US 10274339

I'll verify the patent details and check for any litigation or CAFC docket activity.

Let me check specifically for any litigation or post-grant proceedings involving this patent or its owner.

Search results and scope note

I searched for the exact identifier 10274339 (and the related application 15/511,105 / publication US20170241798A1). Key finding up front: I found no CAFC 2026 docket, appeal, or PTAB post-grant proceeding for US 10,274,339. The one AvioVision-related 2026 federal docket that surfaces (AvioVision N.V. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, 1:26-cv-00134, D. Del., filed Feb. 4, 2026) is a declaratory-judgment action about different patents owned by Intellectual Ventures — the patents-in-suit identified in the complaint analysis are IV's wireless patents (e.g., U.S. Patent No. 11,032,000, "Communications in a Wireless Network"), asserted against AvioVision's "AvioCast" Aircraft Interface Device. US 10,274,339 is not at issue there.

Caution: searches for "CAFC 2026" and "the '339 patent" surface Netlist appellate activity. That is a different patent and a different owner; nothing in those results relates to US 10,274,339. I did not conflate them.

Primary source used: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10274339/en (full text supplied, treated as authoritative). Secondary: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2026cv00134/91922 ; https://www.patents-review.com/a/20170241798-system-calculating-aircraft-performance-method-performing.html

---

Bibliographic summary — US 10,274,339 B2

Family (7 jurisdictions): US 10,274,339 B2; EP 2998817 B1; CN 107077141 A; BE 1022548 B1; BR 112017005234 B1; CA 2961117 A1 (abandoned); WO 2016042036 A1 (ceased). European register lists the proprietor as Aviovision, Herkenrodesingel 8/D.3, 3500 Hasselt, Belgium.

Abstract (verbatim): "A system for determining aircraft performance for at least one flight phase includes a first terminal (11) comprising connections to a first, second and third repository respectively comprising at least a first set of data files (22) a second set of executable scripts (23) and a third set of configuration files (17). At least the third set of configuration files is arranged to be accessed via a second user interface of a second terminal (18). The system further comprises a calling module (12) arranged for selecting, based on the input parameters received and the configuration file selected, at least one executable script file (23) for processing the associated data files (22) so as to determine by a calculation engine (26) the performance of the aircraft for the least one flight phase."

---

Plain-language overview of the two independent claims

Claim 1 — the system

A three-repository, two-terminal architecture for computing take-off/landing/cruise performance:

1. Repository 1 — data files, each holding aircraft performance lookup tables derived from the aircraft flight manual (AFM) for a given aircraft type and/or variant.
2. Repository 2 — executable scripts, each tied to at least one of those data files and encoding the AFM's predefined rules for processing it.
3. Repository 3 — configuration files, each defining the configuration settings of one specific aircraft of that type/variant.

Two user roles with different credentials:

• First terminal / first user interface — for a first type of user (the "qualified for adapting aircraft settings" user, e.g., the pilot), who supplies or sets input parameters (environmental conditions plus aircraft type/variant and aircraft settings). Which parameters appear is defined by the selected configuration file — the configuration file effectively configures the interface.
• Second terminal / second user interface — for a second type of user (the "qualified for adapting the configuration settings" user, e.g., an airline performance engineer), connected to at least repository 3 to read/edit the configuration settings.

A calling module (coupled to repositories 1 and 2 and to the first interface) picks, based on the entered input parameters and the selected configuration file, at least one executable script to process the associated data files. A calculation engine then computes the aircraft performance by running the selected data file(s) with the input parameters per the associated script.

Practical essence: separate "manufacturer-controlled" AFM-derived tables and logic (repos 1–2) from "airline-controlled" per-aircraft configuration (repo 3), and let the configuration file drive what the pilot sees and which script runs.

Claim 14 — the method

The method counterpart, reciting the same architecture as steps: providing an electronic AFM organized as (a) data files containing performance lookup tables and (b) executable scripts each associated with at least one data file and embodying the AFM's predefined rules; providing a third set of configuration files identifying the configuration settings of a specific aircraft; providing the first user interface on a first terminal for the first user type (consult/set input parameters, the set defined by configuration-file selection); providing the second user interface on a second terminal for the second user type to access the configuration settings; providing a calling module that selects at least one script and its associated data file based on the configuration-file selection and the input parameters received via the first interface; and providing the calculation engine to determine performance from the selected script/data file plus input parameters.

---

Context worth flagging (grounded in the document)

• The distinguishing feature over the cited prior art is the separation of duties: AFM-derived data files/scripts versus airline-controlled configuration files, plus separate user interfaces for pilot vs. performance engineer. The specification repeatedly criticizes the Zontul/IJSCE 2013 "Rule based Aircraft Performance System" (EFB + Manufacturer Module/SCAP) for requiring the user to select performance parameters and for the SCAP module's closed, non-modifiable code.
• Key dependent-claim concepts: optimization goals (claim 2; list in claim 3), a business-logic module varying parameters within a range (claim 4), second-terminal testing of the calling/calculation module (claim 5), repository access by the second terminal (claim 6), encryption of data files/scripts (claim 7), input validation against numerical/operational limits (claim 8), result logging (claim 9), overlay display on navigation charts (claim 10), XML configuration files (claim 11), separate synchronization of the three file sets (claim 12), and EFB implementation (claim 13). Claim 15 adds identifier-triggered subset/config-file selection and environmental-data collection.
• Notable art cited: US 2007/0219676 A1 (Allen, "Integrated performance application"); US 2014/0180507 A1 / US 9,470,549 B2 (Airbus, hybrid architecture); plus 8 further US references. Sole non-patent citation is M. Zontul et al., "Rule based aircraft performance system," IJSCE, pp. 61–66 (Sept. 2013).
• Forward citation of note: US 11,386,069 B2 (Honeywell International, 2022, "System and method for offboard validation of variable parameters").
• Ownership observation: A 2026 Rule 7.1 disclosure statement in D. Del. 1:26-cv-00134 identifies AvioVision N.V.'s corporate parents as Thales S.A. and Thales AVS France SAS. That suggests a corporate-parent change post-grant, but it is not proof of the currently recorded USPTO assignee for US 10,274,339; I would not assert that without the assignment record or Patent Center data.

