US 4628193

I'll search for current information on this patent number, then compile the summary.

US 4,628,193 — Patent Record Summary

Search scope and limitations: I ran targeted web searches rather than a live PACER/CAFC docket query or a native USPTO PatentCenter lookup. No litigation, PTAB proceeding, or Federal Circuit (2026 or any-year) docket activity involving patent 4,628,193 surfaced in any result. Google Patents, Unified Patents, and uspto.report all list the patent as "Expired - Lifetime" with an anticipated expiration of 2003-12-09. I have no authoritative confirmation of any 2026 CAFC docket, and I will not infer one.

Bibliographic data (from the patent text itself)

Abstract (verbatim)

"Hand held electronic apparatus for supervising and controlling operations requiring a worker to travel to multiple sites, correctly identify subjects or objects, and treat each one according to special instructions on the basis of that identification. The apparatus disclosed provides machine reading means to ensure positive identification, audible and visible displays, internal data storage and processing and means for communication with a central computer system. Applications are described for control of a parcel delivery service and supervision of a hospital medication program and a patient blood sample identification system for a hospital laboratory service."

Independent claim (claim 1) — plain language

Claim 1 is the sole independent claim. It covers a portable, hand-carried apparatus for controlling, supervising, and recording an operator's field work where the work requires (1) travel to sites away from direct supervision, (2) the operator correctly identifying unique elements bearing machine-readable codes — items on lists, persons, sites, packages, pharmaceutical containers, etc. — and (3) correct treatment of those elements based on those identifications. The apparatus comprises:

• (a) a reading means for reading the machine-readable code data;
• (b) input/output means for communicating data with external data processing/storage (a host computer);
• (c) manual input means and output means for communicating with the operator (keypad, display, audible signals);
• (d) data storage means interconnected to (a), (b), and (c);
• (e) data processing means interconnected to the storage means that determines, by processing stored data, whether a particular identified element at the remote site has been correctly associated with at least one other identified element as required for the correct treatment; and
• (f) signal means that gives a first signal for a correct association and a second, different signal for an incorrect association.

Two limitations carry the inventive weight, and both are express claim language:

1. The storage means stores data received from the external computer listing which element codes must be associated for correct treatment; and
2. The elements that must be associated bear identifying codes that are not identical, explicitly stated to prevent the operator from defeating system integrity by reading the same code twice (addressing the "read the same label three times" circumvention described in the specification).

Dependent claims — plain language (all depend on claim 1)

• Claim 2 — Adds an internal clock feeding time-of-day to storage; the processor also checks whether the correct association was timely (storage holds required performance times), and the signals report that result.
• Claim 3 — Reading means is an optical bar code reader.
• Claim 4 — Reading means is optical, and the input/output communication includes optical coupling.
• Claim 5 — Adds printing means connected to storage for printing stored data.
• Claim 6 (dep. 5) — The printer is a hand-stamp printer in which the operator's stamping motion supplies the energy for the impact portion, reducing battery demand.
• Claim 7 (dep. 5) — Printing creates a record of the print operation back into storage (the sleeve/switch 13 mechanism).
• Claim 8 — The signal means is audible.
• Claim 9 — The display means is visible.
• Claim 10 — Recites the data-processing method steps: store a list of associated data sets from the host; store a first code reading; store at least one later, non-simultaneous code reading; determine whether the readings correspond to any stored associated set; give a first-type signal if correspondence exists and a second-type signal if not; and store the determination result.
• Claim 11 (dep. 2) — Same step sequence as claim 10, but with time-of-reading recorded at each read and time requirements included in the stored association sets, so correspondence and timing are both evaluated.

Disclosed embodiments (context for the claims)

The specification describes three applications: (i) a hospital medication system (nurse reads a patient wristband bar code, the worklist entry, and the unit-dose package label — all deliberately different codes the host computer knows correspond; audible "yes"/"no"/"double-yes" signals; time stamped by hand-stamp printer and logged in memory); (ii) a parcel delivery service (driver matches package label to delivery list, optionally a third code at the customer site); and (iii) a hospital laboratory / blood-draw system (matching wristband code to worklist entry before labeling specimens). The system is described as "fail safe and supervisory" because the worker continues her visual checks, and stored data is dumped into the central computer at the end of the round via output plug 8.

Notes and caveats

• The record is internally consistent across Google Patents, Unified Patents, uspto.report, and derivative databases for every field above. Minor variations in search results (e.g., some databases show one-day-shifted priority dates like 1978-05-30 or 1973-10-18) are database rounding artifacts for the cited references, not for US 4,628,193 itself, whose filing and priority dates are both 1980-01-30.
• No 2026 CAFC docket entry was found. Given the patent expired in 2003 and the statutory term has run, active Federal Circuit litigation over this patent as of April 2026 is improbable, but I cannot treat that as verified without a direct PACER/CAFC docket search, which I did not perform. Treat the "no litigation found" statement as an absence of search evidence, not a certified negative.
• The patent was filed 1980-01-30 and did not issue until 1986-12-09 — a roughly 6.9-year pendency, which is unusually long even for that era and may be relevant to any term-adjustment or intervening-rights analysis (I have not verified the prosecution history).

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 4628193 across patent litigation databases.

Let me check the Unified Patents litigation portal and other sources more specifically.

Let me try more targeted searches on litigation databases and court records.

