US 10478737

Searching note (what I could and couldn't check)

I do not have direct query access to USPTO Patent Center, PACER, or the Federal Circuit's docket system through my tools. What I ran were general web searches, which returned Google Patents / FreePatentsOnline pages and a third‑party litigation‑intelligence summary (PatSnap) derived from the PACER docket. I found no 2026 CAFC docket entry for 10478737 — treat that as "nothing surfaced in my searches," not as affirmative proof the patent has never been appealed. The provided full patent text is treated as authoritative over any search snippet.

Search results did not contradict the supplied patent text; they corroborate it (same title, application number, assignees, and litigation family).

US 10478737 B2 — bibliographic summary

Continuity: continuation of US 14/913,855 (the national stage of PCT/US2012/020850), which issued as US 10,213,699 B2. Child applications: US 16/683,458 (US 11,376,513 B2) and US 17/856,506 (US 12,296,277 B2). Foreign family members include AU 2012246749 A1 (abandoned), AU 2017206253 B2, DE 112012001743 B4, GB 2505101 B, WO 2012145045 A1.

Abstract (verbatim): "A zip track system that is integrally connected to a challenge course so that a user can traverse one portion of the challenge course, and then can slide down the zip track system via a zip track to any other desired location."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — "Track system for a challenge course" (the core apparatus)

A two-part rail system you can ride without ever unhooking:

• A puck track runs across the challenge course and has a puck support surface and a puck-track opening (a slot).
• That puck track is integrally attached to a zip track, which spans a first structure to a second structure and has its own wheel support and zip track opening.
• A body (the carriage/rider attachment) travels in both tracks. It carries a puck and at least one rotating member (wheel) mounted below the puck, and it hangs down to a lanyard connectable to the user's safety harness.
• On the puck track: the body passes through the slot and the puck rides/slides on the puck support.
• On the zip track: the body passes through that slot and the wheel rolls on the wheel support.

Key idea: the same carriage transitions between a challenge‑course "puck" rail and a gravity‑driven zip rail while the user stays clipped in.

Claim 10 — "Track system for a challenge course" (structural height relationship)

Same hardware, framed around relative elevation:

• A zip track between two challenge‑course structures, whose first and second ends are integrally connected to a puck track that runs through the course.
• The zip track's wheel support sits vertically lower than the puck support of the puck track.
• A body with a puck and a downward‑mounted rotating member rides both; the puck slides above the puck support, and the wheel rolls above the wheel support.

Key idea: defines the nested geometry — puck rail above, wheel rail below — that permits the single carriage to serve both rails.

Claim 20 — "Challenge course" (system-level claim)

Claims the whole installation, not just a track section:

• Multiple puck tracks traverse challenge‑course elements.
• A zip track runs platform‑to‑platform, its two ends integrally connected to two different puck tracks.
• The zip track has a puck support above a wheel support.
• A body (puck + downward wheel + lanyard to a harness) is disposed above both supports.
• The body can move between the puck tracks and the zip track.

Key idea: the challenge course itself, with zip tracks spliced into puck‑rail circuits at both ends so users circulate without disengaging.

Notable dependents: claims 2/11/21 (puck track above the zip track), 3/12/22 (puck clears the puck support while rolling on the wheel support), 6/7, 17/18, 27/28 (two wheels on opposing sides of the body/opening), 5/16/26 (non‑linear slope), 8 (track extends between structures, courses, or to ground level), and 9/19/29 (braking means to slow the body on the zip track). The specification states two braking approaches: friction braking (increased vertical spacing so the puck contacts the puck support and the wheel lifts off the wheel support) and magnetic/eddy‑current braking with magnets in or below the wheel support (FIGS. 16–19).

Litigation (as reflected in the searched sources — verify before relying on it)

• Google Patents' record for this family flags a U.S. case in the Northern District of Illinois (case 1:24‑cv‑05275), with plaintiffs JiMi IP, LLC and Ropes Courses, Inc. against Funcity Adventure Park, LLC; presiding judge reported as Sunil R. Harjani; asserted patents reported as US 10,478,737 B2, US 8,066,578 B2, and US 11,376,513 B2.
• The PatSnap summary quotes a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice, with each side bearing its own fees and costs, and a clause converting the dismissal to with prejudice unless an enforcement proceeding is initiated within 90 days. No merits finding of infringement or invalidity is reported.
• CAFC 2026 dockets: nothing surfaced in my searches. If an appeal exists, I could not confirm it with the tools available — flag this as an open item rather than a negative finding.

Confidence / uncertainty

• High confidence on title, inventors, assignments, dates, continuity, abstract, and claim content — these come from the authoritative full patent text supplied.
• Medium confidence on litigation details — they come from secondary sources (PatSnap summary of PACER) and Google Patents' litigation widget, which disclaims legal conclusions.
• Low/none on any Federal Circuit activity; I found no basis to assert one.

I'll run targeted searches for litigation involving US 10,478,737, prioritizing litigation-intelligence sources.

Let me dig into specifics — case docket, additional suits, and any appeal.

A new 2026 case surfaced. Let me investigate it and check for other suits and appeals.

Litigation involving US 10,478,737 B2

Caution on date: your prompt states the current date is April 26, 2026, while my session metadata says 2026-09-15. I've flagged below which findings are date-sensitive. Also, my tool budget was exhausted mid-search, so the second case below is partially verified — see the explicit gaps.

Also, an important scoping note: my searches for "10478737" returned several irrelevant hits for other numbers (e.g., an IPR2024-00582 involving U.S. 11,175,738; a PatSnap case report on U.S. 7,194,737 B2 in FrameTech v. Micro Focus). Those are not this patent and are excluded per your instruction not to return similar numbers.

Case 1 — JiMi IP, LLC et al. v. Funcity Adventure Park, LLC (confirmed)

Corroborating sources: Docket Alarm docket, Justia dockets, Ex Parte case page, PatSnap case report.

Docket details worth noting: the summons was returned unexecuted as to all defendants on August 20, 2024 (Filing 7), and the public docket snapshot I retrieved was last updated August 20, 2024 — so the service/answer sequence is not fully visible in the free sources I reached.

Case 2 — JiMi IP, LLC et al. v. WA7 Volli (identified, not fully verified)

Source: PACER Monitor case page.

⚠️ Do not assume US 10,478,737 B2 is asserted in this case. Same plaintiff family and same subject-matter portfolio, but the patent list is unverified. This needs a PACER docket/complaint pull.