---

Uncertainties / limitations

1. No CAFC or PTAB record located for US 10,274,339. I cannot affirmatively certify a negative from general web search; the absence is my finding, not an authoritative "no proceedings exist" statement.
2. The 1:26-cv-00134 Delaware case involves different patents (IV's wireless portfolio, e.g., 11,032,000) and AvioVision's AvioCast device — not US 10,274,339. Don't read it as litigation on this patent.
3. The "2036-01-08 adjusted expiration" is Google Patents' assumption, not a legal conclusion; it may reflect patent term adjustment. Verify at USPTO Patent Center if precise term matters.
4. Claim texts and abstract above are quoted from the supplied authoritative full text; I did not need to auto-correct any identifier, and none of the search results contradicted the bibliographic data (independently corroborated by the EP/IE/LU registers for the sibling EP 2998817).

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10,274,339.

Initial searches returned no litigation. Let me check litigation-specific databases.

Found a potential lead. Let me dig deeper on Aviovision litigation and whether the '339 patent itself is asserted.

Based on my searches of patent litigation sources (CourtListener/RECAP, PACER-derived dockets, Unified Patents, Justia, Google Patents, and general web sources), here is what I found regarding U.S. Patent No. 10,274,339.

Summary: No litigation asserting or involving the '339 patent was found

I could not identify any district court case, Federal Circuit appeal, ITC investigation, or PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR/CBM) in which U.S. Patent No. 10,274,339 ("System for calculating aircraft performance and method for performing the same," assigned to AvioVision BV) is the patent-in-suit or is otherwise at issue.

Key points:

• The Google Patents "litigation" data for the '339 patent shows no "Cited By" litigation and no listed lawsuits; the only downstream citation is a later Honeywell patent (US 11,386,069), which is a patent citation, not litigation.
• No IPR/PGR/CBM challenges to the '339 patent appear in PTAB dockets.
• No CAFC or district court complaint naming the '339 patent was found.

One related case (but it does NOT involve the '339 patent)

While searching, I found a case involving the '339 patent's owner, but the patent asserted/counterclaimed there is a different patent:

Note: The public docket describes the filing as a declaratory judgment complaint by AvioVision, and the asserted patent identified in the complaint analysis is the '000 patent — not the '339 patent. AvioVision (owner of the '339 patent) is a party, but the '339 patent does not appear to be part of that case.

Caveats and limitations

• I did not obtain a direct docket-level confirmation of every patent asserted in 1:26-cv-00134; my characterization relies on secondary docket/complaint-analysis sources. The accused technology (AvioCast) is AvioVision's product, and the patent-in-suit shown is IV's '000 patent.
• My searches did not surface any AvioVision-initiated infringement suit asserting the '339 patent against a third party.
• Litigation data for recently filed cases can be incomplete; the case above is the only AvioVision-related litigation my searches returned.

Bottom line: There is no known litigation specifically involving U.S. Patent No. 10,274,339. The closest related litigation is AvioVision N.V. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, No. 1:26-cv-00134 (D. Del., filed Feb. 4, 2026), which involves a different patent (U.S. 11,032,000) and AvioVision's AvioCast device. I recommend confirming against PACER for the full docket of 1:26-cv-00134 if a definitive patent-by-patent record is required.

I'll verify the structured "no proceedings" signal against web sources before finalizing.

Let me run a couple more targeted checks to confirm the absence.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 10,274,339: 0 — zero active, zero claims invalidated, zero claims sustained, zero settled, zero institution denials. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding naming this patent, no FWD exists, and no Federal Circuit appeal from any PTAB decision on it exists. The bottom line for a defendant is the opposite of a hardened patent: US 10,274,339 has never been tested at the PTAB at all. All 15 claims (independent claims 1 and 14, plus dependents 2–13 and 15) remain exactly as granted on 2019-04-30, un-narrowed by any adverse judgment or certificate of cancellation, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to anyone.

Verification note: I could not locate any proceeding number, institution decision, FWD, or CAFC docket for this patent in the structured ODP block or in web sources. I searched the PTAB E2E/PTACTS public docket surface, Google Patents' "Cited By" (which lists only US 11,386,069 B2, Honeywell, a forward citation — not a PTAB challenge), and general web queries for the patent number alongside "IPR," "PTAB," "reexamination," and "Federal Circuit." Nothing surfaced. I am reporting the absence as factual, not inferring that a challenge exists. Because I have no proceeding number to quote, I will not invent one, and the per-proceeding headings below are therefore deliberately empty.

No proceedings to report

There is no {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} — Petitioner v. Aviovision entry to render. Stating it plainly so this document is not misread as an omission:

• Type / Filed / Status / Judge panel / Grounds / Institution / FWD / Settlement / Appeal: not applicable — no petition was ever filed, so none of these fields has content.
• Defensive value: neutral-to-favorable for a defendant in the sense that the patent owner has no PTAB win to wave at you, but correspondingly you have no free kill shot. Every invalidity argument you want to make, you must fund and prove yourself.

Strategic summary

Claim status: 100% untested, 100% intact. Unlike a patent that has been through one or two IPRs, there is no claim-level scorecard here. Claim 1 (the system claim: first terminal with repository connections, dual user interfaces for a "first type of user" vs. "second type of user," calling module, calculation engine) and claim 14 (the method counterpart) are the survivors by default, not by merit. Every dependent claim 2–13 and 15 is likewise live, including the commercially meaningful ones: claim 2 (optimization goal input), claim 4 (business logic module varying input parameters within a range), claim 8 (validation of input values against predefined numerical limits), claim 11 (configuration files in XML), and claim 12 (synchronization module separately updating the three file sets). Nothing has been canceled, so there is no "the troll's theory rests on canceled claims" argument available to you.

Estoppel landscape: a clean slate — which cuts both ways. Because no IPR/PGR was instituted, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estops no one. Any prior art ground against this patent is available to you in district court under § 282, and you could still file your own IPR (the patent is AIA-first-filed — effective filing 2014-09-16 via EP 14185012.3, filed in the US 2015-09-16, so IPR is available to any petitioner not time-barred by § 315(b) from a served complaint more than one year ago). Two practical constraints matter. First, the PGR window closed nine months after the 2019-04-30 grant — effectively 2020-01-30 — so § 112 and non-patent-document/system-art attacks are now district-court-only; IPR is limited to patents and printed publications under §§ 102/103. Second, because the patent is grounded in a digitized Aircraft Flight Manual workflow and SCAP modules, your best art may be system art (prior EFB implementations, deployed SCAP software) that IPR cannot reach. Note also that a district-court invalidity judgment does not estop you at the PTAB, and vice versa — there is no overlap risk here because there is no prior proceeding to overlap with.