Findings: No Known Litigation Involving US Patent 4,628,193

Based on my searches, I could not identify any litigation (district court, CAFC, ITC, or PTAB) involving U.S. Patent No. 4,628,193 ("Code Reading Operations Supervisor," Alvin S. Blum). To the best of my ability to verify, no litigation is known for this specific patent.

The patent at issue (for confirmation of identity)

• Patent: US 4,628,193 A — "Code Reading Operations Supervisor"
• Inventor: Alvin S. Blum
• Application: US 06/116,678
• Filed / Priority: 1980-01-30
• Granted: 1986-12-09
• Assignee (later): Becton Dickinson and Company (assignment recorded 1998-11-06, effective 1998-10-13)
• Legal status: Expired – Lifetime; anticipated expiration 2003-12-09

Searches performed and results

1. Unified Patents portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-4628193-A) — This page resolves to the patent's bibliographic page only. It returned cited references, "Referenced By," and related documents, but no litigation listing for this patent.
2. General web search for litigation ("US patent 4628193 litigation"; "4628193 patent lawsuit defendants") — No case names, dockets, or parties tied to this patent.
3. Search for "4,628,193" patent infringement — Returned only unrelated hits (e.g., a different "'628 Patent" belonging to MasterObjects asserted against Facebook; an IV/Docker dispute involving different patents).
4. Inventor/assignee‑focused search (Blum, Becton Dickinson, hospital medication barcode) — Did not surface any suit asserting this patent.

Apparent "false positives" I ruled out (do not match this patent)

• A PTAB exhibit (CBM2013‑00021, re US 5,966,440) that merely lists "4628193" inside an examiner's prior‑art search string — that is a search query, not litigation of the patent.
• A Brazilian corporate registration list (JUCISRS) containing a company ID "4628193" — unrelated.
• Australian application AU 4628193 (thrombin-inhibitor patent family) — a different document, different subject matter.

Important caveats

• Currency/coverage limits: Litigation databases and the sources I could reach do not exhaustively cover every federal district court docket, particularly pre‑2000 filings. I cannot affirmatively prove a negative; I can only state that no litigation was found in the sources searched.
• Timing: Because the patent expired on/about 2003-12-09, any enforcement would necessarily predate that date. The 1998 assignment to Becton Dickinson is a reassignment of ownership, not litigation. (Note: Becton Dickinson and a "Blum" do appear as assignor/assignee in a 1998 assignment record, which is frequently confused with litigation but is not.)
• If you need a definitive answer, I'd recommend a paid docket search (LexMachina, Docket Navigator, or a PACER/CAFC-wide full-text run) restricted to "4,628,193," since free web search may not index older or low-profile filings.

Bottom line: No litigation asserting or otherwise involving US 4,628,193 was located; on the evidence available, none is known.

I'll verify the structured "no PTAB activity" default against live sources before drafting.

Let me run confirmatory checks on the PTAB dockets and any litigation/assertion history that might have spawned a petition.

Let me do two final confirmatory checks — a PTAB-specific docket sweep and a check for pre-AIA Office proceedings that might be mistaken for AIA trials.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file against US 4,628,193 — the structured USPTO ODP block returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and my independent web sweep of PTAB decision sources, PTAB E2E (ptacts.uspto.gov), CourtListener, and third-party PTAB trackers surfaced no petition, institution decision, FWD, or appeal naming US 4,628,193 as the challenged patent (0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials).

That first-order answer is the strategically weaker point, though, and a defendant should not lead with it. The bottom line is harsher and simpler: this patent expired on 2003-12-09, roughly nine years before the first AIA trial petition was even filable (AIA trials became available 2012-09-16). A defendant facing assertion of US 4,628,193 does not need an IPR, because there is no live patent term left to infringe and no recoverable damages window — the § 286 six-year lookback reaches back only to 2020-10-01, sixteen-plus years after expiration. The absence of PTAB activity here is not a "the patent is hardened, better settle" signal; it is a "nobody ever needed to file because the patent was already dead by the time Congress created the forum" signal.

Proceedings

None. There is no proceeding to enumerate — no IPR20xx-#####, PGR20xx-#####, or CBM20xx-##### exists for this patent in the structured data or in any public source I could locate. I will not construct a number for an event that did not occur.

Verified factual predicates (from the authoritative patent record):

• Patent: US 4,628,193 A, "Code reading operations supervisor"; application US06/116,678; inventor Alvin S. Blum.
• Filed / priority: 1980-01-30. Granted: 1986-12-09. Anticipated expiration: 2003-12-09 (Google Patents legal-status entry; consistent with a pre-URAA 17-years-from-grant term, which exceeded 20-years-from-filing = 2000-01-30).
• Current assignee: Becton Dickinson and Company, per assignment recorded 1998-11-06 (effective 1998-10-13), Reel/Frame 009564/0974, assignor Blum, Alvin S.
• Terminal disclaimer / PTE: none reflected in the record reviewed.
• Claim set: 11 claims; independent claims 1 and 10; claims 2–9 depend from claim 1; claim 11 depends from claim 2.

Why no AIA trial exists (statutory timeline):

There is a ~3,203-day gap between expiration and the availability of AIA trials. Separately, CBM review was never available for these claims even during its 2012–2020 window: CBM is limited to patents whose claims are directed to a "financial product or service" (AIA § 18(d)(1)), and claims 1–11 are directed to a handheld code reader matching patient/package/parcel codes with worklist codes — a clinical and logistics apparatus, not a financial service. The § 18 CBM program also sunset on 2020-09-16.

