US 4340771

I'll search for authoritative information on US 4340771, including any litigation/docket references.

US Patent 4,340,771 — Analyst Summary

Sources searched: Google Patents (which mirrors USPTO bibliographic, classification, and assignment data), the USPTO-published patent PDF, FreePatentsOnline, and the Federal Circuit's 2026 oral-argument calendars via web search. I do not have direct credentialed access to USPTO Patent Center/Assignment or the CAFC docket system in this session, so the below is grounded in the searchable public records.

No litigation or CAFC docket activity found. I found no US district court or Federal Circuit 2026 case, appeal, or docket entry referencing US 4,340,771 (or "4,340,771"/"4340771") specifically. Searches for the number returned only patent-document records (including unrelated same-number documents such as JP4340771B2, which is a different, unrelated Japanese patent on a housing-unit foundation). This is consistent with the patent's status: Expired – Lifetime, with an anticipated expiration of 2001-03-16. Any litigation predating expiry would be historical; nothing 2026-dated exists on the record I can retrieve.

⚠ Date note: Your prompt states the current date is April 26, 2026, while my session metadata shows 2026-10-01. This does not affect the record facts below, but I flag it per your instruction to surface uncertainty.

---

Bibliographic Data

Assignment chain (literal record; some entries contain apparent typographic errors I am not correcting): Original grant recorded 1981-03-16 as "ASSIGNMENT OF 1/4 OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST" from Watts to Siecor (reel/frame 003872/0652, effective 1981-03-12). Then → Superior Cable Corporation (1985) → subject to Westinghouse Credit Corp. → Superior Teletec Transmission Products Inc. (1991) → various security interests (Barclays, Bank of Boston Connecticut, Shawmut, Bankers Trust) → Essex Group/Superior Telecommunications/DNE Technologies releases (1999). The "1/4 of assignor's interest" phrasing is unusual for a sole-inventor corporate assignment and is reproduced here as recorded.

---

Abstract (as issued)

An improved internally screened cable is disclosed that not only provides efficient shielding to meet near-end cross-talk requirements in present day and anticipated future carrier systems, but also armor protection as well, both the shielding and armor protection arising out of a single metallic shielding tape composed of two layers of aluminum or copper metallurgically bonded to both surfaces of an iron or steel layer. The tape is corrugated and has a medial portion integrally joined to two terminal portions. The cable core is composed of two groups of conductors divided and shielded one from the other by the medial portion of the shielding tape. Terminal portions of the shield are bent in opposite directions and lie on the periphery of the groups of the core and extend to and beyond that point where the medial and terminal portions merge.

---

Independent Claim — Plain-Language Overview

Claim 1 is the only independent claim; claims 2–6 all depend from it (directly or indirectly). Paraphrased element by element:

A cable comprising four cooperating elements:

• (a) Outer tubular covering — a tube of thermally conductive plastic whose inner surface defines a cavity that receives the core.
• (b) Cable core — two longitudinally running groups of mutually insulated conductors sitting in that cavity inside the covering. One group is adapted to carry signals in one direction, the other group in the opposite direction (the classic PCM/carrier anti-directional arrangement aimed at near-end crosstalk).
• (c) Single metal shielding tape with a "D"-type geometry — one tape having a medial portion and two terminal portions. The medial portion is integrally joined to and between the two terminal portions, radially extends between the two conductor groups to shield them from each other, and each terminal portion wraps circumferentially in opposite directions around its respective group until it reaches and extends beyond the location where the other terminal portion merges with the medial portion (i.e., overlapping free edges, the overlaps circumferentially spaced apart).
• (d) Tape construction & insulation — all portions of the tape are (i) insulated from the conductors, (ii) corrugated throughout, and (iii) made of three bonded metal layers: first and third layers of the same metal, of substantially co-equal thickness, bonded to opposite surfaces of a second, different metal layer — with each metal layer about 3 mils thick.

The single-tape, three-layer, corrugated construction is what the patent characterizes as the novelty: it merges the internal crosstalk screen and the mechanical armor into one member (previously requiring a separate outer armor tape).

Dependent Claims — Plain-Language Overview

---

Supporting Disclosure Highlights

• Preferred tape example (FIGS. 3a/3b): iron or steel core layer ≈ 3 mils, two metallurgically bonded copper or aluminum outer layers ≈ 3 mils each (co-equal), outer modified-polyethylene plastic coating ≈ 2 mils → ~13 mils uncorrugated, increasing to ~40 mils effective after corrugation (claimed/described as >300% effective thickness gain).
• Plastic coating referenced to U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,970,129 (Rugg et al.) and 3,233,036 (Jachimowicz).
• Filler (FIG. 2a): polyethylene grease, petrolatum, or block-copolymer rubbers, optionally with inorganic microspheres and additives such as stearate.
• Rationale for corrugation: greater effective metal per unit area; increased effective physical separation between the two conductor groups; and increased resistance to cracking/breaking of the screen when the cable is flexed along any axis.
• Rationale for the Fe/steel core: imparts armor protection previously obtainable only via a separate armor tape; and the metal-to-metal interfaces provide magnetic wave reflection loss (attributed to Nyquist), in addition to attenuation loss.
• Explicit departure from U.S. 4,085,284: the patent states it is preferred that no bonding of the overlaps to the jacket or to the adjacent terminal portion take place (bonding taught there is deemed "not necessary and in some instances undesirable").
• Optional core wrap 15 (corrugated or non-corrugated plastic tape) may individually wrap each conductor group; the two wraps are not connected to one another.

Prior Art Cited on the Face of the Patent

US 1,979,402 (Nyquist); FR 852,028; US 3,405,228; US 3,555,169; US 3,602,633; US 3,622,683 (Roberts et al.); US 4,010,315; US 4,085,284; US 4,145,567; US 4,165,442; US 4,256,921. Non-patent: a "Super T-Screen" advertisement (Superior/Cable). The specification also discusses (but the face of the patent does not list) an Australian Pat. No. 105,876 (1937).

Confidence & Caveats

• High confidence on title, inventor, application/filing/priority/issue dates, claim language, abstract text, tape/thickness example, and cited references — these come directly from the issued patent document.
• Moderate confidence on current-owner data: Google Patents itself flags its assignee list as possibly inaccurate, and the assignment record contains OCR-style errors (e.g., "PRODUSTS"). Treat the ownership chain as needing verification against USPTO Assignment records directly.
• Stated uncertainty: I could not verify any 2026 CAFC or district-court docket involving this number beyond the absence of hits; an offline or proprietary docket search (e.g., PACER, Docket Navigator) would be needed for a definitive negative. Given the 2001 expiry, no live 2026 infringement action on this patent is plausible.

I'll search for litigation involving US Patent 4,340,771 across patent litigation sources.

The initial searches returned only unrelated patents that happen to share the "771" suffix. Let me search more specifically for the exact patent number and for litigation databases.

The search surfaced a reference to US 4,340,771 as a prior-art exhibit in unrelated IPRs, but not as a patent-in-suit. Let me run more targeted queries on litigation databases and specific parties.

Summary finding

No litigation is known in which U.S. Patent No. 4,340,771 was asserted as a patent-in-suit. After searching, I could not identify any district court action, ITC investigation, or PTAB proceeding in which US 4,340,771 was the asserted/challenged patent. The patent is expired (its 20-year term lapsed around March 16, 2001 per the anticipated-expiration entry in its file history), so it has been unenforceable for roughly a quarter century — which is consistent with the absence of any modern litigation.

Because no case exists to populate the requested table, I'm reporting the negative result plus the contexts in which the patent number does appear.

---

Important caution — unrelated patents sharing the "'771" shorthand

Your instruction to interpret identifiers literally is critical here. My searches returned numerous documents referring to a "'771 patent," but none of them is US 4,340,771. These are different patents that merely share the last three digits:

None of these involve US 4,340,771 and none should be attributed to it.

---

Where US 4,340,771 does appear (not as a patent-in-suit)

The only relevant hits I found are evidentiary, in unrelated cable-industry disputes:

1. CommScope / Superior Essex family of IPRs (PTAB). In a PTAB proceeding concerning a "substantially flat, foamed polymer twisted pair separator" patent, US 4,340,771 is listed as exhibit EX-2006 and US 4,800,236 as EX-2005 (2000-series = patent-owner exhibits). It was submitted as documentary evidence, not challenged or asserted. (ptacts.uspto.gov petition document listings.)

2. Belden Technologies, Inc. v. Superior Essex — Civil Action No. 08-0063-SLR (D. Del.). The same PTAB exhibit lists reference a "Superior Essex Claim Construction Memorandum Order" from this case. US 4,340,771 is tied to the parties' cable-patent dispute as background/exhibit material; it was not the patent asserted. The patents-in-suit in Belden v. Superior Essex were Belden's LAN-cable patents, not the Watts cable patent.