Pattern signals: none of the usual ones. No serial petitioner, no joinder chains, no Unified Patents-style defensive aggregator in the chain, no PTAB appeals by the patent owner, and no reexamination on the file. The patent owner, Aviovision (originally Aviovision BV, Genk/Hasselt, Belgium; now Aviovision N.V., a subsidiary of Thales S.A. and Thales AVS France SAS per the Delaware disclosure statement), is an operating company, not an NPE, and it litigates offensively rather than defensively — it filed a declaratory-judgment/patent action, AvioVision N.V. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, No. 1:26-cv-00134 (D. Del., filed 2026-02-04, Judge Gregory B. Williams), which drew counterclaims from IV. I flag that case only as context on the owner's litigation posture; it does not concern US 10,274,339. The patent's most likely art anchor remains the Zontul et al., "Rule based aircraft performance system," Int'l J. Soft Computing & Engineering (IJSCE), pp. 61–66 (Sept. 2013) — the sole non-patent citation on the face of the patent and the reference the specification itself disparages as providing the state of the art in rule-based EFB performance calculation.

Recommended next steps

• Do not assume a hidden PTAB record. I found none. Before relying on that, independently re-run the patent number (10274339) in PTAB E2E / PTACTS (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and in USPTO Patent Center for the file of US 15/511,105. If a recently-filed petition has not yet been indexed by ODP, it will appear there first — but nothing in the current record supports a pending challenge.
• Treat the absence as a signal about assertion history, not validity. Well-asserted commercial patents tend to attract IPRs; a patent with zero PTAB activity since its 2019 grant most often means it has not been asserted widely against deep-pocketed infringers. Since Aviovision is an operating company with an active EFB product line (Aviobook) rather than a high-volume litigant, that reading is credible. If your demand letter cites US 10,274,339, you are plausibly among its first targets — that is a negotiation fact, not a validity fact.
• Build your own invalidity record now, with the right venue in mind. Because claim 1 and claim 14 are completely untested, preserve grounds in both buckets: (a) patents/printed publications (§§ 102/103) for a future IPR — start with Zontul (2013), US 2007/0219676 A1 (Allen, "Integrated performance application," 2007-09-20, cited on the face), and US 2002/0128806 A1 / US 2007/0010985 A1 (Anderson, "Simulation and modelling method and apparatus"); and (b) system/§ 112 grounds (e.g., the "first type of user"/"second type of user" and "calling module" limitations, written description, and prior deployed SCAP/EFB configurations) that only § 282 litigation or a now-closed PGR could reach.
• No trial-stage milestones to track. There is no institution decision deadline, no oral hearing, and no one-year FWD deadline to diarize, because there is no trial. If you intend to file, note your § 315(b) clock runs one year from service of the first complaint asserting this patent, and any IPR you file would carry its own § 315(e)(2) estoppel against you in the co-pending case — a stipulation (Sotera-style) can mitigate the discretionary-denial risk under § 314(a), but the estoppel consequence is real.

Sources consulted: USPTO ODP structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (canonical — returns zero proceedings); Google Patents, https://patents.google.com/patent/US10274339/en (claims list, cited-by and citation-of-record lists, non-patent citation); USPTO PTAB decisions portal, https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions; CourtListener, https://www.courtlistener.com/ (no CAFC appeal located); D. Del. docket for AvioVision N.V. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, 1:26-cv-00134 (context only — does not involve this patent).

I'll verify the assignment record and ownership chain for US 10,274,339 before writing.

Now let me check for litigation asserting this patent and the Assignment Center record details.

Let me verify the assignment records and check for any assertion of this specific patent by AvioVision.

Ownership / assignment reconstruction — US 10,274,339 B2

Scope and evidentiary note (important): I could not reach the USPTO Assignment Center UI interactively. The reel/frame data below comes from the authoritative full text you supplied (Google Patents' "Legal Events" transcript of the USPTO assignment record), which reproduces the reel/frame numbers and the assignment abstract text verbatim. The correspondent of record — the attorney/firm who filed each recording — was not retrievable and is not stated below. I am not going to guess it. If correspondent analysis is the core deliverable for your tracking project, that field must be pulled directly from the assignment documents at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ or https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ .

---

Inventors

Unusual patterns — assessment:

• No inventor-exodus signal. All four inventors appear as assignors on the same Aviovision assignment (reel 042659/0983), and the acquiring parent's 2016 announcement expressly welcomed "the company's current management and employees." There is no evidence of inventors leaving the assignee within 12 months of filing — the pre-fire-sale tell is absent.
• Timing quirk worth noting. The inventor→company assignment was executed 2017-05-04 to 2017-05-09 and recorded 2017-06-09 — roughly 19 months after the September 2015 PCT filing and about 7 months after the October 2016 Thales share acquisition closed. That is the normal shape of a PCT national-stage-entry formality (US app. 15/511,105, the 2017 "15/511" series) rather than a distress transfer.
• Non-inventor co-founder. Co-founder Patrick Van Dessel is not a named inventor — a routine but worth-noting discrepancy in founder/inventor overlap.

---

Original assignee

Aviovision (originally Aviovision BV, Belgian company number 0823.835.450, now styled Aviovision N.V., Hasselt, Belgium) — the entity named on the issued patent and on the recorded assignment.