Update to the prior section's litigation note: the earlier summary (drawn from Google Patents' "family has litigation" widget) listed only the Illinois case and stated that nothing surfaced for 2026. That is now superseded in part — the N.D. Ill. entry stands, but a 2026 W.D. Wash. filing does exist in which JiMi IP is a plaintiff. The earlier statement about CAFC activity is not contradicted (see below); it simply wasn't a complete picture of 2026 activity.

What I did not find

• No Federal Circuit appeal involving US 10,478,737 B2 surfaced. This is consistent with the procedural posture: a voluntary dismissal without prejudice is generally not appealable, and no merits judgment was entered in the Illinois case. Treat this as "nothing surfaced," not as proof no appeal exists.
• No PTAB/IPR or PGR proceeding against US 10,478,737 B2 surfaced. (The IPR results my searches returned concerned unrelated patents and are excluded.)
• No other district court case naming US 10,478,737 B2 as an asserted patent surfaced beyond Case 1. Google Patents' family-litigation record likewise flags only the N.D. Ill. case.

Gaps and confidence

• High confidence on Case 1's parties, court, case number, filing date, asserted patents/claims, and the stipulated-dismissal outcome — multiple independent dockets and a verbatim PACER quote agree.
• Medium confidence on Case 1's termination mechanics (the "terminated April 25, 2025" date and the 90-day conversion clause come from secondary aggregators, not a PACER pull I performed).
• Low confidence / unverified on Case 2's asserted patents, exact filing day, and current status. I could not reach the complaint or a current docket.
• I could not directly query the Unified Patents litigation caselist portal (my search returned no usable caselist result before the step limit).

Recommended verification: pull the dockets for 1:24-cv-05275 (N.D. Ill.) and 2:26-cv-03272 (W.D. Wash.) directly from PACER/Patent Center, and check the Unified Patents caselist for any additional JiMi IP / Ropes Courses filings.

I'll verify the canonical "no PTAB activity" signal against web sources before writing up.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file for US 10,478,737 B2. The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) structured block supplied with this task returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for the patent, and my web searches surfaced no petition, institution decision, FWD, or PTAB appeal tied to either the patent number, the application number (16/282,647), the assignee chain (Ropes Courses, Inc. → Jimi IP, LLC), or the asserted family. Breakdown by status is therefore 0 active / 0 invalidated / 0 sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution-denied.

Bottom-line defensive posture: the patent is completely untested at the PTAB. All 31 claims stand as issued — but that is survival by default, not by adjudication. There is no FWD canceling claim 1 and no estoppel-producing victory to inherit; conversely, there is no adverse PTAB record suggesting the claims are especially robust. A defendant today inherits a blank slate and, unusually for a patent asserted in litigation since at least 2024, an intact first-mover opportunity at the Board.

⚠️ Cross-reference flag: The previously generated license-to-operate section noted an N.D. Ill. case, JiMi IP, LLC v. Funcity Adventure Park, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-05275, asserting this patent alongside US 8,066,578 B2 and US 11,376,513 B2. The absence of any petition in that dispute is consistent with the reported stipulation of dismissal (see the PatSnap summary of the PACER docket at the link below) — an IPR filed by Funcity would almost certainly have surfaced in the sources I searched. Treat "no IPR by Funcity" as an inference from absence, not an affirmative record finding.

No proceedings to enumerate

There is no ### IPR20XX-XXXXX — Petitioner v. Ropes Courses / Jimi IP entry to write, because no such number exists in the ODP data or in any search result. I will not construct a placeholder proceeding, and I specifically decline to guess at a docket-style number — inventing one would contaminate the analysis downstream.

For the record of what I checked and did not find:

The one live enforcement artifact that does exist is the district-court docket: PACER Case 1:24-cv-05275, dismissed without prejudice by stipulation, with a 90-day conversion-to-with-prejudice clause and no merits findings. Source: PatSnap's PACER-derived write-up of JiMi IP v. Funcity Adventure Park, https://www.patsnap.com/fr/resources/blog/litigation/jimi-ip-v-funcity-adventure-park-zip-track-aerial-park-patent-dispute-patsnap/. For the canonical proceeding list, consult USPTO PTAB E2E / the Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End system at https://ptab.uspto.gov/ and the PTAB decisions page at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions.

Strategic summary

Claim status. All three independent claims — claim 1, claim 10, and claim 20 — and all 28 dependents are UNTESTED at the Board. Nothing is canceled, nothing has been confirmed patentable over prior art, nothing has been narrowed by amendment. Because there is no IPR, there is also no certificate canceling claims under 35 U.S.C. § 318(b) and no written description or § 112 record developed at the PTAB. Practically: a demand letter asserting any of claims 1–31 cannot be met with "that claim is already dead," and any invalidity theory you build must be built from scratch, either in district court or by filing the first petition.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel currently attaching to anyone. No petitioner has been through an institution decision, so no ground has been "raised or reasonably could have been raised" before the Board. This cuts both ways: (i) you face no estoppel yourself — you are free to raise every prior-art combination in district court without PTAB preclusion; and (ii) you cannot free-ride on another party's invalidity work. Notably, parallel patents in the same family do have Board-style activity in the broader portfolio context, but none of it flows to this patent.

Timing / statutory clock. The relevant clock is § 315(b): a petition is time-barred if filed more than one year after service of a complaint alleging infringement. The N.D. Ill. case was filed in 2024, so any defendant served in that action is now past or near the one-year bar — a later-filed suit against a new defendant, however, restarts the clock for that party. If you have been newly served, confirm the service date before doing anything else.

Pattern signals. No serial-petitioner pattern, no defensive-aggregator (Unified Patents–style) petition, and no patent-owner appeal history for this patent. The prior-art depth in the file is substantial — the patent's own citation list runs to 101 references, heavily weighted toward zip-line trolley/brake and overhead-track art (e.g., US 8,037,978; US 8,026,7134-family eddy-current trolley brakes; US 6,412,611; the Liggett-lineage challenge-course patents) — but that depth reflects prosecution citations, not Board-tested grounds.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant staring at an assertion of US 10,478,737 B2: there is no PTAB shortcut and no canceled claim to point to. Two paths:

   • File the first IPR. Because no one has petitioned, you would own the first-mover position and would not be bound by any prior petitioner's estoppel. Focus on the independent claims 1, 10, 20; the strongest art areas from the citation record are the pre-2011 overhead-track/trolley and eddy-current-brake references, plus the Ropes Courses' own 2010 catalog and the Walltopia/Kristallturm brochures listed as non-patent citations in the file.
   • Or litigate invalidity in district court with no estoppel exposure, since no PTAB ground set exists to constrain you.
   • Observe the § 315(b) one-year window from your service date.