In both instances US 4,340,771 functioned as prior art / background evidence, not as the cause of action.

---

Corporate lineage (relevant to who could have enforced it)

For completeness, US 4,340,771 issued to Siecor Corporation (assignor: William M. Watts) and passed through a chain of owners that would define any potential plaintiff:

• Siecor Corp. → Superior Cable Corp. (1985)
• → Superior Teletec Transmission Products, Inc. (1991)
• → Superior Telecommunications Inc. / DNE Technologies, Inc. (1996)
• → ultimately Superior Essex / Essex Group, Inc. (1999 releases)

Any hypothetical assertion would thus have come from Superior Cable / Superior Teletec / Superior Telecommunications in the 1980s–1990s. I found no record of such an assertion.

---

Caveats and verification

• Absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence. My searches were bounded and did not exhaust every database. Older litigation (pre-1995) is poorly indexed online, so an assertion in the 1980s would not necessarily surface.
• Do not rely on this as a clearance opinion. Before relying on "no litigation," query:
  • Unified Patents litigation portal — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist
  • PACER (docket search) and CourtListener/RECAP (free RECAP archive)
  • Darts-IP and Lex Machina (commercial, best for pre-2000 and non-US coverage)
  • The Google Patents page for US4340771A itself, which contains a "Cited By" and "Legal Events" section but no litigation section — consistent with no reported suits. (https://patents.google.com/patent/US4340771/en)

Bottom line: Based on available sources, there is no known litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 4,340,771. I could not complete additional verification searches in this session, so I recommend confirming via the sources listed above before treating this as definitive.

I'll verify the structured block's default with targeted searches before writing up.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0. Breakdown: 0 active, 0 with claims invalidated, 0 with claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials. This matches the canonical USPTO ODP block supplied in the prompt, and my independent web checks surfaced nothing contradicting it — no IPR, PGR, or CBM docket naming US 4,340,771 as the challenged patent, and no Federal Circuit appeal arising from such a proceeding. Bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB-based invalidity story here at all — because there is no PTAB case, and because this patent's enforceability window closed long before AIA trials existed. The defensive posture is not "hardened by surviving IPRs"; it is "the patent expired 2001-03-16 and has never been tested at the Board."

Corroborating structural facts (from the patent record itself):

• Filing date / priority: 1981-03-16 (US 06/244,238); granted 1982-07-20.
• Anticipated expiration per Google Patents: 2001-03-16 (20 years from filing under the URAA transitional term regime for patents in force on 1995-06-08), and the listed legal status is Expired – Lifetime.
• AIA trials began 2012-09-16 (rules at 77 FR 48612, Aug. 14, 2012). The '771 patent had already been expired for roughly 11 years by the time any IPR/PGR/CBM could have been filed against it.

No proceeding to assess claim-by-claim.

---

Proceeding-level detail

None on file

• Type: n/a
• Filed: n/a
• Status: n/a (no AIA trial docketed)
• Judge panel: n/a
• Petition grounds: n/a
• Institution decision: n/a
• Final Written Decision: n/a — I found no FWD addressing claims 1–6 of 4,340,771. I am not going to attribute any claim-level disposition to a proceeding that does not exist.
• Settlement / termination: n/a
• Appeal: n/a — no PTAB appeal to the Federal Circuit exists to report.
• Defensive value: A defendant does not need a PTAB win to neutralize this patent, and cannot get one as a practical matter. IPR against an expired patent is theoretically permitted (for past-damages defenses), but institution would be a waste of the filing fee here, and under the current Director's institution regime you would also be fighting settled-expectations-type discretionary arguments. The real defense is statutory, not PTAB: no infringing act can occur after 2001-03-16, and any § 271 cause of action accrued no later than that date — so a demand letter sent today is aimed at conduct that is at minimum ~25 years stale.

Near-miss worth flagging (not a proceeding against this patent)

Web search surfaced several P-TACTS petition document sets in which U.S. Patent No. 4,340,771 appears as an exhibit (EX-2006) in someone else's IPR — i.e., the '771 patent is being used as prior art in proceedings concerning data/communications cable constructions (the snippets reference U.S. Patent 4,800,236 and cable-separator art, petitions at ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554206 and .../1554207).

• This is not an AIA trial against 4,340,771, and I could not confirm petitioner, patent owner, or proceeding number from the fragmentary snippet text. Treat it as a research lead only, not a citation.
• What it does tell you is substantive: the '771 shielding/armor laminate is old enough and well-enough known to be cited as § 102/§ 103 prior art in modern cable IPRs. That is the mirror-image signal noted below.

---

Strategic summary

Canceled vs. sustained vs. untested. None of claims 1–6 of 4,340,771 has been canceled, confirmed, or otherwise adjudicated in an AIA trial — every claim is untested. Claim 1 (the single bimetallic corrugated shielding tape with medial and terminal portions, ~3 mil layers), claim 2 (corrosion-protecting plastic outer coating), claim 3 (filling compound preventing self-bonding of the overlap), claim 4 (filling compound in the delimited space), claim 5 (metallurgical bond), and claim 6 (copper/aluminum outer layers, iron/steel core) all stand or fall as issued. There is no narrowing to report and no surviving-claims list beyond the original six, because there was no reexamination or post-grant narrowing on this record either.

Estoppel landscape. Section 315(e)(2) is irrelevant: there is no petitioner, so there is no estoppel. No party is barred from raising any § 102/§ 103 ground, in any forum, on any claim of this patent. Conversely — and more usefully — the absence of any IPR means there is no PTAB record, no FWD, and no Board claim construction for a patent owner to hide behind. If you ever did need to attack these claims, the entire body of prior art would be open, including the art this patent itself cites: Nyquist (US 1,979,402), the Australian 105,876, Roberts et al. (US 3,622,683), the D-shield patent (US 4,085,284), and corrugated-screen French Patent 852,028 — plus the Texas Instruments shielding-material patents (US 3,555,169; US 3,602,633) listed as cited art.

Pattern signals. No petitioner has filed even one IPR on this patent, let alone a serial campaign. No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) appears anywhere in the chain. The patent owner never prosecuted to a PTAB appeal. The assignment history tells the story instead: Siecor → Superior Cable (1985) → Superior Telecable / Superior Telecommunications (1991–96) → security interests held by Westinghouse Credit, Barclays Business Credit, Bank of Boston Connecticut, Shawmut, Bankers Trust, with releases recorded in 1999 among Essex Group, Superior Telecommunications, DNE Technologies, and Essex Technology. In other words, this patent spent its life as loan collateral for the Superior/Essex cable businesses, not as an assertion asset — which is exactly why it never generated a PTAB docket.

One caveat I will not paper over: the Google Patents legal-events record shows maintenance fees paid at the 4th year (1986-03-06), 8th year (1990-03-05), and 12th year (1993-08-02), and then nothing. If the next maintenance fee was required in 1997 and was not paid, the patent could have lapsed earlier than the listed 2001-03-16 anticipated expiration. Verify the actual lapse/expiration date against the USPTO Patent Center maintenance-fee record before relying on any specific date in a filing. Either way, the patent has been dead for more than two decades and the AIA-trial count remains zero.

---

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant holding a demand letter citing US 4,340,771: the patent expired 2001-03-16 (confirm on Patent Center), so there is no prospective infringement and no injunctive exposure. Combined with 35 U.S.C. § 286's six-year damages look-back, any claim for the only remaining period of accrual is long time-barred. Ask opposing counsel in writing which post-2001 acts they contend infringe claims 1–6, and treat the answer as the whole case.
2. Do not file an IPR on this patent. There is no FWD to link, no cancelation to point to, and no exclusionary relief to defeat. An IPR would cost six figures to attack a patent that cannot be infringed going forward.
3. If a live district court case somehow exists (I found no such case in the public records searched, and the prompt's canonical data contains none), the correct vehicle is an early § 101/§ 102/§ 112 or expiration/§ 286 motion — not an AIA petition. Re-check the PTAB docket directly at PTAB E2E / P-TACTS and via the USPTO assignment record before filing, since I cannot rule out a very recently filed petition that ODP has not yet ingested.
4. If you want a modern-writing-sample use for this patent: note that it is being cited as prior art in current cable IPRs (the EX-2006 hits above). Its 1981 disclosure of a corrugated, metallurgically bonded tri-metal shielding/armor laminate is therefore more valuable to you as a sword against other patents than as a defensive target in its own right.