False positives to expect when a defendant runs its own docket search — flagging these so nobody mispleads them:

1. "The '819 patent" in PTAB papers is NOT this patent. Board decisions and POPRs referencing an "'819 patent" with claim language about a "first signal," a "second signal," a "third signal," and a "common secret" (e.g., the Willey/§ 325(d) preliminary-response excerpts that surfaced in search) are addressing US 8,751,819, an entirely different patent by a different owner. I found no connection between that family and US 4,628,193. Do not cite that decision as being "about" this patent.
2. The Unified Patents portal page for US-4628193-A is a patent-record page, not a proceeding. Unified Patents (a defensive aggregator) maintains a public patent database that indexes millions of patents; an indexed page is not evidence that Unified Patents ever filed an IPR against this patent. I found no Unified Patents-challenged proceeding for US 4,628,193.
3. IPR2017-01586 (involving Becton Dickinson) is unrelated. That is the informative § 325(d) decision on the Advanced Bionics / Becton Dickinson framework, in a different dispute and against different patents. The only reason it can appear in a keyword sweep is the shared party name with this patent's current assignee.
4. CBM2013-00021 (US 5,966,440) mentions "4628193" only inside an Exhibit 1206 patent-search-history printout — a list of patent numbers queried by an examiner in an unrelated reexamination. Not a challenge to this patent.
5. There is no pre-AIA inter partes reexamination or ex parte reexamination of US 4,628,193 that I could confirm in public sources; the record shows no reexamination certificate. I state this with moderate, not high, confidence — reexam records from the 1980s–1990s are incompletely digitized, and a defendant should pull the official file wrapper from USPTO PatentCenter rather than rely on my negative finding.

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything is UNTESTED at the PTAB, and everything is expired everywhere else. No claim of US 4,628,193 has been canceled, confirmed, or construed in any AIA trial. Claims 1–11 all stand as issued — not because they survived a validity challenge, but because none was ever brought. The distinction matters enormously for how you pitch this: "the claims are intact" is a fact about the docket, not about the merits. A careful reading of the claim set (claim 1's element (f), which expressly requires that the associated elements "bear[] identifying codes which are not identical to prevent said operator from defeating the system integrity by reading one of said identifying codes twice"; claim 2's internal-clock timeliness ascertainment; claims 6–7's hand-stamp printer that both supplies its own impact energy and writes a print-event record back to storage) suggests a disclosure with real novelty for 1980 — and the 142 forward citations and the fact that Becton Dickinson took an assignment in 1998 are consistent with the patent having been commercially relevant. But merit is moot: there is no enforceable term.

Estoppel landscape is empty — and irrelevant. Because there is no FWD, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attached to any party, and no prior-art ground is foreclosed. In principle, a defendant faces no estoppel and could raise any § 102/§ 103 ground it liked. In practice this freedom is worthless, because the entire patent expired on 2003-12-09. Note also the reverse-direction trap: if a plaintiff pursues a pre-2003 damages theory, § 286 limits recovery to infringement occurring within six years before the complaint was filed — and today that window opens 2020-10-01, long after the patent's term ended. Absent some extraordinary claim (e.g., a § 271(f) or § 271(g) theory that somehow survived expiration, or a pre-expiration claim revived by a tolling agreement), there is no damages period to sue on. Any demand letter asserting this patent against present-day products should be treated as a bad-faith or machine-generated assertion.

Pattern signals. There is no petitioner pattern to detect — no repeat petitioner, no joinder, no defensive aggregator. Patent owner Alvin S. Blum never pursued a PTAB appeal of anything, because there was nothing to appeal; the 1998 assignment to Becton Dickinson transferred the patent roughly five years before it expired and roughly fourteen years before the PTAB existed in its current form. There is likewise no evidence that Becton Dickinson ever asserted US 4,628,193, and no litigation naming it as an asserted patent surfaced in my search. That absence of assertion history over a ~40-year life is itself a meaningful signal: the patent has been dormant, and any current assertion of it would be an anomaly warranting immediate scrutiny of the asserting party's chain of title and standing.

Recommended next steps

1. Lead with expiration, not the PTAB. If you are a defendant and someone asserts US 4,628,193, the dispositive response is that the patent expired 2003-12-09 and, under 35 U.S.C. § 286, the earliest actionable damages date from today is 2020-10-01 — more than sixteen years after the term ended. There is no live infringement theory. Cite the Google Patents legal-status entry (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US4628193A](/patent/US4628193A)/en) for the expiration date, and pull the official term record from USPTO PatentCenter.
2. Because no PTAB proceeding exists, there is no FWD to link and no disposition to quote. Do not characterize the absence as a merits endorsement. If opposing counsel argues "the patent has never been invalidated," the correct rejoinder is that no one had standing, time, or reason to try: the patent was dead before the forum opened.
3. Pull the file wrapper before conceding anything about Office proceedings. I could not confirm a reexamination certificate for this patent, and pre-2000 reexam records are incompletely digitized. Request the complete file history (US06/116,678, and any reexam file under the same patent number) via USPTO PatentCenter to close that gap. This is a diligence step, not a suggestion that a bar exists.
4. Check chain of title if a demand letter arrives. The only recorded assignment is Becton Dickinson and Company from Blum, effective 1998-10-13 (Ree1 009564/0974, recorded 1998-11-06). If the asserting party is not Becton Dickinson or a documented successor/assignee of record, demand the instrument; an unproven chain of title plus an expired patent is a strong basis for a Rule 11 / § 285 posture.
5. Verify the patent number against the "other '819" before drafting anything. Confirm the asserted patent is US 4,628,193 and not US 8,751,819 (or any other "819"-suffixed patent). Board decisions and POPRs containing "819" and signal-comparison claim language belong to the other family and have zero application here.
6. If, contrary to this report, a proceeding is found: the statutory trial clock is one year from institution (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)), the institution decision is due within six months of the petition's filing date (§ 314(b)), and any FWD would be appealable to the Federal Circuit under § 319. Search PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and PTAB decisions (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions) directly, and CourtListener's RECAP docket for any CAFC appeal (https://www.courtlistener.com/). As of 2026-10-01, all three return nothing for US 4,628,193.

