US 4882724

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

Let me check for litigation and any appellate activity specifically tied to this patent.

US Patent 4,882,724 — Verified Summary

Note on scope of my search: I searched for USPTO records and for any Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docket activity in 2026 tied to patent number 4882724. I found no CAFC 2026 docket, appeal, or opinion involving US 4,882,724. I am stating that as a negative finding rather than a confirmation — a Federal Circuit appeal in 2026 would be highly unusual for this patent in any event, because the record shows it expired (anticipated expiration) on 1987-10-14 priority + 20 years = 2007-10-14, with legal status "Expired – Lifetime." Any 2026 appellate activity I would expect to be unrelated; nothing contradicts that.

Bibliographic data (US 4,882,724 A)

Litigation on record: the Google Patents family page flags a US case in the Utah District Court, case 1:07-cv-00135 (Unified Patents litigation data), and a separate Darts-ip "first worldwide family litigation" entry. I did not obtain the parties, outcome, or asserted claims from an authoritative docket source, so I flag that as unverified. Separately, the European sibling was opposed: EPO Board of Appeal decision T 0157/01 ("Shopping Cart/KLEVER-KART"), 19 March 2003 — applicant Klever-Kart, Inc. v. opponent Wincor Nixdorf GmbH & Co. KG; appeal dismissed (inventive step: no; Art. 123(3) extension found for the 3rd auxiliary request). That is an EPO proceeding, not a US one.

Abstract (as published)

A communication system (22) for a marketing area (33) locates a light signal generating system (25) and a master computer (24) at a control center (23) and delivers message bearing light signals over optical channels (61) to predetermined subdivisions of the marketing area. Message relay units (27) are provided on the shopping carts for transmitting audio and/or visual messages to the shopper. Among the visual messages are a list of items available for purchase, a graphics display of the marketing area and its merchandise display facilities, a video picture of a product, and a traveling word message. The relay units have a computer (74) operating under control of the master computer, a signal receiving system (85), message signal storage facilities (112)(118)(122), and a message transmission system (71) including a video display device (72) and an audio transmission device (75). Shopper controls (126)(128)(129)(130)(131) record items destined for purchase and generate indicia on the graphics display indicative of item locations, and control (138) changes the size and viewing mode of the graphics display. Procedures for guiding shoppers and delivering messages are also disclosed.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

There are 19 independent claims (1, 21–27, 38, 40, 43, 45, 47, 51, 52, 56, 61, 62, 63), grouped as follows:

A. The core cart-mounted system — claim 1
A supermarket communication system with (a) message relay units carried on/movable with shopping carts and (b) equipment located apart from the units that generates message-bearing light signals receivable by them. Each unit has: a message transmission system with a video display device, a computer controlling that display, and a signal receiver connected to the computer. In plain terms: the store beams light-borne messages to a computer-driven screen riding on your cart.

B. Video-picture/light-delivery variants — claims 21–26
Same architecture, narrowed to the case where the signals include video picture signals showing transient images of purchasable items. Claim 21 covers the base combination plus a display control circuit. Claims 22–24 add a light signal generating system plus a signal delivery system of optical channels that are offset from and overlie the marketing-area floor, each channel serving a predetermined subdivision; claim 23 adds the unit's computer and receiver, and claim 24 adds a return-path light signal generator on each unit plus remote detecting means (i.e., the cart-locating feedback loop). Claims 25–26 shift the focus to the control-center side: generating system, optical-channel delivery network, a remote computer, and a visually displayable message file storage facility that the computer feeds to the generator; claim 26 requires units fixed to and mounted on the carts, messages delivered to a contiguous plurality of subdivisions defining a zone, and per-unit display/computer/receiver.

C. The cart + relay unit combination — claim 27
A combination claim (not a system claim): a shopping cart, a relay unit supported by and movable with it, and means for generating/delivering messages including a video picture of a selectable item, the unit having a video display, a controlling computer, and a receiver.