Confidence statement: High confidence that no AIA trial proceeding exists against US 4,340,771 — the canonical ODP block says so, four independent searches returned no such docket, and the patent's 2001-03-16 expiration predates the AIA trial regime by 11 years. Medium confidence on the exact expiration-vs-lapse date (the maintenance-fee record is ambiguous and should be verified). The "EX-2006" exhibit observation is unverified and flagged as such; I did not obtain a proceeding number, petitioner, or patent owner for it.

I'll ground this in the record. Let me verify a few facts about the parties and check whether any litigation or NPE activity attaches to this patent.

Let me check for litigation, the Siecor/Corning history, and the current assignee record.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 4,340,771

Method / source note (read first). The reel/frame data below is taken from the authoritative Google Patents legal-events record for US 4,340,771 (fetched 2026-10-01), which reproduces the USPTO assignment index. The "correspondent of record" field is not exposed in that record for any entry on this patent. I did not retrieve the underlying reel images, so rather than name attorneys I cannot verify, I mark the correspondent field as not available throughout. Fabricating correspondent names would be worse than omitting them; if you need them, they must be pulled from the reel page images at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 4340771) or https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html.

---

Inventors

Unusual pattern — flagged. The 1981 instrument is recorded as "ASSIGNMENT OF 1/4 OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST" (Reel 003872/0652). Read literally, only a one-quarter undivided interest was conveyed to Siecor. This is a genuine data-quality / chain-of-title issue, not something I can resolve from the index:

• If the record is accurate, three-quarters of the inventor's interest was never conveyed on this patent's recorded chain — yet Siecor, and every downstream assignee, recorded transfers of the full interest in 1985 and after. That would be a latent standing defect.
• The more likely explanation is a USPTO indexing artifact — the standard form is "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST," and "1/4" may be a transcription of an unrelated field.
• Either way: no subsequent Watts recording exists in the chain, so the point was never cured on the record.

I cannot determine from the available evidence whether Watts left Siecor within 12 months of filing — there is no assignee-side record of a departure, and I found no coverage of it. I will not speculate.

---

Original assignee

Siecor Corporation (Hickory, North Carolina) — original assignee of record, and the entity named on the issued patent on 1982-07-20.

• Nature: a 50/50 joint venture of Corning Glass Works and Siemens AG, formed 1977 ("SIEcor" = Siemens + Corning). Primary line of business at the time of filing: manufacture of copper and fiber-optic communications cable and apparatus; the JV was contractually limited to North America and Japan.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes — with a caveat. Siecor's Hickory plant was a high-volume telephone/PCM cable manufacturer, and the patent's own specification is written from the perspective of a cable producer. Separately, the examiner's sole non-patent citation on this patent is an advertisement for "Super T-Screen," Superior/Cable — i.e., screened cable from the entity that later became the assignee. The record therefore shows screened-cable activity at both the original assignee and the 1985 acquirer.
• Current status: Operating, but not under the Siecor name. Corning bought out Siemens' 50% in December 1999 (~$1.15B, closed Feb 2000); Siecor was renamed Corning Cable Systems in 2000 and now sits inside Corning Optical Communications LLC. Siecor as a distinct legal entity no longer exists, but the business is alive and operating.
• Note also Google Patents' current-assignee field lists Superior Essex Inc., which is the successor to the 1985 acquirer (see below), not to Siecor.

---

Assignment timeline

Every recorded instrument in the chain, chronological. Reel/frame as recorded.

1981-03-12 (executed) / recorded 1981-03-16 — Reel 003872/0652

• Conveyance: Assignment — recorded as "ASSIGNMENT OF 1/4 OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST"
• Assignor: William M. Watts
• Assignee: Siecor Corporation (1928 Main Avenue S.E., Hickory, NC)
• Correspondent: not available in the source record — cannot be assessed for recurrence
• Context: inventor-to-employer assignment at filing; partial-interest ambiguity noted above.

1985-08-21 (executed) / recorded 1985-09-18 — Reel 004455/0728

• Conveyance: Assignment
• Assignor: Siecor Corporation, a corp. of DE
• Assignee: Superior Cable Corporation, 5901 Peachtree-Dunwoody Rd.
• Correspondent: not available
• Context: carve-out / sale of Siecor's copper communications-cable interest to an operating cable manufacturer — the first substantive transfer out of the JV.

1985-08-22 (executed) / recorded 1985-09-18 — Reel 004455/0730

• Conveyance: Assignment "SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT RECITED" (collateral-type conveyance)
• Assignor: Superior Cable Corporation, a corp. of CA
• Assignee: Westinghouse Credit Corporation, a corp. of PA
• Correspondent: not available
• Context: securitization — the patent pledged to a secured lender one day after acquisition, i.e. it went straight into a borrowing base.

1985-08-21 (executed) / recorded 1986-03-10 — Reel 004520/0396

• Conveyance: Assignment
• Assignor: Siecor Corporation
• Assignee: Superior Cable Corporation, a corp. of GA
• Correspondent: not available
• Context: curative / re-recording of the 1985 transfer, with the assignee's state of incorporation corrected from CA to GA — consistent with a Superior Cable reincorporation.

1991-06-12 (executed) / recorded 1991-06-17 — Reel 005748/0695

• Conveyance: Assignment
• Assignor: Westinghouse Credit Corporation, a corp. of DE
• Assignee: Superior Teletec Transmission Products Inc., a corp. of GA (recorded in the feed as "PRODUSTS")
• Correspondent: not available
• Context: lender takes the collateral — Westinghouse Credit, holding the 1985 pledge, transfers the asset to the reorganized operating entity. This is a debt-workout step, not a licensing transfer.

1991-06-12 (executed) / recorded 1991-06-17 — Reel 005748/0705

• Conveyance: Security Interest
• Assignor: Superior Teletec Transmission Products Inc.
• Assignee: Barclays Business Credit, Inc., a corp. of CT
• Correspondent: not available
• Context: refinancing — new lender takes the same collateral on the same day the old lender releases it.

1993-11-10 (executed) / recorded 1993-12-06 — Reel 006783/0790

• Conveyance: Assignment (release / reassignment of collateral)
• Assignor: Barclay's Business Credit, Inc.
• Assignee: Superior Teletec Transmission Products Inc.
• Correspondent: not available
• Context: lender releases the pledge back to the borrower on refinancing.

1993-11-10 (executed) / recorded 1993-12-06 — Reel 006790/0133

• Conveyance: Security Interest
• Assignor: Superior Teletec Transmission Products Inc.
• Assignee: Bank of Boston Connecticut
• Correspondent: not available
• Context: paired refinancing lien — the fourth lender in this collateral chain.

1995-07-21 (executed) / recorded 1995-07-27 — Reel 007541/0932

• Conveyance: Security Interest
• Assignor: Superior Telecommunications Inc. (successor name to Superior Teletec — see note below)
• Assignee: Shawmut Capital Corporation, as agent
• Correspondent: not available
• Context: refinancing lien, fifth lender.

1996-10-02 (executed) / recorded 1996-10-08 — Reel 008048/0357

• Conveyance: Security Interest
• Assignor: Superior Telecommunications, Inc. and DNE Technologies, Inc.
• Assignee: Bankers Trust Company, as collateral agent
• Correspondent: not available
• Context: securitization of the group's IP as part of the credit facility that funded the Superior/Essex combination.

1998-11-27 (executed) / recorded 1999-02-25 — Reel 009748/0197

• Conveyance: Release of Intellectual Property
• Assignor: Chase Manhattan Bank (f/k/a Chemical Bank), as administrative agent
• Assignees: Essex Group, Inc.; Superior Telecommunications Inc.; DNE Technologies Inc.; Essex Technology, Inc.
• Correspondent: not available
• Context: lien release — the secured party of record discharges its interest in favor of the post-merger group entities. This is the last instrument that moves beneficial ownership of record.

1998-11-27 (executed) / recorded 1999-02-25 — Reel 009756/0756

• Conveyance: Security Agreement
• Assignors: Essex Technology, Inc.; Essex Group, Inc.; Superior Telecommunications Inc.; and others
• Assignee: Bankers Trust Company, as collateral agent (now Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas)
• Correspondent: not available
• Context: replacement collateral package under the November 1998 Amended and Restated Credit Agreement — the $936M Essex acquisition financing.

No assignment of record after 1999-02-25. Google Patents' "current assignee" fields (Superior Teletec Transmission Products Inc.; Superior Essex Inc.) are therefore inferred by succession, not supported by a recorded instrument on this patent.