Confidence note: I have high confidence that no AIA trial proceeding exists for US 4,628,193 — the structured ODP block is authoritative and the structured data shows "Expired - Lifetime" with no trial history, which my web sweep corroborates. I have moderate confidence regarding the complete absence of older administrative proceedings (reexamination) because of historical digitization gaps, as flagged in step 3. I did not locate any Federal Circuit appeal involving the patent.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 4,628,193 ("Code reading operations supervisor")

Patent: US 4,628,193 A · App. 06/116,678 · Filed 1980‑01‑30 · Issued 1986‑12‑09 · Status: Expired – Lifetime (term end 2003‑12‑09)
Source of record: Google Patents legal events, which mirror the USPTO assignment record (reel/frame cited below). Verification page: USPTO Assignment Center / legacy assignment search.

Inventors

Unusual patterns:

• Sole inventor, individually owned. There is no employment‑agreement assignment on record at filing, so no corporate applicant was behind the 1980 filing.
• Very long pendency: filed 1980‑01‑30, issued 1986‑12‑09 — approximately 6 years 10 months. That length is consistent with an interference or appeal‑heavy prosecution, though the file wrapper is not in the provided material and I cannot confirm the cause. (Stated as an observation, not a finding.)
• No inventor‑departure pattern to report: with a single independent inventor there is no "all inventors left the assignee" event. The only transfer on record occurred ~12 years after issuance and 18 years after filing.

Original assignee

Alvin S. Blum, as an individual. The patent issued unassigned — the "Original Assignee" field on Google Patents is "Individual," which is the record's way of showing no assignee of record at issuance.

• Product embodying the claims: No evidence BD or Blum ever commercialized the described hand‑held code‑reading supervisor. The specification is generic ("FIG. 1" device) with no model number, vendor, or trademark.
• Business of the eventual owner (Becton Dickinson and Company): global medical‑technology operating company — specimen collection (BD Vacutainer), infusion/medication management, and diagnostics. Operating, publicly traded (BDX), not dissolved, not in bankruptcy.
• Current status of the patent: expired 2003‑12‑09 (17‑year pre‑URAA term from issuance). Expiry means there is nothing left to assert.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO record contains exactly one post‑issuance assignment. Everything else is the original grant.

• 1998‑10‑13 (executed) / recorded 1998‑11‑06 — Reel 009564 / 0974
  • Conveyance: Assignment (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST)
  • Assignor: Alvin S. Blum (individual)
  • Assignee: Becton Dickinson and Company (New Jersey)
  • Correspondent: Not exposed in the fetched record. The Google Patents legal‑events entry carries only the owner name and reel/frame (REEL/FRAME:009564/0974). I searched for the reel/frame and the Blum→BD transfer and retrieved no correspondent attorney or filing firm. I will not infer one.
  • Context: Plain acquisition — the individual inventor conveyed his rights to a large operating medical‑device company. Effectively a late‑life transfer: the patent had ~5 years of term remaining and had already been in force ~12 years.

No other recorded events — no security agreements, no merger, no change of name, no releases/corrections, and no subsequent assignment away from Becton Dickinson. The chain terminates at BD.

Corroboration: Unified Patents portal entry for US‑4628193‑A lists the assignee as Becton Dickinson and Co, consistent with the reel/frame above. (Presence in Unified's database is a catalog entry, not evidence of assertion.)

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 4628193
    1980 : Filed by Alvin S Blum as individual
    1986 : Patent issued to Blum unassigned
    1998 : Assigned to Becton Dickinson and Co
    2003 : Patent term expired

NPE / troll‑pattern signals

Verdict

Insufficient data — effectively a clean, non‑NPE chain.

Justification: the entire recorded ownership history is (i) issuance to sole inventor Alvin S. Blum unassigned and (ii) a single 1998‑10‑13 assignment recorded at Reel 009564/0974 conveying the patent to Becton Dickinson and Company, an operating medical‑device manufacturer, where it stayed until the term expired on 2003‑12‑09. With only one post‑issuance link, no attorney correspondent exposed in the record, no litigation, and no shell/asserter entity anywhere in the chain, none of the eight NPE indicators is present; the patent has been dead for over two decades and carries no assertion risk. The one limitation on this conclusion is that the correspondent of record for the 1998 recording could not be retrieved — if a correspondent were later confirmed and matched a known NPE filing attorney, that would warrant re‑opening signal 3, though it would not change the terminal state of an expired patent.

Verify: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 4628193) · https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html

I'll research each cited reference to give you accurate, grounded prior-art analysis. Let me pull the key references.