D. Shopper-guidance methods — claims 38, 40, 43, 45, 47

• 38: Method of guiding a shopper: keep a computer-controlled video display on/moving with the cart, generate a list of available items, and generate indicia associated with the listed items indicating their locations in the store.
• 40: Adds generating a graphics display of the floor plan and layout of the merchandise display facilities.
• 43: Generates a first set of location indicia while the list is displayed and a second set positioned relative to the depicted display facilities while the graphics display is shown.
• 45: Graphics display plus an indicium showing the cart's relative location in the area.
• 47: Graphics display of only a portion of the marketing area, with indicia showing item locations within that portion (the "local/proximate area" mode).

E. Advertising-message delivery methods — claims 51, 52, 62, 63

• 51: Support a relay unit with a video display on the cart, transmit a signal bearing an advertising message with a video picture of a purchasable item, receive and deliver it to the display, and control the display with a computer.
• 52: Same, but the signal is passed into a predetermined zone and detected there.
• 62: The generic version — advertising message passed into the area, received, delivered to the message transmission system, computer-controlled (no video requirement).
• 63: The audio analogue — audio advertising message passed into a zone, detected, delivered to an audio transmission system, computer-controlled.

F. Combination claims with computer hierarchy / handle mount — claims 56, 61

• 56: Combination of shopping cart + relay unit + generating/delivering means that include video pictures, the means having a computer controlling signal generation, and the unit having a message transmission system and a receiver.
• 61: Combination where the relay unit is mounted on the cart handle (nestable basket with handle above it), the generating means has a first computer, and the unit has a second computer operating under the control of the first — i.e., master/slave computer control.

Notable supporting subject matter (context, not claims)

The specification describes a control center with an encoder that prepends subdivision-address components and appends reset components; an LED array driving an optical-fiber network with mirrors at each channel terminal projecting a square light pattern into each subdivision; and a cyclic time-slot scheme (FIG. 4/4A–4D) allocating frames to a sync signal, per-cart cart finder signals, per-cart cart location signals, the shopping list, the graphics display, and per-production video, traveling word, and audio messages, transmitted in burst increments each cycle. The relay unit stores the shopping list, graphics, video, traveling-message, and audio data in dedicated storage facilities, runs on a power supply recharged by a solar cell array on top of the unit, and is de-energized at checkout (erasing the Selected Product Record).

Uncertainties I want to flag

1. No CAFC 2026 docket found for 4,882,724; I cannot affirmatively rule one out, only report that my searches surfaced none, and the expired-lifetime status makes one improbable.
2. The Utah District Court 1:07-cv-00135 case is cited in machine-generated litigation metadata; I did not independently verify parties, claims asserted, or disposition.
3. The WO family member lists a priority date of 1987-10-13 and application date 1988-10-05, while the US application was filed 1987-10-14 — these are reported literally as the sources give them, and I am not harmonizing them.
4. Minor source inconsistency: the issued claims as reproduced on Google Patents show independent claim 22 without an "(a)" label on its first element, while claim 21 and 23–26 have it. That is how the text reads; I have not corrected it.

I'll search for litigation records on US patent 4882724.

Initial results were noisy. Let me target the specific litigation referenced on the patent's Google Patents page and other focused searches.

Found a lead: Klever Marketing v. CABCO et al, 1:2007cv00135 (D. Utah). Let me get details on this case and check for others.

Summary of findings on U.S. Patent No. 4,882,724

I searched for litigation records specifically tied to US 4,882,724 ("Shoppers communication system and processes relating thereto," Vela et al., granted Nov. 21, 1989; originally assigned to individual inventors, later Vela Group, Inc., then Klever-Kart, Inc.). Here is what I could verify.

Confirmed litigation

Source: Docket listing at https://dockets.justia.com/docket/utah/utdce/1:2007cv00135/63507

Corroborating linkage to the '724 patent

• Google Patents lists this patent under a "Family has litigation" entry pointing to the Utah District Court case 1:07-cv-00135, which is the same case number as Klever Marketing v. CABCO et al. (Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4882724/en)
• Google Patents also flags a "First worldwide family litigation filed" record via Darts‑ip for the patent family (family ID 22322197).
• The timing is notable: the '724 patent carried an anticipated expiration date of October 14, 2007, and this suit was filed October 10, 2007 — four days before that date. (Note that the patent's later file-wrapper activity shows a continuation, US 5,630,068, filed Jan. 5, 1994, which may also be relevant to any family litigation, but I did not find a case expressly asserting that patent either.)

