, so I will not overstate a claim-1 anticipation. Treat as §103 combination art for the frame/lens-groove and curvature limitations.

5.3 US 6,416,177 B1 — George N. Gibson (Smith Sport Optics), "Transparent film assembly for a protective goggle with a renewable viewing surface"

• Citation/date: US 6,416,177 B1; issued 2002-07-09. §102(a)(1) art.
• Description: A transparent film assembly mounted on a protective goggle to provide a renewable viewing surface — i.e., a transparent sheet over the goggle lens that can be renewed.
• §102 assessment: This is the single closest match to the "substantially transparent [sheet] covering the viewable area of the lens" idea, and is a strong reference against the transparency + viewable-area-coverage concept of claims 1, 10, 12. It does not, on the basis of the title/abstract, show the removable, film-contacting overhang with the film sandwiched against the lens, so likely §103 rather than §102 for claim 1.

5.4 US 6,415,452 B1 — Watanabe et al. (Scott USA)

• Citation/date: US 6,415,452 B1; issued 2002-07-09. §102(a)(1) art.
• Description: Goggle (X/Y-flagged in the EP report).
• §102 assessment: Structural goggle art; relevant to claims 1, 5, 8 framing, but I cannot confirm a mud-visor/film-covering disclosure from what I retrieved. §103 art.

5.5 GB 2 378 412 A — Lester Martin Harding

• Citation/date: GB 2 378 412 A; published 2003-02-12. §102(a)(1) art.
• Description: Goggle/eyewear document (X/Y-flagged). Same family listed against US 11,399,982.
• §102 assessment: General goggle art; potentially relevant to claims 5–7 (frame/groove). §103 art; no confirmed full claim-1 anticipation.

5.6 US 4,748,697 A — Jack L. Hodnett, "Face mask with interchangeable lenses"

• Citation/date: US 4,748,697 A; issued 1988-06-07. §102(a)(1) art.
• Description: Face-mask/goggle with interchangeable lenses.
• §102 assessment: Directly bears on the goggle frame / lens-groove / lens exchange limitations of claims 5, 6 and 7 (adaptor; lens retained in a frame groove). It does not disclose a transparent film-covering visor.

5.7 US 4,428,081 A — Robert E. Smith, "Goggle with a renewable protective surface" (Y-flagged)

5.8 US 4,528,701 A — Robert E. Smith, "Goggle with a renewable protective surface"

• Citations/dates: US 4,428,081 A (1984-01-31) and US 4,528,701 A (1985-07-16). Both §102(a)(1) art.
• Description: Goggles having a renewable/roll-off protective transparent surface across the lens.
• §102 assessment: Core roll-off film across a lens references — relevant to the "roll-off film conveyed across the goggle lens" element that claim 1 incorporates and to claims 8, 17. These are the classic §102/§103 art for the roll-off-system half of the disclosure; they do not show a transparent overhanging mud visor, so claim 1 itself is not anticipated.

5.9 US 4,309,775 A — Robert L. Jory, "Visor for goggles and method of attachment"

• Citation/date: US 4,309,775 A; issued 1982-01-12. §102(a)(1) art.
• Description: A visor secured to goggles by a defined attachment method.
• §102 assessment: Notably close to the "a visor attached to a goggle lens" concept — good §103 art against claims 1, 9, 12, 13 (visor conforming to/stretching over the lens). The visor there is not shown to be a transparent film-covering member, so no clean §102 anticipation of claim 1.

5.10 US 2013/0104299 A1 — Joy Chen, "Goggles with a displaceable transparent film"

• Citation/date: US 2013/0104299 A1; published 2013-05-02 (filing 2011-10-28). §102(a)(1) art. Same family as GB 2 495 984.
• §102 assessment: Same reasoning as §5.1 — the protrusion/spacer feature; §103 art for the film-guiding dependent claims.