Let me pull the remaining cited references to complete the picture.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 4,628,193 ("Code Reading Operations Supervisor")

Source of record: The authoritative full text supplied in this analysis is from Google Patents (https://patents.google.com/patent/US4628193/en), which lists 8 "Patent Citations (8)," all marked "cited by examiner." I did not perform a native USPTO PatentCenter/PACER docket query; findings below are grounded in the patent's own front-page citations plus web retrieval of the cited references. Per the operating rules I have interpreted every patent number literally and not auto-corrected anything.

Critical framing before the table: All eight references were cited by the examiner on the face of the patent and the claims still issued. This is strong (though not conclusive) evidence that no single reference teaches the full combination of claim 1. Also, under §102 a dependent claim incorporates all limitations of the claim from which it depends — so a reference cannot anticipate claim 3, 5, 8, etc. unless it also discloses every element of claim 1. I therefore separate "features a reference teaches" from "claims it actually anticipates," and I am explicit that none of the eight appears to fully anticipate claim 1 (and hence none stands alone as a §102 anticipation of any dependent claim).

1. Statutory posture of each reference vs. US 4,628,193 (filed / priority 1980-01-30)

The §102(e) point on US 4,251,798 is essential: because it issued 1981-02-17 — more than a year after the '193 application was filed (1980-01-30) but on an application filed before it — it can be prior art only as of its filing date under §102(e), not as a §102(a)/(b) printed patent.

2. Reference-by-reference analysis

(1) US 3,422,441 — "Binary Code Data Recorder System"

• Assignee: Lockheed Aircraft Corp. | Filed: 1965-09-13 | Issued: 1969-01-14
• Description: A binary-code data recorder system (no inventor of record shown in the '193 front page). Generalized machine-readable data recording.
• Relevance: Bears only on the generic "data storage means" element (claim 1(d)) and the "storing the data from a… code reading" steps of claims 10/11.
• Potentially anticipates: None as standalone. At most it is background art for claim 1(d). It contains nothing on reading identifying codes, associating elements, or correct/incorrect operator signaling.

(2) US 3,848,112 — "Identification System" ← most conceptually relevant to claim 1

• Assignee: Sherwood Medical Industries Inc. | Filed: 1970-12-02 | Issued: 1974-11-12
• Description (verified from text): A hospital patient wears an ID bracelet that dispenses a plurality of magnetically coded tags. A portable cross-check reader ("permanently readable") receives one tag, and also a similar tag identifying the treatment, and authorizes the treatment only when the two tags are identical. It also produces a print-out on a paper strip ("paper strip or web 39") at a tag reader 37.
• Relevance to the '193 claims: This is the closest cited art to the core concept of claim 1 — reading an identifying code, comparing data, and signaling authorization to proceed with a treatment. It touches claim 1(a) reading means, 1(d) storage, 1(e) "ascertain… correctly associated," and 1(f) signaling; and the print-out touches claim 5.
• Potentially anticipates: None in full. Two express claim-1 limitations defeat it:
  1. Non-identical codes (§1, final clause). Sherwood's system works only when the two tags are identical — the opposite of the '193 requirement that the codes "are not identical to prevent said operator from defeating the system integrity by reading one of said identifying codes twice."
  2. Loading association data from an external computer (§1, penultimate clause) and general-purpose re-programmability (§1(b)/(d)). Sherwood's reader is a dedicated tag comparator, not a portable unit re-loaded with a host-generated association list.
• Best citation for: relevance to claims 1, 5, 10 (not anticipation).

(3) US 3,991,299 — "Bar Code Scanner"

• Assignee: Norand Corporation | Filed: 1972-02-03 (continuation of application Ser. No. 223,112) | Issued: 1976-11-09
• Description (verified): A truly portable optical bar-code scanning probe with light detector, gain/level control, peak/crossover detectors, and a built-in error-detection circuit that sounds an "audio alarm" (23) when a misread/scan error occurs. The scanned data is transferred to a data collection and utilization system with a keyboard unit (10) and cassette tape recorder (245), and the item number may be displayed.
• Relevance: Directly relevant to claim 3 (optical bar-code reading means), claim 8 (audible signal), and claim 1(c) operator I/O.
• Potentially anticipates: None in full — its "alarm" signals a scan error, not a mismatch between two elements that must be associated, and it lacks the association/processing limitations of claim 1(e)–(f). Relevant only to the bar-code-reader and audible-signal subfeatures.

(4) US 3,932,730 — "Point-of-Action Billing Transactor"

• Assignee: Electronic Memories & Magnetics Corp. (inventor Biagio F. Ambrosio) | Filed: 1973-05-02 | Issued: 1976-01-13
• Description: A point-of-action billing transactor with data input and a print segment / line-segment decoder (a segmented printing mechanism) — i.e., a portable transaction/billing unit that records and prints data at the point of action.
• Relevance: Bears on claim 5 (printing means connected to storage) and, marginally, on claim 1's data-processing/recording.
• Potentially anticipates: None in full. Teaches a printer in a portable transaction device but nothing about matching two non-identical identifying codes with correct/incorrect operator signals.

(5) US 3,920,979 — "Electronic Check Writer"

• Inventor: Jack S. Kilby | Filed: 1973-10-19 | Issued: 1975-11-18
• Description: A keyboard-driven electronic check writer (data entry + printout of a negotiable instrument).
• Relevance: Generic relevance to claim 5 (printing means) and claim 1(c) manual input.
• Potentially anticipates: None. No code reading, no element-association logic.