2. If you are the patent owner: the blank PTAB record is an asset — no estoppel, no adverse FWD, full claim scope. But it also means the claims' validity has never been tested, so the risk of a first IPR landing during a live assertion is real. Consider whether a defensive posture (e.g., early § 112/§ 101 review of the claims, or narrowing reissue) is warranted before asserting against a well-resourced defendant.

3. No active proceedings to track. There are consequently no institution-deadline, oral-hearing, or statutory one-year-FWD milestones to monitor.

Confidence: High that the ODP data and my searches show zero PTAB proceedings for this patent. Medium on the inference that no petition was filed in the Funcity matter (based on absence across sources, not a PACER/PTAB docket pull). Low on any Federal Circuit activity — nothing surfaced, which is a null result, not proof.

Governing documents to pull directly for certainty: USPTO PTAB E2E, https://ptab.uspto.gov/; PTAB decisions search, https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions; and PACER for N.D. Ill. Case 1:24-cv-05275.

I'll reconstruct the assignment chain. My tools can't query Assignment Center directly, so I'll pull what I can from the authoritative patent text you supplied (which includes Google Patents' legal-events and reassignment records), then cross-check the entities and the litigation via web search.

Good — that surfaced the litigation counsel and the operating-company context. Now let me try to pin down the assignment correspondents, the Jimi IP entity profile, and whether Jimi IP appears on any asserter watchlists.

Inventors

Unusual-departure check: no pattern observed. All three inventors assigned to Ropes Courses, Inc. in a single instrument (reel 048407/0122, effective 2012‑01‑11). Liggett demonstrably remained the controlling principal of RCI for years afterward — he is quoted as co‑owner of the Allegan Event Center in March 2018 and is named in RCI's own "30 years strong" retrospective (2019). I found no evidence of inventor departures preceding the 2020 transfer, so the "all inventors out the door" precursor to a fire‑sale is not present here.

Original assignee

Ropes Courses, Inc., Allegan, Michigan (later rebranded RCI Adventure Products), named on the issued patent. Status: operating.

• Primary line of business: design, manufacture and install of steel high‑ropes courses and integrated zip rails — Sky Trail®, Sky Tykes®, and Sky Rail®, the zip line that is "seamlessly integrated with the ropes course, participants never have to unhook their redundant sling lines." That description is essentially the commercial embodiment of the '737 claims (a challenge‑course track that transitions into a gravity zip rail without unclipping).
• Ships a product embodying the claims: yes, on the record available. ~600+ installations claimed by 2017; ~384 Sky Trail and ~79 Sky Tykes attractions across 40 states and 33 countries as of the company's 30th‑anniversary post.
• Current status: operating, not acquired and not in bankruptcy. RCI is named as a co‑plaintiff with JiMi IP, LLC in the 2024 Northern District of Illinois suit and again in the 2026 Western District of Washington suit, which is strong evidence of continuing commercial activity.

Assignment timeline

I cannot open USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) or its mirror (assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) with my tools, so this timeline is reconstructed from the legal‑events / reassignment records embedded in the authoritative full patent text you supplied, which report the reels, conveyances, assignors, assignees and effective dates. The correspondent‑of‑record field is not exposed in that source, and I could not retrieve it by web search — I flag each entry accordingly rather than guess.

• 2012‑01‑11 (executed/effective) / recorded 2019‑02‑22 — Reel 048407/0122

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: LIGGETT, JAMES ALLEN; GARLAND, TROY LEE; POWERS, TIMOTHY JOHN (individually)
  • Assignee: ROPES COURSES, INC., Michigan
  • Correspondent: not retrievable with my tools. No recurring‑correspondent call can be made for this chain from the record I can see. (The Google Patents reassignment block for this patent shows the assignors in the order Garland / Liggett / Powers, but no attorney or firm.)
  • Context: original inventor‑to‑company assignment, apparently re‑recorded as a confirmatory filing against the newly filed continuation on the same day it was filed (2019‑02‑22) — the seven‑year gap between effective date and recording is the signature of a re‑recording, not a new transfer.

• 2020‑04‑10 (executed/effective) / recorded 2020‑05‑13 — Reel 052654/0330

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: ROPES COURSES, INC.
  • Assignee: JIMI IP, LLC, Michigan
  • Correspondent: not retrievable with my tools. Flag as the single highest‑value open item in this chain — the cover sheet at reel 052654/0330 will name the recording attorney/firm, and that name is the best available cross‑reference to the firm later seen asserting these patents. Note that FisherBroyles LLP appears as litigation counsel for JiMi IP on two separate suits (2024 ILND via William F. Dolan and Patricia Y. Ho; 2026 W.D. Wash. via Jeremy Sanders) — but litigation counsel and recording correspondent are different roles, and I have no evidence they are the same person or firm, so I am not treating that as a correspondent match.
  • Context: internal IP‑holding‑company reorganization / affiliate transfer, not an arm's‑length third‑party sale. The assignee is Michigan‑based, the assignor continues to operate and appears as a co‑plaintiff in later enforcement, and no intervening security interest, license, or merger record appears.

Records searched for and not found on this patent: no Security Agreement, License, Release, Merger, or Correction record appears for US 10,478,737 in the sources I can reach. The only other post‑issuance legal event is a 2023‑04‑03 maintenance‑fee payment (4th year, small entity) — i.e., the current owner is still paying to keep this patent alive, which is inconsistent with an abandoned shell.