5.11 US 2015/0067952 A1 — Mark Kulik, "Off-road rolling film vision system"

• Citation/date: Published 2015-03-12; effectively filed/provisional priority 2013-11-22; granted as US 9,708,154 / US 11,072,512.
• §102 posture: Published after the 2014-05-16 critical date, so not §102(a)(1). It is a candidate §102(a)(2) reference only if its effective filing date (2013-11-22) is confirmed to precede 2014-05-16 — which it appears to. This is the one forward-family item with genuine prior-art potential.
• Description: Off-road rolling-film vision system (roll-off film across a goggle/visor lens).
• §102 assessment: Potentially anticipates the roll-off film system aspects (claim 8, method claims 17); not the transparent overhanging mud visor.

5.12 US 2014/0157496 A1 — Ginther et al.

• Citation/date: Published 2014-06-12 (after the critical date). Would be prior art only via §102(a)(2) if effectively filed before 2014-05-16 — unconfirmed.
• Description: Goggle/lens art (Oakley line; cf. US 10,357,400). General §103 context.

6. Bottom line

• Most relevant prior art overall (highest examiner-weighted, per the EP search report's X/Y flags): GB 2 495 984 A / US 2013/0104299 A1 (Chen); US 6,416,177 B1 (Gibson); US 6,415,452 B1 (Watanabe); GB 2 378 412 A (Harding); US 4,748,697 A (Hodnett); and US 4,428,081 A (Smith).
• Best §102 (anticipation) candidates for narrow claims: the roll-off/film-assembly references (US 4,428,081; US 4,528,701; US 6,416,177; GB 2 495 984) for the film-conveyance and film-guiding limitations (claims 3, 4, 8, 11, 17), and the lens-frame references (US 4,748,697; US 2012/0023647) for the frame/groove/adaptor limitations (claims 5–7).
• No cited reference, on the material I could verify, discloses the full claim-1 combination — a substantially transparent mud visor removably attached over the top of the viewable area and having a film-covering portion that sandwiches the roll-off film against the lens. The cited art appears to be §103 (obviousness) art against claim 1 rather than §102 anticipation art, which is consistent with the narrow, transparency-focused claim language that ultimately issued.
• Two references warrant dedicated §102(a)(2) scrutiny because they post-date the critical date: US 2015/0067952 A1 (Kulik, eff. filed 2013-11-22) and US 2014/0157496 A1 (Ginther).

Confidence notes / open items: (1) I could not retrieve the parent's own front-page citation chart, so the list above is the family list, which I believe matches but cannot certify. (2) Full-text descriptions of US 2012/0023647, US 6,415,452 and GB 2 378 412 were not retrieved; my §102 statements for those are deliberately limited to what is supportable. (3) The word "potentially anticipates" is used as a preliminary screen, not a legal conclusion — §102 anticipation requires every element of the claim in a single reference, which I flagged where not established.

I'll ground this in the references actually listed on the page, and check what the record shows for this patent family.

Good — I now have the actual examiner-cited reference list. Let me characterize the key references before building the combination analysis.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 10,123,907 B2

"Mud visor for roll-off film system" — 100% Speedlab, LLC · App. 14/701,434 · filed 2015‑04‑30 · priority 2014‑05‑16 · granted 2018‑11‑13 · Primary Examiner Khaled Annis

0. Scope note on the "Prior Art" material (read this first)

The page you supplied does not contain an examiner citation list. Its prior‑art‑related content is limited to (a) the "Prior art keywords" block (film, lens, mud, visor, goggle) and (b) two forward‑citation tables — "Cited By (7)" and "Families Citing this family (18)." Forward citations are generally not §102/§103 art against this patent (most post‑date it), so I pulled the actual "Referenced Cited" list that appears on the face of the '907 patent:

Additional art I did verify and use: Smith US 4,528,701 (CIP of '081, cited in the child patents but not on the '907 face); Wilson II US 6,047,412 (remote film‑advance, take‑up canister slit "will scrape off excessive dirt"); Kulik US 2015/0067952 / US 9,708,154 (priority 2013‑11‑22, published 2015‑03‑12 — effectively filed before '907's priority date, so available as AIA §102(a)(2) art); Oakley WO 2014/093514 / GB 2,523,389 (priority 2012‑12‑11, "Eyewear with outriggers" — roll‑off canisters, draw‑string actuation, a stand‑off between lens and film, and a gutter/sweat barrier channel attachable to the top of the goggle). Anything I could not verify, I flag as such rather than assert.