• Product embodying the claims: yes. Aviovision built AVIOBOOK, an Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) applications platform. This is directly on-point: claim 13 recites a first terminal comprising "an electronic device provided with an electronic flight bag software application," and claim 10 recites overlay display on navigation charts. The patent's own specification uses the EFB as the primary deployment of the invention.
• Primary line of business: software and services for airline flight operations — EFB application platform, flight preparation/optimisation for pilots, integration with airline Operations Control. Reported scale: ~900 aircraft / 25 airlines at acquisition (Oct 2016), growing to 1,660 aircraft, 60 customers, 30 countries by mid-2019.
• Current status: operating, as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Thales. Thales announced the acquisition on 20 October 2016 (pressed closed 21 October 2016); Aviovision became a 100% owned Thales subsidiary; Belgian M&A advisor Laurius advised the shareholders "on the sale of their shares." The entity remained active (Tracxn/market data as of Dec 31, 2024). Thales injected €9 million of capital in June 2019 and wrote off €5.1 million of accumulated losses — a parent recapitalisation, not an insolvency proceeding.

Critical ownership nuance: the Thales transaction was a share purchase, not a patent assignment. That is why the USPTO record contains no transfer-of-title entry reflecting Thales — the assignment chain is silent on the change in ultimate control. The ownership shift is corroborated only indirectly:

• the 2022-10-18 USPTO legal event FEPP — "ENTITY STATUS SET TO UNDISCOUNTED… ENTITY STATUS OF PATENT OWNER: LARGE ENTITY" (consistent with Thales-group large-entity status), and the 2022-10-25 4th-year maintenance fee paid as LARGE ENTITY; and
• the 2026-02-04 Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement in D. Del. 1:26-cv-00134 identifying Thales S.A. and Thales AVS France SAS as AvioVision N.V.'s corporate parents (this builds on, and now corroborates, the ownership observation in the prior section).

---

Assignment timeline

Two recorded entries only. Nothing post-issuance diverts or encumbers title.

1. 2017-05-04 to 2017-05-09 (executed) / recorded 2017-06-09 — Reel 042659 / 0983

• Conveyance: Assignment (original inventor→company assignment)
• Assignor: Kris Van Den Bergh; Wim Cyriel Maria De Munck; Tom Hugo Jan Luc De Winne; Koen Verhavert
• Assignee: Aviovision (Belgium)
• Correspondent: not retrievable from available evidence — not stated
• Context: Internal / founding-assignment perfection of the inventors' rights in the PCT-derived US national-stage application — a routine formality, not an arm's-length acquisition.

2. 2018-05-28 (recorded) / effective 2017-08-24 — Reel 046246 / 0819

• Conveyance: Assignment cover-sheet entry, subtype CHANGE OF ADDRESS ("ASSIGNOR: AVIOVISION")
• Assignor: Aviovision
• Assignee: Aviovision (unchanged)
• Correspondent: not retrievable from available evidence — not stated
• Context: Administrative only — no conveyance of ownership interest took place. (The record is captioned "CHANGE OF ADDRESS"; the company relocated from its Leuven origins to Herkenrodesingel 8/D.3, 3500 Hasselt. I would not assert that this entry also captured any BV→NV legal-form conversion without seeing the cover sheet.)

No third entry exists. There is no post-issuance assignment, no security interest, no licence recorded against US 10,274,339. Consequence: the original operating-company assignee (Aviovision, now a Thales subsidiary) still holds title.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10274339
    2010 : Aviovision founded in Belgium
    2014 : Priority filing EP 14185012
    2015 : PCT application filed
    2016 : Thales buys Aviovision shares
    2017 : Inventors assign rights to Aviovision
         : Reel 042659 frame 0983 recorded
    2018 : Change of address recorded
         : Reel 046246 frame 0819
    2019 : US patent granted
    2022 : Patent owner listed as large entity
    2026 : AvioVision sues Intellectual Ventures

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

---

Verdict

Insufficient data — limited strictly to the assignment-record dimension: the only recorded instrument in this chain is the original inventor→Aviovision assignment (reel 042659/0983, executed May 2017, recorded 2017-06-09), plus a purely administrative change-of-address entry (reel 046246/0819, recorded 2018-05-28). There is no post-issuance transfer on which an NPE finding could rest — and, affirmatively, every NPE indicator above resolves to "not present" or "not determinable," so a non-NPE / operating-company conclusion is the better substantive read even though it does not map cleanly onto the "operating-company assertion" label (which requires the owner to be suing actual competitors on this patent; no such suit exists).

Why not "NPE — high/moderate": zero of the eight signals are present on the reel/frame record; the current owner is a Thales subsidiary whose AVIOBOOK product practices claim 13's EFB limitation.

Why not a clean "operating-company assertion": the current owner has not been identified asserting US 10,274,339 against anyone. The 2026 Delaware matter (AvioVision N.V. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, 1:26-cv-00134, D. Del., filed 2026-02-04) involves different patents and has IV — not AvioVision — on the asserting side per the prior section's complaint analysis; AvioVision filed as plaintiff with IV later answering and counterclaiming (Dkt. 12).

Record inconsistency to carry forward: docket aggregators label the 1:26-cv-00134 cause of action as "35:1 Patent Infringement" with AvioVision as plaintiff, while the prior section's complaint analysis describes it as a declaratory-judgment action over IV's wireless portfolio (e.g., U.S. 11,032,000). The answer-with-counterclaim posture is consistent with a DJ filing. Unresolved — verify against the complaint itself. Either way, US 10,274,339 is not at issue in that case, so it does not disturb the verdict above.

Verification links: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 10274339, or app. 15/511,105) · https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html · https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ (assignment documents & correspondent of record) · https://patents.google.com/patent/US10274339/en (legal events, the source of reels 042659/0983 and 046246/0819).

Closed gaps / open items: (a) correspondent of record for both reels — open, must be pulled from the Assignment Center documents; (b) whether the 2018 entry captured a BV→NV legal-form change in addition to the address move — open; (c) confirmation of the current USPTO-recorded assignee (record still shows Aviovision, while the 2026 Rule 7.1 statement establishes Thales S.A. / Thales AVS France SAS as parents) — open, Patent Center check recommended.

I'll verify the USPTO record for US 10,274,339 and pull details on each cited reference.

Let me pull details on the cited references, particularly the ones with substance.

Let me verify the remaining cited references.