Cases I could NOT confirm

• No CAFC appeal of Klever Marketing v. CABCO was found in my searches.
• No other district-court case naming US 4,882,724 was found. My searches returned unrelated matters (e.g., BTG International v. Microsoft, Bott v. Four Star, Acacia Media Technologies v. New Destiny Internet Group, and various unrelated dockets) that merely matched on incidental terms and do not involve this patent.

Important caveats

1. Search limitations. I was cut off by a tool step limit before I could fully run the docket to a disposition or check PACER/Unified Patents case lists exhaustively. My conclusions are based on the sources retrieved above.
2. Title-based inference. The dockets.justia entry for Klever Marketing v. CABCO does not itself name the asserted patent; the connection to the '724 patent rests on the Google Patents "family litigation" cross-reference pointing to the identical case number. Treat that linkage as strong but not independently verified from the docket text.
3. No fabrication. I will not speculate on settlement terms, damages, or a termination date, because I did not find them. If a definitive disposition is needed, it should be confirmed directly through PACER for D. Utah case 1:07-cv-00135 or via Unified Patents' litigation portal.

Bottom line: The only confirmed litigation involving US 4,882,724 is Klever Marketing v. CABCO et al, No. 1:2007cv00135 (D. Utah, filed Oct. 10, 2007, Judge Tena Campbell). Its outcome is not established by the records I was able to retrieve.

I'll start by checking the structured source and then searching for any PTAB activity on this patent.

The first searches returned unrelated content. Let me run more targeted queries.

Let me search specifically for PTAB and litigation records involving this patent and its owner.

PTAB proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0 (zero). The structured source in this prompt (USPTO Open Data Portal) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for US 4,882,724, and my web searches surfaced no PTAB proceeding number against this patent. Breakdown by status is therefore: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied. For a defendant today, the bottom line is not "the patent is hardened by surviving IPRs" — it is that the patent expired on 2007-10-14 and was never reachable by the AIA trial regime, whose IPR/CBM provisions only took effect 2012-09-16. Any assertion you face is a pre-AIA, expired-patent assertion, and your principal defenses live in district court (laches/damages window, § 101/§ 112, invalidity under pre-AIA §§ 102/103), not in an IPR.

No PTAB proceeding to report

There is no proceeding number, panel, institution decision, FWD, or appeal to describe. Per the operating constraints I will not manufacture one. What I can report are two adjacent data points that are explicitly not PTAB proceedings and must not be mistaken for them:

---

(Not a PTAB proceeding) T 0157/01 (Shopping Cart/KLEVER-KART) — EPO Board of Appeal 3.5.01

• Type: European opposition appeal (EPO Boards of Appeal) — not an AIA trial
• Decided: 2003-03-19 (ECLI:EP:BA:2003:T015701.20030319; decision "online 2003-09-12")
• Parties: Applicant/Appellant KLEVER-KART, INC; Opponent Wincor Nixdorf GmbH & Co. KG
• Application: EP 88908639.3, "Shopping cart display system" (the apparent EP family member of the WO 1989/003555 / PCT/US1988/003432 filing that claims priority to the same 1987-10-14 US application)
• Outcome: "The appeal is dismissed." Keywords per the EPO: Inventive step (no); Extension of protection conferred (yes, 3rd auxiliary request); Denial of right to be heard (no).
• Source: https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t010157eu1
• Caveat / fabrication control: I could not independently confirm the EP application is the direct counterpart of US 4,882,724 (family linkage is inferred from applicant name, subject matter, and the 1988 PCT/US filing). Treat the correspondence as apparent, not proven.
• Defensive value: This is a European ruling on inventive step and claim scope. It has no preclusive or estoppel effect on a US PTAB or district court proceeding. It is at most useful § 282 / § 103 context about how a foreign tribunal viewed the same disclosure with different prior art and different claim language — do not cite it as invalidity evidence in a US case without independent US art.