Critically, the specification itself admits prior art (col. describing FIGs. 18–32): "conventional mud visors may include a layer of plastic film attached to a lens via a layer of opaque spacer foam." That admission is usable as prior art under §103, and it is dispositive for several claims.

1. Legal framework applied

Under Graham v. John Deere and KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, I ask: scope/content of the prior art, differences from the claims, PHOSITA level, and whether the differences are obvious. KSR permits combinations from any reference, plus "common sense," market/design incentives, and "known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way." A motivation may be found in the nature of the problem or from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions. PHOSITA here: a goggle/eyewear design engineer with a few years in sport‑goggle and roll‑off film systems — a mature, crowded art by 2014 with at least Scott/Smith Sport Optics, Oakley, and Kulik in the space.

2. Claim construction of the load-bearing terms

• "Mud visor" — the claims do not require any opaque element, any foam, or a particular barrier geometry. It is simply a transparent sheet attached to the lens.
• "lens contacting portion … directly cover[ing] the top portion of the viewable area" — a transparent sheet affixed to the lens that overlays the top strip of the wearer's viewing region. Nothing in the claims requires a lower boundary other than where the film is.
• "film covering portion … cover[ing] and directly contact[ing] a top portion of a roll‑off film … such that the top portion of the roll‑off film is disposed between the film covering portion and the goggle lens" — a structure that overlies the film's top edge, i.e., a transparent member straddling/sandwiching the film against the lens.
• "removably attached" — no recitation of how; adhesive layers, adhesive tape, and groove insertion all satisfy it.

These constructions are deliberately broad and are what make the claims vulnerable.

3. Primary combination — Smith '081 (± Smith '701) in view of McGee '044

3.1 Claim 1

Smith '081 is squarely in the same field (it opens on a motorcycle goggle) and discloses:

• a transparent semi‑rigid lens 12;
• a supply magazine 16 and take‑up magazine 22 mounted on opposite sides of the lens — i.e., the film dispensing / film receiving canisters and roll‑off film of '907 claim 8;
• a C‑shaped channel 166 "[formed] of transparent material and secured to the lens 12 by any suitable means," which "extends across the entirety of the lens 12 between the magazines 16 and 22," receiving the film's top edge 163 in its groove "to maintain the edge … substantially immobile" against wind;
• an upstanding transparent rib 168 engaging the film adjacent its lower edge as a liquid barrier "to prevent liquid droplets … from entering the interface between the film 20 and the lens 12."

Mapping: transparent lens ✔; transparent visor affixed to the lens and running across the top of the viewable area ✔ (channel 166, transparent, secured to the lens); lens contacting portion covering the top of the viewable area ✔ (the channel base runs across the top of the viewable region); film covering portion covering and contacting the film's top portion with the film "between" it and the lens ✔ (the channel's front wall + groove sandwich the film's top portion against the lens). The only arguable gap is that Smith uses a channel rather than a broad sheet, and "removably attached" is not expressly recited. Both gaps are §103 issues, not §102 escapes.

Motivation to combine / to modify: Smith is not a secondary reference at all — it is the same device category addressing the identical problem the '907 background recites ("dirt or mud still may enter through an interface between the roll‑off film system and the lens"). Smith expressly teaches the top‑edge restraint and the transparent liquid barrier as the fix. Broadening a transparent channel into a transparent sheet visor that covers the top of the viewable region and laps over the film's top edge is, at most, an obvious change in shape/degree with predictable results (In re Rose, KSR), and is precisely the "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" scenario. Smith '701 adds the express "scraper to clear the film of foreign material" at the take‑up entrance and repeats the liquid‑barrier teaching — useful if the §103 combination is run against the system claims (8, 17).