(6) US 4,053,735 — "Assured-Check Computer-Based Bank Credit Disbursing System"

• Inventor: James N. Foudos | Filed: 1975-08-07 | Issued: 1977-10-11
• Description: A computer-based bank credit disbursing/check-assurance system that compares account/credit data against stored credit data to authorize or deny a transaction.
• Relevance: Relevant to the data-processing "ascertain a correct association" element (claim 1(e)) and to claim 10's determine/signal/store steps.
• Potentially anticipates: None in full. It is not a portable, field-carried unit for identifying physical elements at remote sites, and it does not use machine-readable code reading means to identify subjects/objects.

(7) US 4,158,194 — "Optical Recognition System"

• Assignee: Recognition Equipment Incorporated | Filed: 1976-12-27 | Issued: 1979-06-12
• Description: An optical recognition (OCR-type) system.
• Relevance: Relevant to claim 3 / claim 4 (optical reading means; and, for claim 4, optical-based data coupling).
• Potentially anticipates: None in full. It addresses the optical-reading subfeature only; it discloses nothing of the association-and-signal architecture of claim 1.

(8) US 4,251,798 — "Portable Laser Scanning Arrangement for and Method of Evaluating and Validating Bar Code Symbols" ← most relevant to claims 3, 5, 9

• Assignee: Symbol Technologies, Inc. | Filed: 1978-05-31 | Issued: 1981-02-17 (§102(e) art)
• Description (verified): A portable hand-held laser scanning head that reads bar-code symbols; includes a keyboard assembly to select a function, a decoder, a display assembly on the head, and a printer on the console that records each function selected.
• Relevance: Directly relevant to claim 3 (optical bar-code reading), claim 4 (optical reading + optical coupling I/O), claim 5 (printing means), claim 9 (visible display).
• Potentially anticipates: None in full — it is a bar-code reader/validator and recorder, with no cross-matching of two non-identical identifying elements and no correct/incorrect supervisory signaling per claim 1(e)–(f). It is only §102(e) art and cannot anticipate the dependent claims because it does not disclose the parent claim 1.

3. Claim-by-claim §102 synthesis

4. Bottom line (honest assessment)

• Most relevant prior art, ranked for claim 1: (1) US 3,848,112 (Sherwood Medical — patient-ID cross-check comparator); (2) US 4,251,798 (Symbol — portable bar-code reader with keyboard/display/printer); (3) US 3,991,299 (Norand — portable bar-code scanner with audio alarm and keyboard/display); (4) US 4,053,735 (Foudos — match-to-authorize data processing).
• Most relevant to specific dependent features: US 3,991,299 and US 4,251,798 → claims 3, 8, 9; US 4,251,798 and US 4,158,194 → claims 3, 4; US 3,932,730, US 3,920,979, US 4,251,798 → claim 5.
• Anticipation conclusion: No single one of the eight cited references anticipates claim 1, and therefore none anticipates any of dependent claims 2–11 in the strict §102 sense. Two claim-1 clauses appear to be the distinguishing limitations over the cited art: (i) the requirement that associated elements bear non-identical codes (expressly to defeat the "read the same code twice" circumvention — the opposite of Sherwood's identical-tag scheme), and (ii) the loading of the association list from an external data-processing/storage means. The hand-stamp printer powered by the stamping motion (claim 6) likewise appears in none of the cited art.
• Likely proper challenge theory: These references, individually and in combination, are better characterized as §103 obviousness art than as §102 anticipation — which is consistent with the examiner having cited all eight yet still allowing the claims.

Caveats: I did not run a native USPTO PatentCenter or full-text docket query; the citation set is taken from the authoritative Google Patents text supplied. I did not independently verify the internal contents of US 3,422,441, US 4,053,735, or US 4,158,194 beyond their front-page titles/dates (search resources were exhausted), so the description lines for those three are based on their official titles and bibliographic data rather than a full-text read — treat those specifics accordingly. The "current date" in the task header (2026-10-01) and the task body (April 26, 2026) differ; this does not affect the analysis, since the patent and all cited art predate both.

I'll research the eight prior-art references cited on the patent page so I can map them against the claims accurately.

Good detail on the key references. Let me pull the remaining cited references to complete the mapping.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent 4,628,193 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note. Per the task instruction, this analysis is confined to the eight prior-art references cited on the patent page (the "Patent Citations / Cited By examiner" set), which are the references the examiner actually considered. Google Patents URL for the patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US4628193](/patent/US4628193)/en. I was able to retrieve substantive disclosure text for US3422441, US3848112, US4053735, US4251798, and (partially) US3932730 and US4158194. For US3991299 and US3920979 I could only confirm the bibliographic record (title, dates) from the patent page itself — I did not obtain their specification text before my retrieval budget ran out, so anything I say about their specific disclosures is flagged as low-confidence and should not be relied on.

1. Legal framework and the level of ordinary skill

The application was filed 1980-01-30 (pre-AIA § 103). The governing test is the Graham v. John Deere framework, applied through the pre-AIA "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" inquiry as construed by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) — which was decided well after issuance but reflects the same substantive standard applied at the time (and governs any later PTAB/court challenge). Under KSR, a combination may be obvious not only where the references expressly suggest it, but where it reflects "a predictable variation," a "design incentive," or the "simple substitution of one known element for another" to achieve an anticipated improvement.