Prior-art analysis for US 10,274,339 B2

Scope and method note

I searched for the literal identifier 10274339 and did not substitute similar numbers. Two caveats on method:

• I do not have a live USPTO PatentCenter / Patent Full-Text (patft) session in these tool calls; I relied on USPTO-derived mirrors (Google Patents' "Patent Citations" table and Justia's "Referenced Cited" table), which reproduce the same citation list as the authoritative full text you supplied. Where the mirrored tables disagreed, I used the patent text.
• One search result for the string "10274339" was not this patent at all — an Italian legal citation ("DeJure, ID 10274339," a 2023 Cassazione decision). I excluded it. Flagging this so it is not mistaken for the '339 patent.

Identifiers, interpreted literally: US 10,274,339 B2; Application US 15/511,105 (PCT/EP2015/071247 national stage); priority EP 14185012.3, 2014-09-16; filed 2015-09-16; granted 2019-04-30; assignee Aviovision BV (recorded); 15 claims, independent claims 1 (system) and 14 (method).

---

§ 102 framework applied

Because the effective filing date (2014-09-16) is after 16 March 2013, AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 governs:

• A printed publication or patent published before 2014-09-16 is available under § 102(a)(1).
• A US patent/application publication effectively filed before, but published after, 2014-09-16 is available under § 102(a)(2).
• A document whose own effective filing date is after 2014-09-16 is not § 102 prior art at all (it can only be used for § 102(a)(2) if it was effectively filed earlier, or under § 103 if it would have been obvious, which requires an earlier effective date as well).

Two structural notes before the reference-by-reference review:

1. The citation list is a mixture of field/background art. Fully 8 of the 12 US documents are air-data/sensor art (pitot-static probes, airspeed probes, angle-of-attack probes, airspeed estimation) that share only the general "aircraft" field with the '339 claims. They contain no performance-calculation architecture.
2. Only three references have substantive overlap with the claimed subject matter: US 2007/0219676 A1 (Allen), US 2014/0180507 A1 (Airbus/Geay) and its grant US 9,470,549 B2, plus the sole non-patent citation, Zontul et al. (IJSCE, Sept. 2013) — which the specification itself attacks as the express target of the invention.

---

Summary table — 12 cited US patent documents

Discrepancy flagged: Google Patents shows both a "Citations (10)" list and a "Patent Citations (12)" list. The 12-item list adds US 2007/0010985 A1 and US 9,470,549 B2 — the publication and grant members of the same two families already represented by US 2002/0128806 and US 2014/0180507. These are duplicative family members, not two extra teaching references.

---

Detailed reference-by-reference

1. US 6,038,932 A — "Aircraft pitot and static pressure sensing device and aircraft having the sensing device"

• Assignee/inventor: Nord-Micro Elektronik Feinmechanik AG (Wandel et al.).
• Dates: filed/priority 1996-10-01; published (granted) 2000-03-21.
• Description: Multiple pressure sensors and air-intake ports housed in the aircraft radome, connected by passages to an electronic analyzer with a microprocessor. Air-data parameters — altitude, speed, Mach number, angle of attack, side-slip — are derived "by real-time related algorithmic processing in the microprocessor." Radar-transparent, heated radome.
• § 102 assessment: Available under § 102(a)(1). Discloses no repositories, no data files/executable scripts/configuration files, no calling module, no two-user-type interface architecture. It touches "environmental conditions" only as sensed physical quantities. Does not anticipate any of claims 1–15. Best characterized as background art on air-data acquisition.

2. US 2002/0128806 A1 — "Simulation and modelling method and apparatus"

• Inventor: Anderson, Robert Dale.
• Dates: filed 2000-04-20; published 2002-09-12.
• Description: A general simulation/modeling method and apparatus (platform-independent modeling environment); not aircraft-performance-specific in the sense of the '339 claims.
• § 102: Available under § 102(a)(1). No element of the claimed three-repository/two-terminal architecture. Does not anticipate any claim.

3. US 2007/0010985 A1 — "Simulation and modelling method and apparatus"

• Assignee: The Commonwealth of Australia (Anderson family).
• Dates: priority 2000-04-20; published 2007-01-11.
• Description: Family/continuation counterpart of reference #2.
• § 102: Available under § 102(a)(1). Same analysis as #2 — no anticipation of any claim.

4. US 2007/0219676 A1 — "Integrated performance application" (Allen) — the most substantive cited patent

• Inventor: Allen, David L. Dates: filed 2006-03-20; published 2007-09-20. (Granted as US 7,529,603 B2, whose claims recite an EFB, an electronic logbook, an onboard performance tool, and an electronic document browser module.)
• Description (from the reference): An Electronic Flight Bag integrating three modules over separate databases: an Electronic Logbook (ELB) compiling deferred maintenance items; an On-Board Performance Tool (OPT) that calculates takeoff parameters (takeoff decision speed, rotation speed, climbout speed) while automatically incorporating deferred maintenance items/MEL entries and crew-entered parameters; and an Electronic Document Browser (EDB). The modules share a common database and synchronize with an airline host system. The spec expressly contemplates taking takeoff-parameter inputs such as runway conditions, obstacle height and MEL items into account.
• § 102 assessment: Available under § 102(a)(1). This is the nearest architectural neighbour because it couples aircraft-configuration-type data (MEL/deferred items) to a performance calculation inside an EFB. However it does not disclose:
  • the first set of data files holding AFM performance lookup tables separated from a second set of executable scripts encoding the AFM's rules, with each script associated with a data file;
  • a third set of configuration files, each defining the settings of a specific aircraft, that defines which input parameters appear on the first interface;
  • a second terminal / second user interface for a different, "performance-engineer" user type connected to that configuration repository;
  • the calling module that selects at least one executable script for processing an associated data file, based on input parameters and the selected configuration file.
  • Because claims 1 and 14 require all of these as a combination, Allen does not anticipate claim 1 or claim 14.
  • It is, however, the reference most likely to be used in a § 103 obviousness combination against the "aircraft-configuration data fed into an onboard performance calculation" concept, and it is independently relevant to claim 13 (EFB implementation), and arguably to claim 8 (input/limits validation) and claim 9 (result storage/logging) as single-reference art. I do not read it as anticipating those claims either, because it does not disclose validation "against predefined numerical limits… specified in at least one of the data files and configuration files" (cl. 8) or the specific log-file content of cl. 9.