3.2 Claims 2, 9, 12, 13, 18–20

• Claim 2 / 10 (transparent plastic sheet; transparent adhesive/taped attachment): Smith's channel is expressly transparent and "secured to the lens by any suitable means." Where the structure sits in the viewable area, transparency is the only rational choice — a design necessity, not invention. The patentee's own admission (opaque spacer foam "may reduce the field of view") supplies the motivation directly. Adhesive attachment is one of a handful of known fastening options (adhesive, tape, groove, screws — Smith '081 uses a groove; Gibson/Wilson use bolted flanges).
• Claims 9, 12, 13 (curvature parallel to the lens; visor substantially covers the whole top viewable area; downward extension parallel to the lens): Smith's channel 166 is curved to match the lens and "extends across the entirety of the lens." Making a lens‑mounted transparent sheet conform to lens curvature is a manufacturing requirement, not a design choice — the '907 specification concedes as much ("Mud visor 1800 may be elastic and bendable to form a contour when attached to goggle lens 108"). Claim 12's requirement that a viewer "would also look through" the visor is met by any transparent overlay in the top viewable area, and by the admitted conventional visor.
• Claim 18/19/20 rise and fall with 9/12/13.

3.3 Claim 3 (overhang protruding away from the lens + film contacting portion extending back to press the film)

This is the claim most exposed to the admitted prior art: the admitted conventional mud visor is "a layer of plastic film attached to a lens via a layer of opaque spacer foam," which necessarily produces a film that stands off the lens and returns toward it (spacer‑and‑diaphragm geometry). Combine that admission with Smith's express teaching that the film must be held "immobile against forces of moving fluids such as ambient air" and with Wilson '412's stand‑off teaching, and the overhang/press structure is the predictable mechanical result of (i) creating a tunnel for the film and (ii) resisting wind lift. Even absent the admission, the Oakley WO 2014/093514 disclosure of a "removable antifriction barrier or stand‑off feature … positioned between the lens and film" and of a "gutter or sweat barrier … attached to the top of the goggle … a v‑shaped channel" converges on the same geometry from the opposite direction (that reference's purpose is stand‑off to reduce friction/sticking; the '907 patent's purpose is sealing — but the structural result is the same, and KSR allows combining references that disclose the structure for different stated purposes).

3.4 Claims 5, 6, 7, 15, 16 (lens groove; adaptor frame; partially circular cutout)

McGee '044 is the strongest single reference here and it is on the face of the patent: the goggle frame "peripheral groove 20" mounts the main lens and carries one or more auxiliary transparent lenses within the same peripheral groove, and the specification states the "peripheral groove sealingly engages the auxiliary lens and prevents foreign matter from entering between the auxiliary lens and the main lens." That is the exact purpose and structure of '907 claim 5, with a transparent auxiliary sheet playing the role of the mud visor, and it supplies the motivation (seal the top interface) verbatim. The '907 lens groove (FIG. 24, groove 2410) is also conventional goggle construction generally. Claim 6 (frame is an adaptor) is met by the admitted/claimed adaptor 104 concept — a lens‑carrier module interposed between lens and frame is old (Oakley's "anterior module," Smith‑style replacement bracket assemblies); claim 16 recites nothing more than a second frame. Claim 7's partially circular cutout is a routine adaptation to the lens's own perimeter cutouts (specification: "cutouts 1806 … corresponding to the positions and shapes of cutouts of the goggle lens 108") — an obvious design‑choice limitation under KSR / In re Kuhle.

3.5 Claim 8 (canisters covering the visor's side ends; ends transition from overhang to flat)

Smith '081's channel extends the entirety of the lens between the magazines — i.e., its ends meet the canisters, and in Wilson/Gibson systems the canisters' housings are bolted flush to the lens across that span. Tucking a flexible transparent sheet's ends under the canister housings to avoid creating a mud‑catching seam is a predictable, purely mechanical consequence of the stated goal ("seamless coverage"). The "transition from overhang to flat" is the inevitable result of taking a sheet that is bowed (to tunnel the film) and hiding its ends inside a flat‑backed canister housing.