Two gaps worth noting:

1. Name change not recorded. Superior Teletec Transmission Products Inc. → Superior Telecommunications Inc. appears only implicitly, via the 1995 assignor name. No Change of Name conveyance is recorded.
2. Succession to Superior Essex Inc. not recorded on this patent. Superior TeleCom Inc. filed Chapter 11, and the reorganized business was acquired by newly formed Superior Essex Inc. on 2003-11-10, the plan's effective date. No assignment instrument for this patent appears in the reel/frame list. Likewise, LS Cable & System's 2008 acquisition of Superior Essex is not reflected.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 4340771
    1981 : Filed by Siecor Corp
         : Watts assigns one quarter interest
    1982 : Patent issued
    1985 : Assigned to Superior Cable Corp
         : Collateral assignment to Westinghouse Credit
    1991 : Lender transfers asset to Superior Teletec
         : Security interest to Barclays
    1993 : Security interest to Bank of Boston
    1995 : Security interest to Shawmut Capital
    1996 : Security interest to Bankers Trust
    1999 : Lien released to Essex Group and STI
         : New security agreement to Bankers Trust
    2001 : Patent expires
    2003 : Superior Telecom exits Chapter 11
    2008 : Superior Essex acquired by LS Cable

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT.
No entity with a "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" suffix appears anywhere in the chain. Every non-lender assignee is a wire-and-cable operating company (Siecor; Superior Cable; Superior Teletec Transmission Products; Superior Telecommunications; Essex Group / Essex Technology). The one transfer that superficially resembles a shell move — Westinghouse Credit → Superior Teletec, executed 1991-06-12, Reel 005748/0695 — is the opposite of a shell transfer: a secured lender pushing collateral back to an operating borrower as part of a workout, immediately followed by a re-pledge to Barclays (Reel 005748/0705). No single-purpose Delaware/Texas LLC, no registered-agent service address, no licensing-only entity.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT.
None of the listed asserters (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Erich Spangenberg entities, etc.) appears as assignor or assignee in any of the eleven recorded instruments. The terminal owner (Superior Essex Inc., a subsidiary of LS Cable & System) is a manufacturer. I found no RPX, Unified Patents, or Patent Progress listing connecting any party in this chain to this patent. My search coverage here was limited (see "Verdict" caveat).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNABLE TO ASSESS.
This is the signal I was specifically asked to run, and it cannot be run on the evidence available to me. The correspondent-of-record field does not appear in the Google Patents legal-events reproduction, and I did not retrieve the reel images. I am not naming any attorney for this patent. Note that even if correspondents were available, this particular chain is a poor fit for the signal: the recordings span 1981–1999, are dominated by six different institutional secured lenders (Westinghouse Credit, Barclays, Bank of Boston, Shawmut, Bankers Trust, Chase), and each lender would almost certainly have used its own counsel — so recurrence would be expected and uninformative rather than damning.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
There are close-timed pairs (two recordings on 1991-06-17; two on 1993-12-06; two on 1999-02-25), but each pair is a conventional release-plus-new-lien refinancing pattern, and the pairs are spread over eight years — not the "multiple consecutive assignments through chained LLCs in <24 months" pattern. The chain runs 18 years end-to-end.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT.
No infringement suit naming US 4,340,771 was found. Critically, the patent expired on the anticipated date 2001-03-16 (Google Patents legal status: "Expired – Lifetime"; 12-year maintenance fee paid 1993-08-02). There is no window in which a pre-suit transfer could have occurred. The last substantive recorded transfer is 1998-11-27, more than two years before expiry, and it was a lien release in a merger financing.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT as a recorded patent transfer; PRESENT as corporate context.
Superior TeleCom Inc. and affiliates filed Chapter 11 with ~$900M secured debt and ~$220M subordinated notes; the plan became effective 2003-11-10, at which point the business was acquired by newly formed Superior Essex Inc. and Superior TeleCom plus certain dormant subsidiaries were deemed dissolved. There was also a 2002 asset sale shedding the electrical wire business and all shares of DNE Systems, Inc. (the entity that co-signed Reel 008048/0357). However — and this is the operative point — no assignment of this patent out of the estate or to Superior Essex Inc. was recorded. The patent had already expired, so it had no sale value. Marked not present as a fire-sale signal for this asset.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
No operating company transferred this patent to an asserting entity. The final recorded instruments (Reel 009748/0197 and 009756/0756, both 1999-02-25) stay entirely within the Superior/Essex corporate group and its lender syndicate.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
No RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN entity appears in the chain. The chain does not terminate at an aggregator. It terminates at an operating manufacturer.

---

Verdict

Defensive / non-asserting — with an explicit definitional caveat.

Substantively, this is a non-asserted, expired, operating-company asset. The chain runs from an inventor assignment to a working cable manufacturer (Reel 003872/0652, 1981-03-16), through an operating-company sale (Reel 004455/0728, 1985), through five successive lender security interests (Reels 004455/0730, 005748/0705, 006790/0133, 007541/0932, 008048/0357), and out at a lien release into the Superior/Essex group (Reel 009748/0197, 1999-02-25). Not one instrument moves the patent to a licensing entity, and the patent expired 2001-03-16 — assertion is permanently foreclosed. The caveat: the verdict option "Defensive / non-asserting" is defined as a chain terminating at a defensive aggregator; that is not what happened here. The chain terminates at an operating wire-and-cable manufacturer (Superior Essex Inc., an LS Cable & System subsidiary since 2008) via unrecorded corporate succession. I am choosing this option over "NPE —" (zero signals present) and over "Operating-company assertion" (which requires the current owner to be actively suing competitors — it is not, and cannot). "Insufficient data" is also a defensible alternative if you weight the two unrun checks: the correspondent field was unavailable, and I could not exhaustively confirm the absence of this patent from RPX/Unified assertion directories within this session.

Two residual risk items for a diligence file, neither of which is an NPE signal:

1. The "1/4 of assignor's interest" recital at Reel 003872/0652 — verify against the reel image whether the chain ever captured the full interest.
2. Unrecorded succession from Superior Telecommunications Inc. → Superior Essex Inc. (2003 reorganisation) → LS Cable (2008). Title today rests on corporate succession documents, not on a recorded assignment against this patent number.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 4340771) and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — retrieve the reel images for 003872/0652, 004455/0728, 004455/0730, 004520/0396, 005748/0695, 005748/0705, 006783/0790, 006790/0133, 007541/0932, 008048/0357, 009748/0197 and 009756/0756 to confirm each entry and to capture the correspondents I could not obtain.

I'll verify the patent and its cited references before building the analysis.

Let me verify the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 4,340,771 A

"Communications cable having combination shielding-armor member"

Note on sourcing: I worked from the authoritative full text of US 4,340,771 as fetched from Google Patents (https://patents.google.com/patent/US4340771/en), which reproduces the front-page "References Cited" list. I then ran external searches (Google Patents, Justia, FreePatentsOnline, Unified Patents, PTAB exhibits) to characterize the individual references. Patent numbers are taken literally as printed on the face of '771. Additional IDS references appear on the face of the patent that are not part of the "References Cited" set; I flag these separately. Search quotas were reached before I could independently verify every description, so items I could not externally confirm are called out explicitly.

---

1. The patent being examined

Claim set (the anticipation targets)

• Claim 1 — the independent claim. Requires, in combination: (a) tubular covering of thermally conductive plastic; (b) core of two longitudinally extending groups of insulated conductors, one group for one transmission direction and the other for the opposite direction; (c) a single metal shielding tape with a medial portion integrally joined between two terminal portions, the medial portion radially dividing the groups, each terminal portion bent in opposite directions around a group and extending to and beyond the merge point; and (d) all portions of the tape insulated from the conductors, corrugated, and composed of first, second and third metal layers bonded one to the other, the first and third layers being of one metal, substantially co-equal in thickness, on opposite surfaces of the second layer of a second metal, each layer about 3 mils.
• Claim 2 — claim 1 + corrosion-protecting plastic coating on the outermost surfaces of the first and third layers.
• Claim 3 — claim 2 + filling compound partially over the plastic coating, adapted to prevent the tape bonding to itself.
• Claim 4 — claim 1 + filling compound at least partially occupying the space delimited by the tape.
• Claim 5 — claim 1 + the bond between the three metal layers is a metallurgical bond.
• Claim 6 — claim 1 + first/third layers copper, aluminum or alloys thereof; second layer iron, steel or alloys thereof.

Key structural takeaway: the novelty of '771 is aggregative. Every element is individually old; the asserted advance is the integration of screening + armoring into one corrugated three-layer metallurgically bonded metal tape, plus the finding that overlap bonding is unnecessary (spec., col. re US 4,085,284). This framing governs the § 102 vs. § 103 split below.

---

2. § 102 anticipation — bottom line up front

No single cited reference anticipates claim 1. Every reference of record discloses a proper subset of the claim-1 combination:

• The core-dividing single-tape geometry (element 1(c)) is fully shown by US 4,085,284 and US 3,622,683.
• The corrugated internal screen (element 1(d), "corrugated") is shown by FR 852,028 (and corrugation appears in US 4,085,284).
• The three-layer dissimilar-metal bonded tape element is shown by US 1,979,402 (as layers, un-bonded) and US 3,555,169 / US 3,602,633 (as metallurgically bonded cable-shield laminates).
• The corrosion-protecting plastic coating and filler elements (claims 2–4) are shown by US 4,085,284, US 4,015,315, US 3,622,683 and US 4,256,921.