5. US 2013/0204544 A1 — "Methods and systems for determining airspeed of an aircraft"

• Assignee: Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Thomas et al.). Dates: priority 2012-02-03; published 2013-08-08.
• Description: Computes aircraft airspeed from aircraft-state/pressure data; a computational method for an air-data quantity.
• § 102: Available under § 102(a)(1). No anticipation of any claim — no repository/configuration/calling-module architecture.

6. US 2013/0325218 A1 — "Synthetic estimation of rotorcraft airspeed"

• Assignee: Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Spoldi et al.). Dates: priority 2012-05-31; published 2013-12-05.
• Description: Synthetically estimates rotorcraft airspeed when air-data inputs are unavailable, using other state parameters.
• § 102: Available under § 102(a)(1). No anticipation of any claim.

7. US 2014/0180507 A1 — "Hybrid architecture for an aircraft system" (Airbus) — second-most relevant

• Inventors/assignee: Geay, Rolland, Brisard, Barthelme, Jadaud / Airbus SAS. Dates: priority 2012-12-21; published 2014-06-26 (French counterpart FR 3000195).
• Description (from the reference): A "hybrid" architecture in which a configuration module integrated into the certified avionic system sends a request to a computation module that is independent of the avionic system (an "open world" EFB-class device) to compute one or more management-system configuration parameters from supplied computation data; the computed parameter is returned and used to configure the aircraft management system (e.g., the FMS). It notably discusses splitting responsibilities between the certified avionics and the less-restricted EFB environment, and the workflow/interface separation between the pilot's EFB screen and the FMS.
• § 102 assessment: Available under § 102(a)(1) (published ~3 months before the '339 priority date). It is relevant to the concept of separating a computation environment from a certified configuration environment, but it discloses none of the claim-1 elements: no AFM-derived performance lookup-table repository, no associated executable-script repository, no per-aircraft configuration-file repository for a second "performance engineer" user, and no calling module selecting a script via a configuration file. Does not anticipate claim 1 or 14. Possible § 103 fodder only.

8. US 9,470,549 B2 — "Hybrid architecture for an aircraft system"

• Assignee: Airbus Operations (SAS). Dates: priority 2012-12-21; granted 2016-10-18.
• Description: The grant of reference #7 (same specification), claiming a method of configuring an aircraft management system using a configuration module in the avionics and an independent computation module.
• § 102 assessment: Available as prior art only through its earlier publication (US 2014/0180507, § 102(a)(1)) or as a § 102(a)(2) document because it was effectively filed 2012-12-21. Its claim 1 (a configuring method — send request, receive computed parameter, configure management system) is materially different from the '339 claims (select script via configuration file, run lookup tables). Does not anticipate any claim of the '339 patent.

9. US 2014/0230539 A1 — "Angle measurement probe on board an aircraft and aircraft implementing at least one such probe"

• Assignee: Airbus (Perju et al.). Dates: priority 2013-02-20; published 2014-08-21.
• Description: An angle-of-attack/side-slip measurement probe and its aircraft installation.
• § 102: Available under § 102(a)(1) (published ~3.5 weeks before the critical date). Purely a sensor hardware reference. No anticipation of any claim.

10. US 2016/0305977 A1 — "Multifunction probe for primary references for aircraft…"

• Assignee: Thales (Genevrier et al.). Dates (as listed): priority 2015-04-20; published 2016-10-20.
• Description: A multifunction air-data probe supplying primary flight references.
• § 102 assessment: On the dates listed, this is not § 102 prior art. Its effective date (2015-04-20) is after the '339 effective filing date of 2014-09-16, so it could not be used under § 102(a)(1) or § 102(a)(2). Caution: if the Thales filing claims an earlier French priority than the listed date, that earlier date must be checked — but nothing on the face of the record makes it available. Independently, it is probe hardware and does not anticipate any claim.

11. US 2016/0376003 A1 — "Aircraft"

• Inventor: Yuri Feldman. Dates (as listed): priority 2015-06-26; published 2016-12-29.
• § 102 assessment: Effective date post-dates the critical date → not § 102 prior art. Description not substantively directed to the claimed architecture. No anticipation of any claim.

12. US 2017/0299626 A1 — "System and Method for Performing a Test on a Pitot Probe Heating Element"

• Assignee: The Boeing Company (Dichek et al.). Dates (as listed): priority 2016-04-19; published 2017-10-19.
• § 102 assessment: Effective date post-dates the critical date → not § 102 prior art. It is a pitot-heater test reference and does not anticipate any claim.

Non-patent citation — Zontul et al., "Rule based aircraft performance system," IJSCE, pp. 61–66 (Sept. 2013)

• Description: An EFB software that lets the user select performance parameters from a global EFB database containing rules on how parameters combine, then calls the aircraft manufacturer's Manufacturer Module (SCAP) through a predefined interface to perform the calculation.
• § 102 assessment: Available under § 102(a)(1) (Sept. 2013, before the critical date). This is the express prior-art target of the '339 patent; the specification criticizes it twice — for requiring the user to select the performance parameters (error-prone) and for the closed, non-modifiable MM/SCAP code that cannot accommodate airline-specific usage scenarios. Because Zontul discloses a single user/interface and a monolithic manufacturer module with no configuration-file repository and no second (performance-engineer) terminal, it does not anticipate claim 1 or claim 14; it is the "problem statement" art, not anticipatory art.

---

Bottom line on anticipation

• No cited reference anticipates claim 1 or claim 14. Each of the 12 US documents and the Zontul NPL lacks at least the load-bearing combination of: (i) AFM performance lookup-table data files separated from (ii) executable scripts each tied to a data file and encoding the AFM's rules, and (iii) a configuration-file repository driven through a second user interface for a distinct second user type, with (iv) a calling module selecting the script based on the input parameters and the selected configuration file.
• The closest references are US 2007/0219676 A1 (Allen) and US 2014/0180507 A1 / US 9,470,549 B2 (Airbus/Geay), followed by Zontul et al. These are the ones to analyze for § 103 obviousness combinations, not for anticipation.
• Claims most exposed to single-reference attack (still not anticipated, but the ones worth stress-testing) are the peripheral dependent claims: claim 13 (EFB implementation — cf. Allen), claim 9 (result storage — cf. Allen's synchronized EFB/host data), and claim 8 (input validation — cf. Allen's automatic incorporation of deferred items).
• Three of the twelve cited US documents (Thales US 2016/0305977, Feldman US 2016/0376003, Boeing US 2017/0299626) have effective filing dates after the '339 critical date and therefore cannot serve as § 102 prior art on their listed dates — a point worth verifying against their priority documents.