Unverified lead (do not treat as a finding): while searching, I saw a Google Patents legal‑events fragment on a related family patent referencing REEL/FRAME:043771/0616, "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST; ASSIGNOR: LIGGETT, JAMES" with an effective date of 2017‑10‑02, and a separate fragment on a third family patent referencing REEL/FRAME:043826/0405 from "LIGGETT, JAMES; GARLAND, TROY LEE; POWERS, TIMOTHY" with effective date 2010‑09‑15. These fragments surfaced on other applications' pages, not on the '737 page, and the snippets were too garbled to attribute reliably. Treat them as leads suggesting a family‑wide practice of repeatedly re‑recording inventor assignments onto each new continuation — not as confirmed '737 assignments.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10478737
    2012 : Inventors assign to Ropes Courses Inc
    2019 : Continuation filed Feb 22
         : Assignment re-recorded on new application
         : Patent issues Nov 19
    2020 : Ropes Courses transfers to Jimi IP LLC
    2024 : JiMi IP and RCI sue Funcity in Illinois
    2026 : JiMi IP sues WA7 Volli in Washington

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell‑entity transfer — present (evidenced), with strong countervailing control evidence
The documented transfer at reel 052654/0330 (executed 2020‑04‑10, recorded 2020‑05‑13) moves this patent from an operating manufacturer to Jimi IP, LLC, an entity whose name carries the "IP" licensing suffix and whose portfolio (~22 IP assets, earliest patent 2004, latest 2025) is co‑extensive with the RCI founder's patent families rather than any product line. That satisfies the naming‑plus‐concrete‑evidence test (a single‑purpose IP‑holding LLC. However, the same record shows the LLC is Michigan‑based like the assignor, shares the founder's name ("Jimi" ≈ Jim Liggett), and litigates only alongside Ropes Courses, Inc. as co‑plaintiff — the opposite of an anonymous, arm's‑length shell. Call it a captive holding company, not a third‑party shell.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present
Neither Ropes Courses, Inc. nor Jimi IP, LLC matches any name on the enumerated list (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or Spangenberg entities). Caveat: I could not complete a direct RPX Insurance or Unified Patents asserter‑directory lookup — my last query in that line hit a tool limit and returned nothing. Absence from the enumerated list is confirmed; absence from the RPX/Unified watchlists is unverified.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not retrievable
The correspondent field is not exposed in any source I can access for reels 048407/0122 or 052654/0330, so the "shells change, the lawyer doesn't" test cannot be run. The one adjacent recurrence I can document is FisherBroyles LLP as litigation counsel for JiMi IP on two suits four jurisdictions apart — Illinois (1:24‑cv‑05275, Dolan/Ho) and Washington (2:26‑cv‑03272, Jeremy Sanders). That is a counsel‑recurrence pattern worth noting, but it is not a recording‑correspondent recurrence, and I am not conflating the two.

4. Cascading transfers — not present
Two recordings, eight years and four months apart (effective 2012‑01‑11 → effective 2020‑04‑10). No consecutive chained LLCs, no sub‑24‑month cascade, no shared registered‑agent address observable in the record.

5. Pre‑litigation transfer — not present
The last transfer to JiMi IP was executed 2020‑04‑10; the first suit naming the '737 was filed 2024‑06‑24 (1:24‑cv‑05275). That is a ~4‑year gap, roughly eight times the 6‑month window, so the chain was not arranged immediately before filing to manufacture standing or venue.

6. Bankruptcy fire‑sale — not present
No bankruptcy of Ropes Courses, Inc. appears anywhere in the record; the company was publicly operating and expanding (Amaze'n Mazes acquisition 2017, Clip 'n Climb distributorship 2018), and the maintenance fee at 4 years was paid on 2023‑04‑03.

7. Privateering — unclear
In form, the fact pattern (operating company transfers patents to an affiliated LLC that then sues) parallels privateering. In substance it does not: the operating company is itself a co‑plaintiff, not a behind‑the‑curtain beneficiary, and the affiliate appears commonly controlled rather than a third‑party NPE asserting on the operating company's behalf. Functionally this looks like an in‑house assertion structure. Note one oddity worth verifying: the 2024 complaint's accused products are described as the defendant's "Sky Rail® zip track and Sky Trail® … systems" — product names that are RCI's own trademarks. Whether that reflects a distributor/franchisee dispute, a knock‑off, or a paraphrase by the secondary source is unresolved; I flag it rather than infer it.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present
No RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN assignment appears in the chain. The patent has not been neutralized.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

Justification: the only post‑inventor transfer is reel 052654/0330 (executed 2020‑04‑10, recorded 2020‑05‑13) from Ropes Courses, Inc. to Jimi IP, LLC, and every surrounding indicator points to a captive IP‑holding affiliate rather than a third‑party troll — the assignor is still operating and shipping the Sky Trail® / Sky Rail® products that read on these claims, it appears as co‑plaintiff with JiMi IP in the 2024 Illinois action (1:24‑cv‑05275) and the 2026 Washington action (2:26‑cv‑03272), the transfers are eight years apart with no cascade, no pre‑filing transfer, no bankruptcy, no defensive aggregator, and no name on any published NPE list. The one genuine caution is structural: routing the family's patents through a single‑purpose "IP" LLC and suing jointly with the operating company gives the family an NPE‑like litigation posture (standing, venue, and damages framing) even though the underlying business is real — so the "present, with countervailing evidence" calls on signals 1 and 7 should be read as a structure worth monitoring, not as evidence of a troll.

Primary open item to close at the source: the correspondent‑of‑record for reel 052654/0330. Pull the assignment cover sheet by patent number at the USPTO Assignment Center and capture the attorney/firm — that single data point either confirms or kills the repeat‑correspondent signal, which is the only signal here I could not adjudicate.

• Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — search 10478737)
• Google Patents legal events / reassignments: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10478737/en
• 2024 suit docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2024cv05275/[460601](/patent/460601)

I'll verify the key cited references against live sources before writing the analysis.

Now let me verify the non-patent literature and remaining key structural references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 10,478,737 B2 ("Zip track and system")

1. Scope note on the search

I searched for US 10,478,737 B2 specifically (application 16/282,647). Where results returned related but distinct numbers — US 10,213,699 B2 (parent), US 11,376,513 B2 and US 12,296,277 B2 (children), US 2017/0036123 A1 (the parent's pre-grant publication), WO 2012145045 A1 / GB 2505101 B / DE 112012001743 B4 (foreign family) — I have not substituted them for 10,478,737. They are treated below only as context, and I flag explicitly that they are different patents.

I could not pull the USPTO Patent Center / Open Data Portal record directly in this session (tool limitation, consistent with the earlier searching note already on file). The authoritative source for this analysis is the full patent text supplied, whose "Citations (101)" and "Non-Patent Citations (11)" blocks I have used as the definitive citation set. Where I independently verified a reference against live sources I say so; where a description is derived from the reference's title only (because I did not open the document), I label it [title-derived] and do not embellish it.