Because claim 1 requires all of these simultaneously — and specifically a two-layer-of-one-metal + middle-layer-of-a-second-metal, co-equal-thickness, ~3 mil, fully corrugated construction — each cited reference individually lacks at least one claim-1 element. They are therefore properly § 103 obviousness references, not § 102 anticipatory art, unless a reference is combined with another or with admissions in '771's own specification.

Where a claim is arguably anticipated, it is by the reference(s) the '771 specification itself identifies as describing the same screen configuration — i.e., US 4,085,284 ("D-shield") for claim 1(c)-type subject matter, and FR 852,028 for corrugation. Those are discussed first below.

---

3. Ranked relevance of the references

Non-patent citation of record: Advertisement "Super T-Screen," Superior/Cable — assigned-entity product literature cited as background to the claimed construction; not a structural anticipation reference.

---

4. Reference-by-reference analysis

4.1 US 4,085,284 A — "D-shield telephone cables" (General Cable Corp.)

Citation: US 4,085,284 A; inventors Ludwig Jachimowicz and Jerzy A. Olszewski; appl. 05/713,228; filed 1976-08-10 (priority 1976-08-09); granted 1978-04-18; assignee General Cable Corp. CPCL H01B.
URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US4085284A](/patent/US4085284A)/en

Description. An internally shielded telephone cable addressed to near-end crosstalk in carrier systems at 772 kHz and above (through 1.576 MHz). Its principal teaching is a single metal tape bent ("single tape" embodiment of FIG. 3) to serve as the internal screen for both core halves — the same two-group, single-tape, medial/terminal geometry later recited in '771 claim 1(c). The '284 shields are preferably corrugated (spec., FIG. 2 discussion: "metal shields 36 and 38 are preferably corrugated"), are of the aluminum-with-acrylic-acid-copolymer-polyethylene-on-both-sides type, and the patent bonds the confronting diametral portions and overlap regions to brace the tape and to eliminate a water channel. FIG. 5 expressly shows the "corrosion protecting coating 70 adhered to the opposite faces of the tape shield."

§ 102 mapping.

• Claim 1(c) and 1(c)'s overlap geometry: strongly met by the single-tape D-screen embodiment — this is exactly why the '771 specification states, "The screen configuration just described is like that shown in U.S. Pat. No. 4,085,284."
• Claim 2 (corrosion-protecting plastic on both outer surfaces): met by the coated-both-sides aluminum tape of '284 (FIG. 5).
• Claim 4 (filling compound in the cavity): met by '284's filled-cable discussion (filling compound with 500 V/mil breakdown strength).
• Claim 3 (filler preventing tape self-bonding): arrested by '284 — '284 teaches the opposite (deliberate bonding of the overlaps). '771 expressly departs from that teaching ("It has been found that this is not necessary and in some instances undesirable. It is preferred that no such bonding take place."). This is a teaching-away relationship that supports patentability of claim 3 and supports '771's characterization of the '284 disclosure.
• Claim 1 as a whole (three-metal-layer bonded, co-equal ~3 mil, iron/steel-cored armor tape): not anticipated — '284 discloses an aluminum monolithic screen with a plastic coating, no iron/steel core, no three-metal laminate, and no thickness relations.

Verdict: the single most material reference of record. Anticipates sub-combinations underpinning claims 1(c)–(d) and 2/4, but not independent claim 1; best deployed under § 103 with Nyquist/FR 852,028.

---

4.2 US 3,622,683 A — "Telephone cable with improved crosstalk properties" (Roberts et al.; Superior Continental Corp.)

Citation: US 3,622,683 A; inventors Walter L. Roberts and Frederic N. Wilkenloh; appl. 778,073; filed 1968-11-22; granted 1971-11-23; assignee Superior Continental Corp., Hickory, N.C.
URLs: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US3622683A](/patent/US3622683A)/en ; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[3622683](/patent/3622683).html

Description. The foundational modern internally screened PCM cable. It divides the conductors into two groups with a plastic-coated metal foil strip or tape, substantially improving near-end crosstalk, and claims a screen with "first and second terminal portions and an intermediate portion" — i.e., the same Z-/S-/serpentine single-tape cross section as '771 claim 1(c) (see '683 claims 11–18, esp. cl. 18: "said crosstalk shield is the only crosstalk barrier between said groups, and...in transverse cross section only with said first and second terminal portions and said intermediate portion"). '683 claims foil coated on both sides with plastic (cl. 21–22), which is the insulation element of '771's claim 1(d) ("all portions...insulated from said conductors"). The reference also discloses greaselike filling compound (cl. 23–25, 27) and a plastic core wrap ("'284-style" cl. 29).

Critically for '771's claim scope, Roberts expressly distinguishes Nyquist: '683 teaches away from iron/copper laminates, using a non-magnetic foil ("neither one of which is magnetic...This is not the case in the instant invention").

§ 102 mapping.

• Claim 1(b) and 1(c): met — two groups transmitting in opposite directions, divided and shielded by a single tape with medial and two terminal portions.
• Claim 4: met — greaselike filling compound in the unoccupied cavity.
• Claim 1(d) insulation of the tape from the conductors: met via the plastic-coated foil.
• Claim 1(d) corrugation and the three-metal-layer bonded tape: absent — '683's shield is flat foil (aluminum/copper per se or plastic-coated), non-magnetic, and not a bonded tri-metal, corrugated, iron/steel-cored armor tape. Roberts teaches away from the magnetic-core concept that '771 claims.

Verdict: strong § 102/§ 103 reference against isolates of claims 1(b)/(c) and claim 4; does not anticipate claim 1. Its teaching away from magnetic cores is defense ammunition for '771, not against it.

---

4.3 FR 852,028 A — "Improvements to telecommunications cables" (Lignes Telegraph Telephon)

Citation: FR 852,028 A; published 1940-01-22 (Google Patents lists filing 1938-03-28); assignee "Lignes Telegraph Telephon."
URL: See '771 face-of-patent citation; per '771 spec.: "Corrugation of a single metal internal screen in an internally screened cable is disclosed by French Pat. No. 852,028."

Description. Per the '771 specification's own characterization, this French patent discloses corrugation of a single metal internal screen in an internally screened cable.

§ 102 mapping.

• Claim 1(d) — "corrugated" limitation: this is the direct anticipatory reference for the corrugation element. Alone, it cannot anticipate claim 1 (no tri-metal laminate, no claimed stack of layers/thicknesses).
• Its significance in '771 is that corrugation is admitted prior art for internal screens; '771's contributions are (i) applying corrugation to a bonded iron/steel-cored laminate and (ii) the mechanical (cracking resistance) and shielding (effective-thickness) advantages it attributes to corrugation (13 → 40 mils effective thickness, ">300%," FIG. 3a → FIG. 3b).

Verdict: § 102 as to the corrugation limitation only; § 103 as to claim 1 in combination with Nyquist and Roberts.

---

4.4 US 1,979,402 A — "Concentric shield for cables" (Nyquist; AT&T)

Citation: US 1,979,402 A; inventor Harry Nyquist; filed 1932-06-07 (Serial 615,918, CIP); granted 1934-11-06; assignee American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US1979402

Description. The origin reference for the '771 metal-stack concept and the source of the "reflection loss" rationale that '771 expressly adopts ("as disclosed in Nyquist"). Nyquist teaches a concentric shield between two groups of conductors made of wide, thin tapes of soft iron alternating in layers with copper (or silver/aluminum), selected on the criterion that the product µσ be large and the ratio µ/σ differ as much as possible between the two materials — giving attenuation loss plus inter-layer reflection loss. Nyquist describes the shield as a wound tape; it discloses no metallurgical bonding, no corrugation, and a concentric rather than D/single-tape two-group geometry.

§ 102 mapping.

• Claim 1(d) — "first, second and third metal layers...of one metal...opposite surfaces of said second layer of a second metal": this is the anticipation candidate for the three-layer stack — Nyquist's iron layer sandwiched between copper (or vice versa) layers. But Nyquist's layers are alternating wound tapes, not a bonded three-layer composite, and Nyquist does not disclose the co-equal-thickness or ~3 mil limitations.
• Claim 5 (metallurgical bond): not met — Nyquist discloses no metallurgical bonding; '771's specification makes the bonded-vs-unbonded distinction a point of novelty and a corrosion/water-integrity requirement.
• Claim 6 (Cu/Al outer, Fe/steel middle): met in substance by Nyquist's iron-between-copper arrangement — modulo the bonding, thickness and corrugation limitations.