Caveats / uncertainty

1. I could not query USPTO PatentCenter directly in these steps; citation lists were taken from the authoritative full text you supplied and corroborated against USPTO-derived mirrors. If an "examiner-cited vs. applicant-cited (IDS)" distinction or an "Applicant Cited" annotation matters, pull the file wrapper at Patent Center to confirm which references the examiner actually relied on.
2. Dates for references 10–12 are the priority/publication dates as listed in the citation tables; earlier foreign/domestic priority (if any) was not independently verified and could change the § 102 availability of reference #10 in particular.
3. I did not auto-correct any identifier. The one non-matching search hit ("ID 10274339," an Italian case citation) was excluded and is not prior art.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual cited prior art. Let me pull the key references.

Let me pull the two remaining substantive references: the Zontul NPL and the "Simulation and modelling" family.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,274,339 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note. This is a technical validity-style analysis, not a legal opinion. It builds on the previously generated bibliographic, claim-summary, and prior-art sections (not repeated here). Because I could retrieve only partial text/snippets of several cited references, element mappings are stated with reference to the portions I verified and are flagged where full-text confirmation is needed. The authoritative claim and specification text is the supplied full text at https://patents.google.com/patent/US10274339/en.

---

1. Governing law and standard

• The application was filed 16 Sept 2015, claiming priority to EP 14185012.3 (16 Sept 2014) — both after 16 March 2013, so the AIA version of § 103 governs. Prior art is measured against the 16 Sept 2014 effective filing date. (Note: family members WO 2016042036 A1 and BE 1022548 B1 were filed/published later and cannot themselves be § 102(b) art; only their underlying disclosure date matters.)
• The controlling rubric is Graham v. John Deere as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007): (i) scope/content of the prior art; (ii) differences between art and claims; (iii) level of ordinary skill; (iv) secondary considerations. Under KSR, a combination is obvious where the elements do what they are known to do, and the motivation may come from "any need or problem known in the field," "market demand," "design incentives," or "common sense," and may involve "a predictable variation" of prior-art teachings. MPEP 2143 supplies the exemplary rationales (combination of known elements; simple substitution; use of a known technique to improve a similar device; obvious design choice; optimization within a known range per In re Aller).

2. Level of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

A person with a bachelor's degree in aerospace/aviation engineering or computer science and ~3–5 years' experience in airline flight-operations engineering, aircraft performance software, and EFB development — familiar with the AFM/SCAP performance presentation convention, EFB approval frameworks (AC 120-76 / DO-178B), MEL/CDL concepts, and rule-based/parameterized software architectures. This is a relatively high level of skill: the field routinely implements table-lookup performance engines, and the claimed elements are standard software-engineering constructs. That cuts against patentability.

3. The prior-art set and what each reference teaches

The patent's citation list is numerically dominated by pitot-static/airspeed art (US 6,038,932; US 2013/0204544; US 2013/0325218; US 2014/0230539; US 2016/0305977; US 2016/0376003; US 2017/0299626), which has little or no bearing on the claimed architecture. The substantive case therefore rests on four references:

Citation-set anomaly worth flagging

Three listed citations — US 2016/0305977 A1 (filed 20 Apr 2015), US 2016/0376003 A1 (filed 26 Jun 2015) and US 2017/0299626 A1 (filed 19 Apr 2016) — post-date the 16 Sept 2014 priority date and therefore cannot be prior art under § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as to this patent. Their presence in the "Citations" table is best explained as an artifact of how the list is compiled (the granted family / later prosecution), and they should be excluded from any § 103 case. Separately, the Google "cited-by-examiner" markers (asterisks) suggest the examiner relied principally on the pitot/airspeed art, while Allen (US 2007/0219676) and Airbus (US 2014/0180507) appear to be third-party/applicant citations. I did not independently verify that inference from the file wrapper; treat it as an observation from Google's markers, not a fact.

Also note a trivial bibliographic discrepancy: the patent cites Zontul at "pp. 61–66," the IJSCE portfolio page lists "93–97," and Zontul's own CV lists "61–66." Same paper; pagination varies by source. This does not affect the analysis.

---

4. Element-by-element mapping of claim 1

Net effect: the four references collectively disclose every element; no single reference discloses all. The question reduces to whether the combination is properly motivated — and each of the missing pieces is supplied by art addressing the same problem and field.

---

5. The obviousness case

Case A (primary): Zontul + Allen — claims 1, 9, 12, 13, 14

Zontul and Allen are in the same field (EFB-based aircraft take-off/landing performance calculation) and address the same problem (automating AFM-derived performance calculation to cut pilot error and workload). Allen supplies the missing structural teaching: partition performance-related data across separate module repositories (ELB DB / OPT "Performance Tool" DB / EDB DB, plus common DB) and link ground/airline-side data into the calculation ("deferred maintenance items … can lead to errors, such as … crew members missing one or more deferred maintenance items"). A POSITA seeking to cure exactly that error would look to Allen's multi-module EFB and be motivated to (a) segregate the manufacturer-derived performance tables from the airline-controllable configuration data, and (b) provide the airline-side access role. Allen also renders claims 9 (result storage/sync) and 13 (EFB device) obvious directly; Zontul renders 13 obvious outright (it is EFB software). Claim 12 (separate synchronization of the three sets) follows from Allen's per-module databases with automatic host synchronization, plus the ordinary need to keep the three file sets current independently (updates to a manufacturer table have different cadence than airline configuration changes).

Case B (reinforcing): + Airbus — claims 1, 5, 8, 10

Airbus supplies the motivation to separate the calculation module from the interface/configuration layer and to seek "optimized performance computation," and it supplies the input-checking teaching ("a request to check consistency of said at least one item of computation data") supporting claim 5 (second terminal testing the calling/calculation modules) and claim 8 (validation). Airbus also teaches the open-world/third-party-application paradigm — the precise rationale for an airline-manageable configuration layer separate from manufacturer-controlled code. For claim 10 (overlay of results on navigation charts), Airbus's EFB "enabling documents and maps to be viewed as well as the use of software applications for calculating performance" supplies the platform and the motivation to co-display chart + performance data for pilot situational awareness; overlay presentation is a conventional GUI technique. Claim 10 is the thinnest of the dependent claims, but still supportable as an obvious design choice.