2. The governing § 102 framework — this drives everything

Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 applies. Every claim of 10,478,737 traces to US provisional 61/476,344, filed 2011‑04‑18 — before the AIA's 2013‑03‑16 cutoff — and the continuation chain (PCT/US2012/020850 → 14/913,855 → 16/282,647) does not add new matter that would push any claim's effective filing date past the cutoff. So the analysis is § 102(a)/(b)/(e)/(f)/(g), not AIA § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2).

Critical dates:

Two rules that dominate the answer, and that the request's framing risks obscuring:

1. Anticipation requires a single reference disclosing every element, arranged as claimed. 35 U.S.C. § 102; Net MoneyIN v. VeriSign; Scripps Clinic v. Genentech. A reference that shows a trolley on a rail but not the puck-over-wheel support geometry anticipates nothing claimed in 10,478,737.
2. A dependent claim cannot be anticipated in isolation. Claim 9, for example, incorporates all of claim 1. A reference to eddy-current braking therefore cannot "anticipate claim 9" unless it also discloses the entire claim 1 apparatus. This is the single most common error in § 102 tables, and I have avoided it below.

3. Headline finding (state it plainly)

No reference of record appears to anticipate any of claims 1, 10, or 20 under § 102. The 101 patent citations and 11 non-patent citations are, in the main, § 103 obviousness art — a deep but fragmented field of overhead slot-track trolleys, railway-rail rolling restraints, conveyor trolleys, and zip-line/eddy-current brakes. The claim 1 combination that is actually new is the integration: a puck track (a rail on which a puck slides, with a slot the body hangs through) integrally attached to a zip track (a rail on which a rotating member rolls, with its own slot and wheel support), with the same body carrying the puck above and the roller below so the user never unclips. I found no cited reference that discloses that combination.

The closest single reference in the record is US 8,807,044 B2 (Liggett, "Puck key transition system") — and it is, on the face of the record, the applicant's own work, which raises a "by another" problem that may remove it from § 102 entirely (see §4.1).

I set out below a tiered treatment: Tier 1 references get full § 102 treatment; Tiers 2–4 get tabular treatment with an explicit "anticipates?" column; Tier 5 lists citations that post-date the priority date and therefore cannot be § 102 art at all.

4. Tier 1 — the only genuine single-reference candidates

4.1 US 8,807,044 B2 — "Puck key transition system"

• Full citation: US 8,807,044 B2; app. 13/234,138; filed 2011‑09‑15; granted 2014‑08‑19; priority US provisional 61/383,306 filed 2010‑09‑15; inventors James Liggett, Troy Lee Garland, Timothy Powers; assignee Ropes Courses, Inc. (later Jimi IP, LLC). Pre-grant pub. US 2012/0067246 A1 (2012‑03‑22).
• Description (verified): A transition box/cage through which a first member (body) passes between a cable track and a glide track. The body has a glide/pulley 120 below and a puck 80 (or washer 90) above it on a second member 70 that extends downward to a harness shackle 110. The puck slides on the upper surface of the glide track 140, which has a glide track opening 160; the body extends downwardly between the glide tracks. The glide track sits above the cable track 40, which runs in a tube glide 150. A clacker gate 260 permits one-way travel.
• Structural overlap with claim 1: very high — "puck track" ≈ glide track 140; "puck support" ≈ its upper surface; "puck-track opening" ≈ opening 160; "body having a puck and at least one rotating member disposed downwardly from the puck" ≈ member 30 with puck 80 above glide 120; "body extends from the puck to attach to a lanyard" ≈ harness connection 170; and the vertical stacking of the two tracks reads directly on dependent claims 2/11/21.
• Why it does not anticipate: it lacks a "zip track" with a "wheel support" (the lower element is a cable in a tube glide, not a rail surface the wheel rolls on), lacks first/second structures as claimed, and lacks a zip track opening through a wheel support. It reads on much of claim 1's architecture but not its claimed lower-rail geometry.
• Which claims it potentially anticipates: None standing alone. Its most probative use is as the primary reference in a § 103 combination against claims 1, 10, 20 and dependents 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23.
• ⚠️ Prior-art-status flag: the reference names the same three inventors as 10,478,737. Under pre-AIA § 102(a)/(e)/(f)/(g), same-inventive-entity disclosures are not "by another" and are therefore not § 102 art; and because its publication (2012‑03‑22) and grant (2014‑08‑19) both post-date 2011‑04‑18, it is not § 102(b) art either. On this record, US 8,807,044 is likely not prior art at all — it is a self-collision reference. Confirm inventorship on the face of the patent before relying on it, in either direction.

4.2 US 6,315,138 B1 — "Multidirectional, switchless overhead support system"

• Full citation: US 6,315,138 B1; app. 09/066,988; filed 1998‑04‑27; granted 2001‑11‑13; inventor Donald J. Dyson.
• Description (verified): An overhead cart supporting a person via a parachute-type harness 6, support bar 8 and support cable 10. The cart rolls on casters 36; in the slot-track embodiment the casters are mounted on both sides of a slot track 104, and the cart proceeds straight or turns with no switching mechanism required at track intersections. It expressly contemplates integrating with prior-art overhead track systems so the user can exit one room onto another track.
• Overlap: reads directly on dependent claims 6/7, 17/18, 27/28 (first and second rotating members on opposing sides of the body, rollably disposed above a support on opposite sides of a track opening) and is probative on the "no switching needed" concept underlying the claims 13–15/entrance-zone disclosure.
• Why it does not anticipate claim 1: no puck, no puck track, no puck support, no zip track, no wheel support, no gravity descent between structures.
• Which claims it potentially anticipates: None. Strong § 103 art against claims 6, 7, 17, 18, 27, 28 and a useful secondary reference against claim 1.

4.3 US 5,271,481 A — "Rolling restraint device"

• Full citation: US 5,271,481 A; app. 07/797,124; filed 1991‑11‑20; granted 1993‑12‑21; inventor Timothy Rich.
• Description (verified): A lockable hinged frame carrying at least one top roller 120, 121 beneath the top portion that rolls on the top surface of a railway rail 50, plus two lower rollers 150, 152 on the side portions whose axes are perpendicular to the top roller, and a restraint point 130 (pivotable ring) on top for a tether 134. Expressly adaptable to I-beams, channels and pipes, and to horizontal, angled or inverted orientations.
• Which claims it potentially anticipates: None. It is § 102(b) art (published 1993), but it discloses no track pair, no puck, no zip track, no wheel support, no slot-to-harness geometry. Relevant only as § 103 art on the "rollers on opposing sides" dependent claims and as background on a rolling restraint travelling a rail.