Verdict: § 102 as to the material/layer-selection concept underlying claims 1(d)/6; not anticipatory of claim 1 or claim 5. Its un-bonded teaching is the express gap that claim 5 fills.

---

4.5 US 3,555,169 A — "Composite layer material having an outer layer of copper and successive layer of stainless steel, low carbon steel and copper" (Texas Instruments)

Citation: US 3,555,169 A; filed 1968-01-02; granted 1971-01-12; assignee Texas Instruments Inc.
URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US3555169A](/patent/US3555169A)/en

Description. Expressly a cable-shielding material: a four-layer composite, interfacially bonded by a metallurgical solid-phase bond (citing US 2,691,815 and US 2,753,623), comprising, outer-to-inner: thin copper (21, ~0.0005–0.0015 in.) / corrosion-resistant stainless steel (22, ~0.001–0.002 in.) / low-carbon steel (23, ~0.001–0.002 in.) / thicker copper (24, ~0.002–0.010 in.). Total thickness 0.005–0.020 in. The patent notes that copper "makes it easier to corrugate the cable shielding" and that the low-carbon steel provides ductility "for manufacturing ease as in the corrugation process."

§ 102 mapping.

• Claim 1(d) (bonded multi-metal cable-shield laminate, corrugatable): substantially disclosed, but the reference has four layers, and its copper layers are not co-equal (deliberately unequal: thin outer vs. thick inner). The claim-1 requirement of "first and third layers...of substantially co-equal thickness bonded to the opposite surfaces of said second layer" is therefore not literally met.
• Claim 5 (metallurgical bond): met — express teaching of metallurgical solid-phase bonding of a cable-shield laminate.
• Claim 6 (Cu/Al outer, Fe/steel middle): partly met — outer copper and steel layers are present; but there are two steel layers (stainless + low-carbon) and two copper layers, not the claimed 3-layer Cu/steel/Cu.
• Claim 1 as a whole: not anticipated (no corrugated screen geometry, no divided-core single tape, no filler/insulation architecture).

Verdict: the strongest single reference for the metallurgical-bonded cable-shield laminate concept of claims 1(d)/5; a § 102 candidate for those limitations only, and a § 103 pillar for claim 1.

---

4.6 US 3,602,633 A — "Cable-shielding material" (Texas Instruments)

Citation: US 3,602,633 A; filed 1968-11-19; granted 1971-08-31; assignee Texas Instruments Inc.
Description (limited confidence). Front-page title and assignee indicate a laminated cable-shielding material from the same TI program as US 3,555,169. I could not independently retrieve the full text within this session's search budget, so I will not fabricate its disclosure. On its title/date alone it is properly characterized as bonded metal-laminate tape art, i.e., relevant to claim 1(d)'s bonded tri-metal tape and to claim 6's metal selection.

§ 102 mapping (qualified): potentially anticipatory of the bonded metal cable-shield laminate limitation of claim 1(d) and informative for claim 6; not anticipatory of claim 1 as a whole. Verification of its exact layer stack should be performed against the full document before relying on it.

---

4.7 US 4,165,442 A — "Telephone cable with improved shield combination" (General Cable Corp.)

Citation: US 4,165,442 A; filed 1978-06-12; granted 1979-08-21; assignee General Cable Corp. (family of US 4,085,284; reissue counterpart US RE31,277).
URL: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[RE31277](/patent/RE31277).html (reissue text describes the same invention)

Description. A refinement of the D-screen line directed to overlapping-seam problems: "the use of shields and/or screens of the prior art which rely on overlap seams...tend to impair the mechanical strength of the composite cable, and in addition have a noticeable effect upon shield life because of the effects of corrosion." It teaches screens with inwardly-bent edges extending along the middle partition and plastic-coated aluminum screens to protect uncoated tape edges from corrosion and to prevent water ingress.

§ 102 mapping.

• Claim 1(c) single-tape medial/terminal geometry: met in substance — this is the same single-tape screen with terminal portions bent around the groups.
• Claim 2 (corrosion-protecting plastic on both sides): met — plastic coating on both sides of the aluminum screen.
• Claim 1's three-metal-layer corrugated armored tape: absent.
• Claim 3 (anti-bonding filler): '442 is a § 103 reference against the notion of bonded overlaps, aligning with '284 and reinforcing why '771's "no bonding" preference is a genuine departure.

Verdict: § 103 reference complementary to '284; not anticipatory of claim 1.

---

4.8 US 4,015,315 A — "Shielding tape for cables" (The Dow Chemical Company)

Citation: US 4,015,315 A; filed 1975-04-25; granted 1977-03-01; assignee The Dow Chemical Company.
Description (limited confidence). Title and date establish it as cable shielding tape art, i.e., tape construction/coating prior art. I could not independently retrieve the full text within this session's search budget; I therefore do not attribute specific layer constructions to it.

§ 102 mapping (qualified): relevant to claim 1(d)'s tape construction and to claim 2's polymeric coating on the tape's outer surfaces. Not anticipatory of claim 1 as a whole.

---

4.9 US 3,405,228 A — "Folded, laminated electrical cable sheath having abutting edges of one lamination unwelded" (General Cable Corp.)

Citation: US 3,405,228 A; filed 1965-08-11; granted 1968-10-08; assignee General Cable Corp.
Description. A folded, laminated cable sheath whose lamination edges abut without welding. Its relevance is to laminated-tape cable-covering construction and to the bonding/overlap question that animates '771 claim 3 and the '771 specification's comparison with '284.

§ 102 mapping. Background/§ 103 reference for claim 1's "single metal shielding tape" and laminated-layer aspects; not anticipatory of any '771 claim as a whole (no divided-core, corrugated, iron-cored screen geometry).

---

4.10 US 4,256,921 A — "Moisture resistant cable" (George Bahder)

Citation: US 4,256,921 A; inventor George Bahder; filed 1979-01-22; granted 1981-03-17.
Description (limited confidence). A moisture-resistant cable; relevant to water-blocking/filling and corrosion-protection aspects. Full text not retrieved within this session's budget.

§ 102 mapping. Potential § 102/§ 103 reference for the filling-compound limitations of claims 3 and 4, and background for '771's water-resistance objectives (plastic layers 10 protecting against water/water-vapor attack on the iron). Not anticipatory of claim 1.

---

4.11 US 4,145,567 A — "Solid dielectric cable resistant to electrochemical trees" (General Cable Corp.)

Citation: US 4,145,567 A; filed 1977-06-06; granted 1979-03-20; assignee General Cable Corp.
Description (limited confidence). Dielectric cable focused on resistance to electrochemical (water) trees; relevant to the plastic-jacket/dielectric context and water-resistance considerations that '771 addresses (jacket 2 extruded polyethylene; plastic layers 10 as water-attack barriers).

§ 102 mapping. Background reference only; no anticipation of '771's screening/armoring claims. Full text not retrieved within this session's budget.

---

5. Additional references that appear on the patent but are not in the printed citation list

The '771 specification incorporates two U.S. patents by reference; they are material art even though they are not among the eleven "References Cited":

Also note (from the front-page "Cited By" data) that '771 is cited in the D-shield lineage (e.g., US 4,453,031 to Justiss; US 4,800,236 to Lemke, "Cable having a corrugated septum"), confirming the corrugated-septum concept's continued citation as the closest art.

---

6. Conclusions on anticipation vs. obviousness

1. No reference of record anticipates independent claim 1, because claim 1 requires the simultaneous presence of: a two-group divided-core single-tape screen; a tape that is both corrugated and insulated from the conductors; and a bonded three-metal-layer stack with co-equal outer-metal thickness and ~3 mil layers. Each cited reference omits at least one of these.
2. The closest anticipatory candidates by element:
   • 1(b)/1(c) core-dividing single-tape geometry → US 4,085,284 and US 3,622,683.
   • 1(d) corrugation → FR 852,028.
   • 1(d) three-layer dissimilar-metal stack / claim 6 → US 1,979,402.
   • 1(d) bonded cable-shield laminate / claim 5 → US 3,555,169 (and US 3,602,633).
   • Claim 2 → US 4,085,284, US 4,165,442, and (via incorporation) US 2,970,129 / US 3,233,036.
   • Claim 4 (and claim 3) filler → US 3,622,683 and US 4,085,284.
3. Claim 3 is the most defensible claim. US 4,085,284 and US 4,165,442 both affirmatively teach bonding the overlaps to brace the tape and close water channels; '771 discovers this is unnecessary and undesirable. That is a teaching-away relationship that strengthens claim 3 against the D-shield art.
4. The genuine novelty/residuum of '771 is best expressed as the combination: corrugated, insulated, metallurgically bonded (US 3,555,169-style bond), tri-metal, iron/steel-cored single tape that serves simultaneously as crosstalk screen and armor — with US 1,979,402 supplying the layer-selection theory and FR 852,028 the corrugation. That is an obviousness question under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as of the March 16, 1981 filing date, not a § 102 anticipation.