Person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) as of 1980-01-30. A worker with a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering or computer science and approximately two to three years' experience designing or integrating portable/hand-held data-collection terminals, optical (bar-code/OCR) readers, or microprocessor-based instruments; or, alternatively, a skilled technician with substantially more hands-on experience in the same art. This is the ordinary artisan the '193 patent's technology would have been assigned to in 1980 — the era of the Intel 4040/Motorola 6800 embedded systems expressly referenced in US4053735.

2. Scope and content of the prior art (the eight cited references)

3. Mapping the claim 1 elements to the prior art

The pattern is clear: every structural element of claim 1 is individually present in the cited art, and the two-code "compare-and-signal" heart of the claim is squarely taught by US3848112. The single limitation not met head-on is the requirement that the two associated codes be non-identical yet known-corresponding, expressly recited "to prevent said operator from defeating the system integrity by reading one of said identifying codes twice."

4. Combinations that would render the claims obvious

Combination A (the strongest § 103 case against claim 1): US3848112 + US4251798 + US4053735

Proposed combination. Take US3848112's cross-check reader (two-code comparison with an authorization signal) and substitute its magnetic-tag reading for the portable optical/bar-code reader of US4251798, housed in the portable, host-loadable, keyboard/display/memory architecture of US4053735.

Motivation to combine (explicit, not hindsight):

1. Same field and same problem. US3848112 states the exact problem the '193 patent attacks: identification errors because the nurse "rel[ies] on memory" instead of reading the identifying medium, and the invention "both initially identifies the patient, and subsequently provides a cross-check that a particular patient is to receive a particular treatment." This is the '193 specification's stated object almost verbatim (reduce medication/specimen mis-identification). A PHOSITA designing a 1980 field-verification device would naturally begin here.
2. US4251798 supplies the known, superior reading element. By 1980 optical bar-code reading was a recognized improvement over magnetic tags for attachment to wristbands, packages and dose labels; US4251798 shows it is a portable, hand-held, keyboard-and-display-equipped reader. Substituting a bar-code reader for a magnetic-tag reader is the "simple substitution of one known element for another" that KSR treats as obvious where the substitution yields predictable results. US3991299 (Norand bar-code scanner) and US4158194 (optical recognition) reinforce that machine-readable optical reading was routine.
3. US4053735 supplies the portable-terminal architecture and the host-loading. Its fixed unit downloads codes into the portable unit; the portable unit compares a code to a stored code and produces an error/disable response on mismatch, stores the results, and is battery-powered and hand-carried. A PHOSITA seeking a self-contained supervisor that (i) receives its instruction list from a central computer and (ii) works in the field would predictably incorporate this known architecture.
4. Reasonable expectation of success. Both the two-code comparison (US3848112) and the portable host-loaded comparison terminal (US4053735) were proven, working systems; combining them requires no new technology.

Result. Each of claim 1(a)–(f) is met by this combination. Claim 3 (optical bar-code reader) is met by US4251798/3991299; claim 5 (printing means) by US4053735's printer and US4251798's console printer; claim 6 (hand-stamp printer whose impact energy is supplied by the operator's motion) is met almost literally by US4053735's "manually powered print mechanism actuation" adopted expressly "to conserve battery power"; claim 7 (printing creates a record back into storage) is met by US4053735's print key actuating a switch that signals the control unit; claim 8 (audible signal) and claim 9 (visible display) are met by US4053735's indicator lights/displays and US3848112's indicator driver. Claim 10 (store list → store read 1 → store read 2 → determine correspondence → first/second signal → store result) is essentially the operating sequence of US3848112's cross-check reader as loaded and logged by the US4053735 architecture.

Combination B: US3422441 + US3848112 + US4251798

Proposed combination. Use US3422441's portable, carry-strap field recorder with a probe/plug reader, manual switch entry, removable storage, and central-station data dump as the physical platform; add US3848112's two-code cross-check/authorization logic; use US4251798 for optical code reading.

Motivation. US3422441 already discloses a hand-carried data recorder that captures both a read value and the object's distinct identifying codes (meter serial number, area code, rate code) for later central processing, and it already contemplates "redundancy check" recording. Combining it with the patient-ID cross-check of US3848112 addresses the same unsupervised-worker-error problem, and US3422441 supplies claim 1(b) (I/O via the removable cartridge to a central station) and claim 1(d) storage directly. The grouping of multiple distinct codes that all describe one object also begins to bridge the "non-identical codes" limitation.

Combination C: US4053735 + US3848112 + US3991299 (or US4158194)

Motivation. This is the "portable terminal + identifier" pairing variant. US4053735 contributes portability, keyboard, display, non-volatile storage, host-loaded codes, comparison-to-stored-code logic, mismatch signaling, and the manual printer; US3848112 contributes the two-object association/authorization concept; US3991299/US4158194 contribute the machine-readable code reader. This combination is materially the same reach as Combination A and fails/succeeds on the same limiting feature (below).

Dependent-claim-specific combinations

• Claim 2 (internal clock + timeliness check): US4053735 discloses a system clock/oscillator used for control; US3422441 discloses timestamped/framed recording. A PHOSITA adding a time-of-day stamp to a data-collection terminal (a ubiquitous practice in point-of-action billing, cf. US3932730) would predictably arrive at claim 2. Claim 11 (the method version with time-of-reading recorded) follows from that same addition.
• Claims 6–7 are the most vulnerable: US4053735's hand-powered printer and print-key-actuated switch map onto them almost element-for-element, as noted.
• Claims 8–9 (audible/visible signals) are plainly routine variants, and US3848112/US4053735 disclose indicator/display signaling.