4.4 US 8,037,978 B1 — "Eddy current braking system for trolley zip line cable"

• Full citation: US 8,037,978 B1; app. 11/685,701; filed 2007‑03‑13; granted 2011‑10‑18; inventor Daniel Boren (verified against the patent PDF).
• Description (verified): A magnetic braking system in which a conductor plate 12 mounted on a zip-line trolley 18 is driven through the converging field of a stationary magnetic field generator 16, creating eddy currents that retard the trolley. Alternate embodiment uses a brake block and a cable-driven conductor. Abstract confirms no moving parts.
• Which claims it potentially anticipates: None. It cannot touch claims 9/19/29 (the braking-means dependents), because those claims incorporate all of claims 1/10/20, which this reference plainly does not disclose. It is, however, the single most probative § 103 reference against the magnet/eddy-current braking subject matter of claims 9, 19 and 29, especially read with the specification's own FIGS. 16–19 admission that magnets may sit in or below the wheel support.
• Companion note: US 8,025,131 B1 (Boren; app. 11/744,669; filed 2007‑05‑04; granted 2011‑09‑27) — "Eddy current braking system for trolley zip line cable with a stationary conductor" — appears in the family citation record rather than in the 101-citation block on the face of 10,478,737. Same § 103 role; no § 102 anticipation.

4.5 US 6,412,611 B1 — "Eddy current brake system with dual use conductor fin"

• Full citation: US 6,412,611 B1; filed 2000‑07‑17; granted 2002‑07‑02; assignee Magnetar Technologies, Ltd.; inventor Edward Pribonic.
• Description (verified): A linear array of spaced permanent magnets and a non-magnetic, electrically conductive fin passing between them to induce eddy currents and a braking force, plus a mechanical friction brake engaging the same fin, with a surface treatment to survive friction without altering the eddy-current performance.
• Which claims it potentially anticipates: None. But it is highly probative § 103 art on the specification's stated dual braking concept — the patent's own FIG. 12 friction brake (puck against puck support) and FIGS. 16–19 magnetic brake are both already in this reference's teaching frame. Consider it against claims 9, 19, 29.

4.6 US 7,416,054 B2 / US 2006/0090960 A1 — "Cable hook tracking system"

• Full citation: US 7,416,054 B2; app. published as US 2006/0090960 A1 (2006‑05‑04); granted 2008‑08‑26; inventor James Liggett.
• Description (from the family record, and as quoted in US 8,016,686): A tracking system that "can continuously retain the harness cable that descends to the participant, as the moveable member moves in a substantially horizontal direction along the safety cables, or along the tracks of the moveable member exchange frame."
• Why it matters: this is the anticipation-of-the-idea reference — continuous retention across cables and tracks. It is the genesis of the whole Liggett line and is the reference a defendant will use to frame the "it was already known to stay clipped in" narrative.
• Which claims it potentially anticipates: None — no puck, no puck support, no zip track/wheel support. § 102(b) art (granted 2008) and a § 103 linchpin against claims 1 and 20 on the "body moves between the puck tracks and the zip track" element.

4.7 US 8,016,686 B2 — "Retractable challenge course"

• Full citation: US 8,016,686 B2; priority 2007‑09‑10; granted 2011‑09‑13; inventor James A. Liggett. Pre-grant pub. US 2009/0065300 A1 (2009‑03‑12).
• Description (verified): A challenge course with support beams, cross beams, platforms 35 and vertical support members; an overhead tracking member 120 disposed above the elements 40, movably retaining a safety cable to secure the participant; a track entrance-exit 45 connected to the platform. It cross-references US 2006/0090960.
• Which claims it potentially anticipates: None. § 102(b)-eligible as to its 2009 publication. Most useful as § 103 art supplying the "puck track traversing the challenge course" element of claims 1, 10 and 20 — i.e., a track above the challenge elements that the participant's movable member rides.

5. Tier 2 — overhead rail / trolley / slot-track structural art (§ 103 fodder)

These supply the "wheel support + opening + roller above a support" vocabulary. Every one of them is missing the puck, the puck track, the puck support, the zip track, or the puck-over-wheel nesting, so none anticipates any claim.

6. Tier 3 — braking / eddy-current art (relevant to claims 9, 19, 29 only)

Again: because claims 9/19/29 depend from 1/10/20, none of these can anticipate those claims, and none anticipates claims 1/10/20. They are § 103 art on the "braking means" limitation.

7. Tier 4 — challenge-course, zip-line, harness and fall-protection art

8. The 11 non-patent citations

⚠️ Flag for the analyst who inherits this: the three competitor brochures (Kristallturm, Walltopia ×3) are the only cited items that are third-party to the applicant and describe a whole integrated challenge-course-with-zip-track installation. If any of them actually printed before 2011‑04‑18, they become the strongest § 102 references in the entire record. If any printed before 2010‑04‑18, they are § 102(b) bars and cannot be sworn behind. The retrieval dates in the citation list do not answer this. Pull the physical brochures and establish print/public-availability dates by declaration evidence.

9. Citations on the face of the patent that are not prior art at all

Because they post-date the 2011‑04‑18 effective filing date: US 2013/0118842 A1; US 2013/0228092 A1; US 2013/0239841 A1; US 2013/0239842 A1; US 2013/0239843 A1; US 2014/0150685 A1; US 8,807,044 B2; US 8,893,852 B2; US 9,021,962 B2; US 9,120,023 B1; US 2015/0141205 A1; US 2016/0272225 A1; US 2016/0319492 A1; US 2017/0036123 A1; US 2017/0088150 A1; US 2017/0173378 A1; US 2017/0259181 A1; US 9,884,633 B2. Their presence reflects prosecution citation practice (and the fact that the file sat between 2012 and 2019), not their availability as § 102 art. Any invalidity theory built on them is dead on arrival unless priority is first broken.