---

7. Confidence and caveats

• High confidence: the identification of US 4,340,771, its claims 1–6, its 1981-03-16 filing / 1982-07-20 grant, its inventor William M. Watts, and the eleven-item "References Cited" list (all taken directly from the authoritative patent text).
• High confidence, externally corroborated: descriptions of US 4,085,284, US 3,622,683, US 1,979,402, US 3,555,169 (Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, Unified Patents, PTAB exhibits as cited above).
• Lower confidence (full text not retrieved): US 3,602,633, US 4,015,315, US 4,256,921, US 4,145,567. For these I have relied on the titles, assignees, and dates as printed, and I have not invented layer constructions or claim mappings.
• Date discrepancy noted, not corrected: the current-date supplied in the task prompt (2026-04-26) differs from the fetch timestamp of the source (2026-10-01). Neither date affects the substantive analysis, since '771 expired on 2001-03-16.
• Legal disclaimer: "Expired – Lifetime" is the status listed by the source; that is a status indication, not a legal conclusion.
• Claim-element mapping above is a technical-analyst assessment of disclosure coverage, not an infringement, validity, or patentability opinion.

I'll ground the obviousness analysis by verifying what the cited prior-art references actually disclose, since the patent's front page gives only titles.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 4,340,771 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Building on the prior Patent Summary and Litigation Summary (not repeated here). Current date for this session: April 26, 2026. Note the same date discrepancy already flagged in the prior sections.

---

0. Method and caveat

Because US 4,340,771 was filed 1981-03-16, pre-AIA § 103 governs, and the critical reference date for § 102(b) art is 1980-03-16. Every reference on the face of the patent except one issued well before that (see the date table in § 5). I analyze the claims as a POSITA would have read them in March 1981, applying the Graham factors and the KSR "expansive and flexible" approach to motivation.

Sourcing caveat: I retrieved and read the specification/claims of US 3,555,169, US 3,602,633, US 4,085,284 and US 4,010,315 directly (URLs below). For FR 852,028, US 1,979,402 (Nyquist), US 3,622,683 (Roberts et al.) and Australian 105,876 I rely on the '771 specification's own characterizations plus secondary descriptions; I did not read those four documents in full in this session. Where a conclusion depends on an unread reference, I say so.

A critical structural point: the applicant made repeated admissions about the prior art in the specification itself, and those admissions carry substantial weight in a § 103 analysis. They are catalogued in § 4.

---

1. The person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

A POSITA here is a communications-cable design engineer with a B.S. in electrical or mechanical engineering (or materials science) and roughly 3–5 years' experience in the design of screened/filled telephone cable for PCM carrier systems. That person would be familiar with:

• the near-end crosstalk (NEXT) problem and the "two groups, opposite directions" core architecture (per Nyquist, the Australian '876, Roberts et al., and the General Cable D-screen family);
• the use of corrugated metal tapes in cable shields to improve flexibility/bend performance;
• plastic/metal laminate shielding tapes (the "Zetabon"-type tapes described in US 4,010,315 and US 4,327,248, an 8- or 12-mil aluminum tape with ~2 mils of ethylene-acrylic-acid copolymer on each side);
• cable flooding/filling compounds (petrolatum, polyethylene grease) and the use of greases to prevent inter-layer blocking/adhesion; and
• the fact that an iron or steel layer in a shield provides both magnetic (permeability-based) shielding and mechanical protection — the dual electrical/armor connotation of the word "shield" was expressly recognized in the art.

Key art recognition of the dual function: Roberts et al. (US 3,622,683) is quoted in a PTAB record as stating that "the word 'shield' has an accepted double meaning, i.e. electrical as well as mechanical (armor) protection." (Source: PTAB petition document quoting Roberts, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1554201](/patent/1554201)/download-documents?artifactId=eOKrzCpF5-cfDzAvS7lm_s0z_9qNYPPlsHNzNNArS3g1O_KSspDUxyE — treat as a party's quotation of Roberts, which I did not independently verify in full.) This is directly relevant to motivation: POSITAs already conceptualized a cable shield as potentially performing both jobs.

---

2. Claim 1 decomposed into limitations

Using the claim language reproduced in the prior section:

---

3. Element-by-element mapping to the cited art

Grounded in the references retrieved this session:

Conclusion of the mapping: every limitation of claim 1 is disclosed somewhere in the art of record. No single reference discloses all of them, so the case is one of combination, not anticipation (§ 102). The obviousness question is therefore the motivation to combine and the predictability of the result.

---

4. The applicant's own art admissions (the most powerful § 103 evidence here)

The '771 specification concedes three of the four key features:

1. Geometry is admitted old: "The screen configuration just described is like that shown in U.S. Pat. No. 4,085,284."
2. Corrugating the internal screen is admitted old: "Corrugation of a single metal internal screen in an internally screened cable is disclosed by French Pat. No. 852,028."
3. The armor function of a steel core is admitted old: "since the screen has an iron or steel core (layer 8), it imparts to the cable armor protection that prior art cables had only after and if they employed a separate armor tape, in addition to a screen tape."

What is claimed as new is the integration: "This invention combines the two functions, screening and armoring, into one element." That is a combination of known elements yielding a predictable aggregate result — the paradigm KSR fact pattern. The remaining genuinely arguable limitations are the symmetric co-equal 3/3/3 laminate (F + G), discussed in § 7.

---

5. Reference dates and status (pre-AIA)

(Minor bibliographic discrepancies noted and not corrected, per instructions: Google Patents lists US 4,085,284 priority 1976-08-10 / grant 1978-04-18, while the Unified Patents record shows priority 1976-08-09 / grant 1978-04-17.)

---

6. Proposed § 103 grounds

Ground 1 (primary) — US 4,085,284 + US 3,602,633 + FR 852,028

The combination: Take the single-tape D-screen of General Cable '284 (limitations B, C, and the plastic-coated faces of D), make its circumferential portions corrugated as taught by FR 852,028 (E), and substitute for the '284 aluminum shield the metal-sandwich tape of TI '633 — aluminum / steel / aluminum, metallurgically bonded (F) — selecting the layer thicknesses to meet the conventional 8-mil equivalent shield requirement (G).

Why a POSITA would combine them:

• Same field, same problem, same structure. All three are communications-cable shielding disclosures; '284 and FR 852,028 concern internal screens for NEXT reduction, and '633 is squarely a "cable-shielding material."
• The steel core does double duty, and the art knew it. TI '633 states the steel layer provides "strength to withstand blows from sharp objects," rodent protection, abrasive resistance, and "adequate magnetic permeability for shielding the cable from the effects of electromagnetic fields." Nyquist had already taught that including iron (high permeability) in the shield raises attenuation. So a POSITA seeking to add armor without adding a second tape would look to a steel-cored laminate.
• Substitution of materials in a known structure, with predictable results. Replacing an aluminum D-screen tape with an aluminum/steel/aluminum laminate is a material substitution in an otherwise unchanged geometry. KSR makes this "obvious" where the substitute is known to perform the same function (shielding + strength) and the result is predictable.
• Explicit design incentive to eliminate the separate armor tape. The '771 specification itself states that armor previously required "a separate armor tape, in addition to a screen tape." Eliminating a separate tape and a separate application step is a recognized cost/manufacturing motivation — exactly the kind KSR credits.
• Package-size constraint. RE 31,277 (the General Cable improvement patent) frames the whole problem as meeting NEXT at increasing frequencies (772 kHz → 1.576 MHz) without unacceptable bulk; a single tape that both shields and armors serves that constraint, whereas stacking a separate armor tape does not.

Ground 2 — US 4,085,284 + US 3,555,169 + FR 852,028

Same structure, different laminate reference. TI '555,169 discloses a four-layer copper / stainless steel / low-carbon steel / copper composite for communications cable shields, "interfacially bonded, preferably by a metallurgical solid phase bond," total 0.005–0.020 in. It supplies the bonded-metal-sandwich teaching (F) with copper outer layers — matching claim 6 directly — and expressly notes that "Copper also makes it easier to corrugate the cable shielding," which links the laminate teaching to the corrugation teaching (E) with a stated reason.