3.6 Claim 11 (inner layer / outer layer / elastic foam spacer)

Weakest claim in the set. Every element is in the admitted prior art: transparent plastic film layers plus spacer foam. The patentee's only asserted distinction is that the foam was opaque and mis‑adhered, reducing field of view — a transparency/material substitution with a predictable result, plus a repositioning of the spacer so it does not sit in the viewable area (which the admission itself motivates). Smith's channel 166 + film + lens already defines a two‑wall tunnel for the film top edge with a "gap"; adding a foam spacer between two transparent sheets is the admitted conventional construction. §103 rejection here would be a straightforward KSR "known element used in an analogous manner with predictable results."

3.7 Claims 14 and 17 (method claims)

Recite attaching (as above), aligning the visor's top perimeter edge with the lens's top perimeter edge, inserting both into the lens groove, attaching the roll‑off system, covering visor ends with the canisters, stretching the film, inserting the film top under the visor, conveying and guiding the film. These are the natural, necessary steps of operating the Smith '081 / Smith '701 / Gibson '177 / Wilson '412 systems with a self‑adhesive transparent overlay — order, orientation, and manipulation steps that add nothing patentable. Method claims of this character are highly vulnerable to a "recitation of the obvious structural combination plus routine steps" attack.

4. Why a PHOSITA would have combined these (motivation summary)

1. Same field, same problem, same solution direction. All of Smith '081/'701, Wilson '412, Gibson '177, Kulik, Oakley WO '514, and the '907 patent address the same failure mode: debris ingress at the film/lens interface degrades the field of view. Smith '081 explicitly claims to prevent liquid ingress "due to surface tension" at the film/lens interface with a transparent barrier secured to the lens — the '907 patent asserts exactly the same objective.
2. The prior art teaches away from nothing. No reference criticizes a transparent overlay on the viewable area; Smith expressly makes the corresponding structure transparent.
3. Design incentive of the very kind KSR credits. In eyewear, anything placed in the viewing cone must be transparent and must not intrude on FOV. The patentee's own background section concedes that conventional opaque foam spacers reduced FOV — that concession is the motivation to move to a transparent sheet and transparent adhesive.
4. A finite number of predictable solutions. Once the problem is "seal the top of the film/lens interface," the known options are: a transparent lip/channel secured to the lens (Smith); stacking the sheet in the existing lens groove (McGee); or a stand‑off gutter/barrier (Oakley). The '907 claims are combinations of those known options.
5. Secondary considerations appear weak on the record presented. The page contains no evidence of unexpected results, commercial success attributable to the visor, industry praise, or copying; the specification attributes the improvement to avoiding the known deficiencies of prior mud visors, which is the classic "known problem, known fix" posture.

5. Suggested rejection structure (for an examiner-style attack)

6. Confidence, gaps, and what I could not verify

• High confidence in the disclosures of US 3,945,044 and US 4,428,081 (both on the '907 face) and US 4,528,701; these alone make claims 1, 5, and 15 seriously vulnerable.
• Moderate confidence on US 6,416,177, US 6,047,412, Kulik, and Oakley WO 2014/093514 as I have only their abstract/claim/summary text.
• Not verified — do not rely on: GB 2,378,412, GB 2,495,984, US 4,748,697, US 4,755,040, US 5,163,185, US 5,913,416, US 5,966,745, US 6,206,521, US 6,415,452, US 7,866,812, US 8,356,895, and the US pre‑grant publications by Tsubooka, Chiang, Lee, Gill, Campo, Park, Chen, and Ginther. Several are likely roll‑off/film‑advance art that would only strengthen the case, but I am asserting nothing about their contents.
• Post‑dating references not usable as art: US 11,337,859 (100% Speedlab "Goggle mud shield," 2019/2020) and US 11,547,168 (BISS, "Automated goggle lens roll‑off system") appear in the forward‑citation tables only.
• Procedural caveat: the '907 claims were allowed by Examiner Annis over McGee, Smith, and the balance of the cited list. That allowance decision does not bind a later validity challenge, but a challenger must address why the examiner's reading of Smith's channel (likely as a channel rather than a "visor," and as not covering a "viewable area") was wrong — that is the crux of any §103 attack on claim 1.
• This is an analytical exercise, not a legal opinion, and no infringement/invalidity conclusion should be drawn from it without a full claim chart against the primary reference specifications and prosecution history.