Case C (script/data-file pairing): + Anderson/Commonwealth — claims 1, 9, 11

If Zontul's "rules" are not accepted as "executable scripts," Anderson closes the gap: it expressly discloses an aircraft-specific data file together with executable code/equations that is "called up" and executed "at the relevant time." That is the claimed data file ↔ associated executable script relationship, in the same technical problem space (generating aircraft-type-specific performance predictions from digitized data + algorithms). Anderson also supports claim 9 (results saved to disk) and, tangentially, claim 11 (human-editable aircraft-specific data file).

Motivation-to-combine summary (MPEP 2143 rationales)

1. Same field / same problem (EFB performance calculation; reducing crew error and workload) — Zontul, Allen, Airbus.
2. Known technique improving a similar system — Airbus's separated computation module with consistency checks; Allen's modular multi-database EFB.
3. Predictable combination of known elements each performing its known function — lookup tables (long conventional), scripted/rule-driven processing (Zontul, Anderson), per-aircraft configuration data (Anderson, Zontul's REGISTRATION-keyed rules), separated UI roles (Allen/Zontul).
4. Design incentive / market pressure — Zontul's own stated goals of fuel conservation, CO₂ reduction, and reducing both pilot and engineering workload make the architecture an expected design response; Airbus's "optimized performance computation" reinforces it.
5. Optimization within a known range — for claim 4 (In re Aller, In re Applied Materials).

---

6. Dependent claims 2–13, 15

Claim 14 (method) tracks claim 1 step-for-step and fails for the identical reasons; there is no added step or ordering that confers patentability (and process claims stand or fall with the corresponding apparatus under the same evidence). Claim 15 is addressed above.

---

7. Rebuttal avenues available to the patentee, and their strength

1. "The examiner's art is non-analogous." Good as to the pitot/airspeed art — but that art is irrelevant anyway, so it wins nothing. Weaker as to Anderson/Commonwealth (flight simulation), where a patentee would argue different field of endeavor. Rebuttable: under KSR the test is whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem — aircraft-specific data files driving executable performance code is directly pertinent. And Cases A/B do not require Anderson.
2. No motivation to combine. The patent's specification itself supplies the motivation: it criticizes Zontul for a closed, non-modifiable SCAP/MM and for requiring the user to select parameters. A POSITA reading that criticism is led to Airbus (open-world computation with third-party/airline-developed applications) and Allen (modular, airline-synchronized EFB) as the natural fixes. Express "teaching away" is absent.
3. "The advantage is an unexpected result." The asserted benefits are (a) reducing human error and (b) administrative separation of responsibilities across differently-qualified personnel. The first is the explicit goal of Zontul, Allen and Airbus. The second is a workflow/organizational benefit; under KSR a non-technical need or business motivation can supply the rationale, and a benefit that is the expected consequence of partitioning data by owner is not "unexpected." This is the patentee's weakest ground.
4. Secondary considerations. I found no evidence in the record reviewed of nexus-qualified secondary indicia (copying, industry praise, long-felt unmet need, or commercial success attributable to the claimed architecture). Commercial success of an AvioVision product, standing alone, would need a nexus showing; on these materials I cannot credit any such showing. Flag: the sibling EP 2998817 B1 granted and remains active, which suggests the EPO was persuaded of something under its (different) problem-and-solution approach — but that is not controlling for US § 103 and may simply reflect narrower granted claims or different art. I would not treat the EP grant as a defense.
5. Claim-construction footholds:
   • Claim 1 requires the configuration file to define the input parameter set ("which input parameters are defined based on the selection of a configuration file"). Zontul's rules constrain and adjust parameters; whether that constitutes defining the set presented to the UI is a genuine gap. The patentee's best argument is that no reference teaches a per-aircraft configuration artifact that drives the pilot UI. Anderson's "aircraft-specific data file containing all of the parameters necessary to fully configure" the model is the best counter, but it describes configuring a model, not a UI.
   • "Executable scripts" distinct from data files. Zontul keeps rules in the database; if the tribunal declines to read database rules as "executable scripts," Anderson becomes necessary — and Anderson's field is the patentee's best non-analogous-art argument.
   • Claim 10's overlay limitation is the most vulnerable to the patentee distinguishing on the ground that co-display on a chart is a specific, asserted advantage.

8. Bottom line

• Claim 1 is, on balance, rendered obvious by Zontul in view of Allen, further in view of Airbus (and, for the script/data-file pairing, Anderson/Commonwealth). Every element is disclosed; the combination is motivated by the shared field, the shared problem, and the patent's own characterization of the shortcoming in Zontul.
• Claims 4, 8, 9, 13 are especially weak: claim 8 is arguably disclosed in substance by Zontul alone; claim 4 is a textbook within-range optimization; claim 13 is a straightforward EFB application of Zontul/Allen.
• Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15 are obvious on the combinations above, with claim 3 largely a recitation of desired results.
• Claim 10 is the most defensible dependent claim, and claim 1's "configuration file defines the input parameters" limitation is the most defensible element — a patentee would focus validity arguments there. But absent secondary considerations with nexus, I do not see that either survives a well-supported KSR combination in this field, given the level of ordinary skill and the highly predictable nature of the constituent software constructs.

Residual uncertainties (stated explicitly): (i) I worked from partial text/snippets for Allen, Airbus and Anderson/Commonwealth — a full-text, paragraph-cited mapping is required before relying on any single element disclosure, particularly the "configuration file defines the input parameter set" mapping; (ii) the Google "cited-by-examiner" markers are the basis for my observation about which art the examiner relied on and may be unreliable — confirm against the USPTO file wrapper; (iii) the Zontul page-range discrepancy ("61–66" vs. "93–97") is unresolved but immaterial.

Housekeeping flag: the two prompts in this task give different "current" dates (the section header says April 26, 2026; the environment states 2026-09-29). Nothing in this § 103 analysis depends on the current date, but the inconsistency is noted per the cross-reference instruction.