5. The decisive limitation: non-identical codes "known to correspond"

This is where the § 103 case is genuinely contestable, and I want to be explicit rather than overstate the challenge.

Why it favors nonobviousness. The prior art the examiner cited, and in particular the closest reference, points the other way. US3848112 expressly requires the compared codes to be identical: treatment is authorized "only when the tags are identical." The '193 patent's claim 1 instead recites, as a positive limitation, that the associated elements "bear identifying codes which are not identical to prevent said operator from defeating the system integrity by reading one of said identifying codes twice." Under the pre-AIA "teaching away" doctrine, a reference teaching that the two compared codes must be the same can be argued to teach away from deliberately making them different. This limitation was almost certainly the point of novelty that carried claim 1 (the sole independent claim) to allowance during the unusually long ~6.9-year pendency, and it is the one element for which the cited set provides no direct, clean disclosure.

Why it may still be obvious (the counterargument a challenger would press).

1. Anti-fraud/anti-tamper motivation was known. US4053735 is preoccupied with tamper-resistance and defeating fraudulent entry — unique transfer codes, unique account codes, a unique user disbursement code, and a tamper-proof case designed to prevent a user from defeating the system. A PHOSITA given the '193 problem (an operator who could "run the reader over the same code three times") and US4053735's express concern with defeating operator fraud would have an articulated reason to require different codes the host knows to correspond. The '193 specification itself states this rationale — which cuts against nonobviousness, because it shows the solution is the natural response to a recognized risk.
2. Multi-code correspondence was known. US3422441 records one object using several distinct codes (reading + serial number + area code + rate code) that all identify the same meter. That is a disclosure that non-identical codes can be associated with one entity — the core of the disputed limitation — supporting the "predictable variation / design choice" theory under KSR.
3. It is a data-relationship choice, not a new mechanism. Making the patient brace/orlist/package codes different-but-corresponding requires only that the host load an association table, which claim 1(d) itself frames as routine data storage. A challenger would characterize it as an obvious security-motivated design choice.

Net assessment. A combination of US3848112 + US4251798 + US4053735 is a strong prima facie § 103 case against claim 1's apparatus elements and against most dependent claims (especially 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). The "non-identical, host-known-corresponding codes" limitation is the best — and probably the only — substantial nonobviousness redoubt, resting on US3848112's express "identical" requirement as a teaching-away argument balanced against the KSR "predictable security-motivated variation" counterargument. I cannot responsibly declare claim 1 obvious or non-obvious as a matter of law on this record; I can say the limitation is the crux and that reasonable examiners/panels could differ.

6. Graham secondary considerations

• Long-felt need / failure of others. Both US3848112 (1974) and the background of the '193 patent document that decades of wristband-and-worklist safeguards still produced frequent medication and specimen-identification errors. Persistent failure of the prior approaches (label pads, embossing systems described as "awkward" and solving "only part of the problem") supports nonobviousness.
• Industry adoption. The patent drew 142–210 forward citations, including the Clinicom patient-care and patient-identification/verification patents (US4835372, US4857716, US4850009, US4916441) and Brown's hospital error-avoidance system (US4857713) — evidence that the claimed approach became a recognized foundation for later bedside-verification systems. Assigned to Becton Dickinson and Company in 1998, a major medical-device firm, which is some evidence of commercial value.
• Caution on nexus. No evidence of a specific commercial product's success tied to this claim surfaced in the prior sections, and secondary considerations must be tied to the claimed invention to carry weight. I did not verify commercial-success or copying evidence, so these factors should be treated as suggestive, not established.

7. Bottom line

• Most vulnerable claims: claims 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (structures/displays/printers all shown in US4251798, US4053735, US3848112) and claim 10 (the store-compare-signal method, essentially US3848112 as implemented on the US4053735 terminal). Claims 6–7 in particular are nearly anticipated element-for-element by US4053735's manually-powered printer and print-key-actuated switch.
• Primary obviousness combination: US3848112 (two-code patient cross-check) + US4251798 (portable hand-held optical code reader with keyboard/display/printer) + US4053735 (portable, host-loadable, battery-powered terminal with non-volatile memory, comparison logic, error signaling, and manually powered printer) — with US3422441 and US3932730 as secondary references for the portable recorder/I-O and point-of-action printing features.
• Decisive limitation: the requirement under claim 1 that the associated codes be non-identical, which US3848112 arguably teaches away from (identical tags) but which KSR's "predictable, security-motivated design choice" reasoning, buttressed by US3422441's multi-code object identification and US4053735's anti-fraud codes, could be argued to render obvious.
• Claims 2 and 11 (clock/timeliness) are moderately vulnerable given the routine use of clocks in data-collection terminals (US4053735's system clock; US3422441's timed framing), but the combination for these is less cleanly documented in the retrieved text.

Reliability flag: I could not retrieve specification text for US3991299 and US3920979 and only partial text for US3932730 and US4158194; conclusions resting on those references are correspondingly weaker and should be re-verified against the full documents before being relied upon in any invalidity contention. This analysis covers only the eight references of record and does not exclude the existence of stronger non-cited art.