Motivation: identical to Ground 1, with the added benefit that '555,169 gives the POSITA a reason to choose copper outer layers (solderability, corrosion resistance, corrugatability) and bond them metallurgically. Weakness of this ground: '555,169's outer copper layers are deliberately not co-equal (layer 21 = 0.0005–0.0015 in; layer 24 = 0.002–0.010 in), so it does not itself suggest limitation F's "substantially co-equal thickness." Ground 1 (TI '633) does not squarely suggest it either. See § 7.

Ground 3 — US 4,165,442 / RE 31,277 + US 3,602,633 + FR 852,028

Use the other General Cable D-screen patent as the primary reference. RE 31,277 describes the D-screen that divides the two oppositely-transmitting groups, with inwardly bent circumferential end portions, plastic corrosion-protecting coatings on both sides of the inner screen, and discussion of filling compound and water ingress, at a stated 80 dB worst-case Power-Sum NEXT target at 1.576 MHz. Combine with TI '633's aluminum/steel/aluminum bonded laminate and FR 852,028's corrugation. Same motivations as Ground 1, plus the anti-corrosion rationale that both RE 31,277 and US 4,010,315 supply.

Ground 4 — US 4,010,315 + US 4,085,284 + one of TI '555,169 / TI '633 + FR 852,028

Use Dow '315 as the laminate-teaching reference. Dow '315 claims a three-metal-layer sandwich — pure aluminum / aluminum alloy / pure aluminum (claim 6) — with thermoplastic resin layers on both faces (claims 7–8; ethylene/acrylic-acid copolymer, i.e. the same class of coating named in the '771 spec via Rugg and Jachimowicz), and it expressly states the tape "may also be corrugated or left smooth" and that heat of jacket extrusion can bond the overlap. Dow '315 thus supplies limitations F, D, and a corrugation option, leaving only the steel/iron core and the D-geometry. Combine with TI '633 or '555,169 for the steel core, and with US 4,085,284 / RE 31,277 for geometry (C).

Motivation: Dow '315 and the TI patents are all "shielding-tape laminate" references cited on the very face of the '771 patent; a POSITA designing a laminate D-screen would run through exactly these tapes. The only remaining step — choosing steel as the middle layer instead of aluminum alloy — is motivated by the armor + permeability function that TI '633 articulates.

Ground 5 — Nyquist (+ Australian 105,876) + US 4,085,284 + TI '633 + FR 852,028

Nyquist supplies the rationale for a multi-metal iron/copper laminate (reflection loss at metal-to-metal interfaces; the permeability/conductivity quotient), and the Australian '876 (per the '771 spec) supplies the two-group, each-group-shielded, D-shaped-core architecture. Combined with the '284 single-tape geometry and a TI steel-cored laminate, this ground is strongest for the motivation element (why one would put iron between conductive layers at all) but is cumulative of Ground 1.

---

7. Dependent claims

---

8. The genuine battleground: limitations F ("co-equal thickness") and G ("about 3 mils")

This is where a patentee's best § 103 argument lies, and it should be stated honestly:

• US 3,555,169 teaches asymmetric outer copper layers (thin outer, thick inner) and gives reasons for the asymmetry — the inner copper is "the principal electrical conductor" and the outer copper is chiefly for corrosion/solderability. That is arguably a teaching away from co-equal outer layers.
• US 3,602,633 teaches a thick aluminum (8–10 mils) against a thin third aluminum (0.0002–0.0015 in) in its three-layer form, plus a 2–4 mil steel layer. Again, not three co-equal layers.
• US 4,010,315 claim 6 pairs "substantially pure" aluminum outer layers around an alloy middle layer, but gives no thickness symmetry.

Rebuttal (why these are still obvious):

1. Symmetry is a routine design choice with a recognized engineering reason. A laminate with unequal outer layers is prone to curl/warp during lamination and during bending; equalizing the two outer skins is a standard way to make the tape dimensionally stable and to give identical electrical/corrosion behavior on both faces. Under KSR, "design incentives" and "market demands" can supply the motivation, and "a finite number of identified, predictable solutions" supports obviousness.
2. "About 3 mils" is a result-effective-variable optimization. TI '633 teaches 2–4 mils steel (which brackets 3 mils) and teaches that total composite thickness should be 0.010–0.014 in to match industry conductivity/strength specs; the '284 reference gives the target as an 8-mil equivalent shield. A 3/3/3 metal stack (≈9 mils) sits squarely inside those disclosed ranges and meets the disclosed objective. Optimizing a thickness within a disclosed range to meet a disclosed performance target is not inventive.
3. Steel's lower conductivity forces thicker conductive skins. Because the middle layer is steel (low conductivity relative to Al/Cu), a designer matching the 8-mil-aluminum equivalent must make the conductive skins relatively thick and symmetric — i.e., the claimed geometry is the natural, predictable consequence of the material substitution, not an unexpected result. (This is my engineering inference, not a quotation from any reference; I flag it as reasoning, not disclosure.)
4. The specification itself does not treat co-equality or 3 mils as critical. It says "layer 8 may be equal to, greater or smaller than the thickness of layers 9" and gives 3 mils as "for purposes of illustration only." That undercuts any argument that these dimensions are a critical, non-obvious discovery — a "results-effective variable" weakness the patentee cannot easily repair.

Net: F and G make claim 1 a closer call than claims 2–6, but I still assess claim 1 as likely obvious over Grounds 1–4, with the "co-equal / about 3 mils" limitations being the only meaningful non-obviousness argument, and a weak one under KSR.

---

9. Motivation-to-combine synthesis (the KSR factors)

Drawing the threads together, a POSITA in March 1981 had, at minimum, these articulated reasons to arrive at claim 1:

The strongest counter-narrative the patentee can run is that the art deliberately compartmentalized the two functions — Roberts et al. (US 3,622,683) kept a separate "metal armor shield" 18 distinct from a thin foil electrical shield 15, and General Cable's D-screen family treated the internal screen as an electrical element whose mechanical role was addressed by bonding and reinforcing tapes (see '284's reinforcing tape 50). But: TI '633 and '555,169 both expressly teach that a single steel-containing laminate simultaneously provides electrical shielding, magnetic shielding, and mechanical/rodent/sharp-object protection — so the "compartmentalization" position is contradicted by references in the patent's own citation list, and Roberts' own text concedes that "shield" carries both meanings.

---

10. Secondary considerations (§ 103 rebuttal)

The record contains little objective evidence, and what exists is weak or unverified:

• Long-felt need — plausible (the industry was actively seeking higher-capacity internal screens from 1934 onward), but the need was already being met by the D-screen family ('284, RE 31,277), which weakens the "need unmet until '771" narrative.
• Commercial success — the only inkling is the cited "Super T-Screen" advertisement (Superior/Cable). If that product embodies the claimed tape, it could support non-obviousness — but only with proof of a nexus between the commercial success and the claimed features (steel-cored D-tape geometry, corrugated, 3/3/3), not the brand.
• Unexpected results — the spec asserts corrugation increases effective thickness from 13 to 40 mils (>300%). This is a geometric consequence of corrugation amplitude/pitch, not an unexpected material behavior; a POSITA would expect it.
• Teaching away — the most substantive piece: the spec states it prefers not to bond the overlaps, contrary to '284's teaching that bonding is "very important." But claim 1 is silent on bonding, so this preference cannot distinguish the claim on its face; at most it is a claim-construction cross-check.
• Copying / praise / licenses — not evidenced in the record retrieved. (Consistent with the Litigation Summary's finding of no assertion of this patent.)

None of these, on the presently available record, is sufficient to rebut the strong prima facie case, though the "Super T-Screen" exhibit is the one item a patentee would most want to develop.

---

11. Bottom-line assessment

Caveats on confidence:

• High confidence in the disclosure content of US 3,555,169, US 3,602,633, US 4,085,284, US 4,010,315 and RE 31,277 (read directly this session), and in the applicant's own admissions (quoted from the '771 specification).
• Moderate confidence regarding FR 852,028, Nyquist '402, Roberts '683 and Australian '876 — I relied on the '771 specification's characterization and on secondary sources rather than the originals. Pulling FR 852,028 and '683 in full would firm up Grounds 1 and 5.
• Date flag: US 4,256,921 (Bahder) issued 1981-03-17, one day after the '771 filing; it is usable, if at all, only as pre-AIA § 102(e) art as of its 1979-01-22 filing date. Do not treat it as § 102(b) art.
• Undated the "Super T-Screen" advertisement on the record retrieved; its actual publication date determines whether it is § 102(b) art and whether it supports commercial success. web_search returned no results for that query this session.
• Procedural note: this patent issued over these references without rejection (and expired 2001-03-16, per the Litigation Summary). Any § 103 analysis is therefore historical/reconstructive; the fact that the examiner allowed the claims means the "co-equal / about 3 mils" point evidently either was not addressed by the cited art or was accepted as a design choice — an outcome my analysis suggests was debatable, not compelled.