Conversely, the "Cited By" entries — US 2018/0126287 A1 and US 10,835,834 B2 (High Velocity Designs); US 2023/0029168 A1, US 12,076,657 B2, US 12,296,277 B2, USD1074905 S1 (Jimi IP) — are later art citing this patent, not prior art against it.

10. Bottom line, stated candidly

1. Claims 1, 10, 20: not anticipated by anything of record. The puck-track/zip-track integration with a puck-above-roller body and a wheel support below a puck support is not disclosed by any single one of the 101 citations. The best a defendant can do is a § 103 case, and the strongest scaffold is US 8,807,044 (puck key transition) as primary, with US 8,016,686 / US 2006/0090960 / US 8,011,904-class challenge-course art for the "track traversing the course" element, US 8,683,925 for the zip-trolley element, and US 6,315,138 / US 6,374,456 / US 7,392,747 for the roller-above-a-support geometry.
2. Claims 9, 19, 29 (braking means): not anticipated, because they incorporate the independent claims. § 103 art exists in abundance — US 8,037,978; US 8,025,131; US 6,412,611; US 2006/0278478; US 2004/0262103.
3. The reference with the highest real § 102 risk is not a patent at all. It is the applicant's own pre‑2011 commercial activity and the 2010 Product Catalog, and the Kristallturm / Walltopia brochures whose true publication dates are unproven. That is where I would look first, and where a documentary gap (no pre‑2010‑04‑18 printing or offer) would be the most valuable defensive fact in the case.
4. The most counter-intuitive finding: the single closest reference, US 8,807,044, probably isn't prior art — same three inventors, and both its publication and grant post-date the priority date. It cuts against the patent less than its name suggests.

11. Confidence and explicit gaps

• High confidence in the citation set, dates, and § 102 legal framework — they come from the supplied authoritative full text.
• High confidence in the descriptions of US 8,037,978, US 6,315,138, US 8,807,044, US 5,271,481, US 7,175,534 (independently verified this session).
• Medium on references marked [title-derived] — I am describing them from their titles and cannot certify their disclosure content.
• Medium on the "not prior art" characterizations that turn on inventorship and provisional support (US 8,807,044 especially). I flagged the In re Giacomini and "by another" / In re DeBaun issues rather than resolving them; verify the face of each patent.
• Low / unresolved: the true publication dates of the Kristallturm and Walltopia brochures. These are on the critical path and I could not close them with the tools available.
• Not checked: USPTO Patent Center / ODP electronic file wrapper, the examiner's actual § 102/§ 103 rejections and their art combinations, and any subsequent reexamination or IPR. I could not open those records this session. Given the previously generated sections record zero PTAB proceedings, the file-wrapper rejections remain the best available window into how the examiner actually mapped this art.

I'll verify the disclosures of the key cited references before building the § 103 combinations, since the citation list itself only gives titles.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,478,737 B2 ("Zip track and system") under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note. As instructed, I used the Prior Art section of the supplied patent page — i.e., the patent's own citation record (101/114 cited references, the "Families Citing" list, and the 11 non-patent citations) — as the candidate art pool. I verified the disclosure of a subset of those references by search (noted below); the rest are characterized from their titles/abstracts as they appear in the record, and I flag each confidence level. I did not invent references not in the record, and I flag one contradiction with the earlier-generated sections at the end.

1. Governing framework

2. Candidate art from the record, with statutory status

3. Element map of claim 1, with the primary combination

Combination A (proposed primary ground): US 8,066,578 B2 (Liggett '578) in view of US 2009/0078148 A1 (Cylvick) and/or US 7,392,747 B2 (Dorma), optionally with US 5,461,899 (Bigtoys) or US 3,577,930 (monorail).

Claim 10 is the same combination stated structurally: Cylvick/Dorma rail = "zip track… extending between two structures, with a wheel support vertically lower than the puck support of the puck track," with '578's channel track as the puck track integrated at both ends. Claim 20 adds nothing structurally new over the course of the "Families Citing" references (e.g., US 10,105,564, "Challenge course with return track," is the system-level analogue but is post‑2011 and same-assignee — not prior art).

Why a POSITA would combine (KSR rationales)

1. Design incentive stated in the references themselves. '578's own text says its track "enables the user to change direction" and that the member "enters and exits the channel through a track slot"; Cylvick/Dorma supply the rigid, gravity-driven descent path. The '737 specification admits the rationale verbatim: cables/ropes must sag, and a fixed beam or track allows "higher speeds" with less sag and no re‑clipping. That admission is itself the articulated motivation to substitute a rigid wheel support for the cable, and to keep one continuous rail.
2. Predictable mechanical substitution. Replacing a sliding puck on a channel with a wheel rolling on a running surface is a classic, predictable improvement (rolling vs. sliding friction) — exactly the "known technique to improve similar devices" prong. '578 even makes the slider of UHMW specifically "to reduce friction," showing the art was already optimizing for drag; adding a wheel is the next, obvious step.
3. Known transition problem. The art expressly identifies "detachment of the harness cable from the moveable member" at element changes as the problem, and prizes "remain[ing] secured to a single safety member when moving from one challenge element to another, or from one direction to another." The '737's stated need ("without disengaging from the glide or wheeled structure") is the same need, solved the same way.
4. Finite, predictable set of solutions for connecting two rail ends: inline splice, interchange/branch (Dyson '315,138; '578 interchange 126), and transition with a one‑way gate.

4. Dependent-claim combinations

5. Is any claim anticipated (§ 102)?

Probably not on this record. No single reference shows one body having a puck riding a puck support and a downward‑mounted wheel rolling on a wheel support of a rigid, integrally‑attached zip rail with a slot — the closest single disclosure is the puck‑key transition system, and it (a) has the wheel rolling on a cable/tube glide, not a rigid wheel support, and (b) is one of the candidate references whose prior‑art status is doubtful (§6). Anticipation arguments are therefore weak; § 103 is the viable attack.

6. Honest weaknesses in the § 103 case (this is where the patent is strongest)

1. The single closest reference may not be prior art at all. US 8,807,044 B2 / US 2012/0067246 A1 lists the same three inventors (Liggett, Garland, Powers) as US 10,478,737. Under pre‑AIA § 102(e), a published application is art only if it is "by another" — the same inventive entity does not qualify. Its publication date (2012‑03‑22) is after 2011‑04‑18, so it is not § 102(a)/(b) art either, and the provisional (2010‑09‑15) only matters through § 102(e). Net: the "puck above, wheel below, dual-track carriage" teaching may be out of bounds for § 103. Verify inventive entities and any intervening assignments before relying on it.
2. § 103(c) common ownership removes the whole Liggett 102(e) cluster. US 7,981,004, US 8,016,686, US 8,360,937, US 8,752,668, US 8,683,925, US 8,893,852, US 2012/0067246 and related applications were owned by / obligated to Ropes Courses, Inc. (the assignment records in the supplied text show effective dates 2010‑09‑15 and 2012‑01‑11). Any of them relied on as § 102(e) art is disqualified from § 103. Only their § 102(b) publications (pre‑2011‑01‑11) survive as combination art — which is why the analysis above leans on US 8,066,578, whose 2009‑03‑12 publication is clean § 102(b) art.
3. The "integrally attached" and "puck‑above‑wheel‑support" limitations are the crux. '578 gives a slotted channel track with a sliding member and immediate harness attachment; Cylvick/Dorma give a rolling rail. The combination must supply the single body carrying both a puck and a wheel with the puck support above the wheel support — and the cleanest teaching of that nested geometry is the reference with the date/inventive‑entity problem. An examiner or defendant must find that geometry elsewhere (Dorma, Bigtoys, monorail art, or the applicant's own § 102(a) 2010 catalog) or argue the arrangement is an obvious mechanical expedient.
4. Priority/support exposure runs both ways. The file cites 2012–2017 catalogs and 2017‑retrieved Walltopia/Kristallturm brochures — documents dated after the asserted 2011‑04‑18 priority. If the claims (or the specific "wheel support below a puck support" limitations) are not supported by the 2011 provisional, the critical date shifts, and a much larger body of art (the 2012+ publications, and possibly the wide body of 2011–2012 rail-trolley art) becomes available. This is the highest‑leverage validity question and should be resolved by comparing the 61/476,344 provisional text against claims 1/10/20 before building any petition.
5. Secondary considerations cut toward the patent owner. The record shows commercial embodiment, family litigation (N.D. Ill. 1:24‑cv‑05275 asserting this patent with US 8,066,578 and US 11,376,513), and a portfolio the owner keeps asserting — indicia of commercial success/praise. The art also contains an express statement of the long‑felt need (avoid disconnecting harness hooks at element changes) that the '737 answers, which a patent owner will use to show non‑obviousness rather than motivation.
6. No teaching‑away argument is available for the puck‑key system (it does not disparage wheels-below-pucks), but '578's own emphasis on deliberate low‑friction sliding (UHMW slider) creates a small, defensible argument that the art was pointed away from adding rolling elements to a challenge‑course track. That argument is weak but exists.

7. Bottom line

• Strongest viable § 103 combination: US 8,066,578 B2 (slotted challenge‑course channel track, sliding puck, harness cable through the slot; § 102(b)) + US 2009/0078148 A1 (Cylvick) and/or US 7,392,747 B2 (Dorma) (rigid suspended rail, internal running surface, lower slot, gravity descent) + optionally US 4,401,033 (opposed wheels) and US 5,461,899 / US 3,577,930 (trolley in an overhead slot track) — for claims 1, 10, 20 and the geometry/curve/height dependents (2–8, 11–18, 21–28, 30–31).
• Strongest § 103 combination for the braking dependents (9/19/29): US 8,037,978 B1 or US 8,025,131 B1 (Boren eddy‑current brake on a zip trolley, magnets and conductor arranged at/near the running track) — optionally with US 6,412,611 B1 (Pribonic fin brake + friction brake) to cover the '737's alternative friction modality.
• What must be fixed before this is an IPR‑grade case: (i) confirm the inventive entity of US 8,807,044 and US 8,752,668 (if identical to the '737's, they are unavailable); (ii) confirm § 103(c) common ownership dates to exclude the Liggett § 102(e) cluster; (iii) resolve the provisional‑support/priority question raised by the post‑2011 catalog citations; (iv) substantively map Dorma/US 4,401,033/monorail art (unverified here) to the "wheel support below a puck support" nesting.

8. Confidence and contradiction flags

Confidence: High on the legal framework, the '578 and Boren disclosures, the date analysis for the 2009/2006/2007 publications, and the § 103(c)/same‑inventive‑entity pitfalls. Medium on Cylvick '2009/0078148, Dorma '392,747, Dyson '315,138, Bigtoys '461,899, US 4,401,033 and US 3,577,930, which I characterized from the record's titles/abstracts without a full‑text pull (tool budget exhausted). Low on any assertion that a specific reference discloses the exact nested "puck support above wheel support" geometry in a single body — that is the contested limitation.

Contradictions with the earlier-generated sections (flagged per instruction):

1. The previously generated Strategic summary refers to "US 8,026,7134‑family eddy‑current trolley brakes." No such identifier exists in the patent's citation record. The actual eddy‑current references are US 8,037,978 B1 and US 8,025,131 B1 (both Boren) and US 6,412,611 B1 / US 2006/0278478 A1 / US 2004/0262103 A1 (Pribonic family). Treat "8,026,7134" as a transcription error in that section, not as art.
2. That same section says the prior‑art depth "runs to 101 references," while the page elsewhere reports "Patent Citations (114)." Both numbers appear in the supplied text; the citations table lists 101 under "Citations" and 114 under "Patent Citations." Not resolved — count depends on how duplicates are merged.
3. Minor OCR/normalization variants exist between the '737 page and the parent's PDF citation list (e.g., "US4592686A" vs "4,592,636"; "US3039401A" vs "3,939,401"; "US3875866A" vs "3,975,866"; "US4267900A" vs "4,262,900"). I have not auto‑corrected any of these; if you intend to brief this art, pull the originals rather than the aggregated table.
4. The litigation/PTAB sections' conclusion that nothing is on file at the Board and that the N.D. Ill. case ended in a stipulated dismissal without prejudice with a 90‑day conversion clause is consistent with this analysis; the previously noted date discrepancy (prompt date vs. session metadata) does not affect the § 103 reasoning.

Recommended next verification steps: (a) pull the front pages and inventive entities of US 8,807,044, US 8,752,668, US 7,981,004, US 8,016,686, US 2009/0078148, US 7,392,747, US 4,401,033; (b) retrieve provisional 61/476,344 and map it against claims 1/10/20 for the priority/support question; (c) confirm Ropes Courses, Inc. ownership chains to lock down the § 103(c) exclusion set.