---

(Not a PTAB proceeding) District Court litigation — D. Utah 1:07-cv-00135

• Type: District court (patent) litigation in the Family Litigation record on Google Patents — not an AIA trial
• Docket: 1:07-cv-00135, District of Utah (source listed: Unified Patents Litigation Data, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Utah%20District%20Court/case/1%3A07-cv-00135; and Darts-IP family 22322197)
• Filing year: 2007 — the same year the patent's anticipated expiration fell (2007-10-14)
• Parties / outcome: Not verified. I did not retrieve the complaint, party names, or disposition, and I will not guess them. Note also that the "Unified Patents" attribution here is a data-source citation for the litigation database — it is not evidence that Unified Patents filed a challenge against this patent. Do not read a defensive aggregator into the chain on this record.
• What to do: Pull the PACER docket for 1:07-cv-00135 (D. Utah) before relying on it; a 2007 case against a patent expiring in October 2007 likely resolved around or after expiration.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: no claim of US 4,882,724 has been canceled or sustained in any PTAB proceeding, because no PTAB proceeding exists. Every claim is, in the jargon of an IPR practitioner, "untested at the PTAB" — but the more important fact is that the whole patent is untestable in an AIA trial going forward. Three structural bars, each independently fatal:

1. PGR is categorically unavailable. Post-grant review applies only to patents with an effective filing date on or after 2013-03-16. This patent's priority date is 1987-10-14.
2. IPR is practically unavailable and now moot. IPR became available 2012-09-16; the patent's anticipated expiration was 2007-10-14 and Google Patents' legal status is "Expired - Lifetime." An IPR could in principle have been filed post-expiration, but there is no commercial reason for anyone to do so, and no one did.
3. CBM is unavailable. The CBM transitional program opened 2012-09-16 and closed 2020-09-16. A supermarket shopper-communication/optical-signal system is also, on its face, not directed to a "financial product or service," which is the threshold § 18(a)(1)(E) gate; a CBM petition today would be time-barred and substantively vulnerable on the "covered business method patent" definition.

Estoppel landscape: There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel of any kind against anyone, because no petitioner ever received an institution decision. That cuts for you: a defendant is free to raise any prior-art ground under pre-AIA § 102/§ 103 and any § 101/§ 112 ground in district court, with no IPR-derived narrowing. But it also means the PTAB is a dead end for you — you cannot use the IPR track to invalidate cheaply, and you cannot leverage an institution decision as settlement pressure.

Pattern signals: No repeat petitioner, no multi-IPR pattern, no PTAB appeal history, no aggregator challenge. The prosecution/ownership chain of record — Individual → VELA GROUP, INC. (assignment recorded 1992-08-14) → KLEVER-KART, INC. (assignment recorded 2002-03-19; Google Patents lists Klever-Kart as current assignee) — ended in an expired patent. A continuation exists in the family (US 08/177,708, filed 1994-01-05, granted as US 5,630,068; and CA 1332848C), and that later patent — not 4,882,724 — is where any live assertion risk would more plausibly sit. Check US 5,630,068 for PTAB activity separately; it I did not search, and I will not report a null result for a patent I did not query.

---

Recommended next steps

• Confirm the null PTAB result yourself before relying on it in a brief: search PTAB E2E / the PTAB "Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End" search and the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions page for "4,882,724" and for assignee "Klever-Kart." I was not able to open PTAB E2E in this session, so treat the ODP "no proceedings" field as the canonical basis, not my searches.
• If a demand letter cites US 4,882,724, the strongest immediate responses are: (i) the patent expired 2007-10-14 per Google Patents' legal status ("Expired - Lifetime"); and (ii) there is no PTAB record to bolster. Quantify the damages window — an expired patent can still support past damages within the § 286 six-year lookback, so expiration is not a complete defense, but it collapses the exposure period and undercuts any injunction theory.
• Rule out PGR/IPR/CBM expressly in writing. A short memo citing: PGR — effective filing date 1987-10-14 (pre-2013-03-16); IPR/CBM — patent expired 2007-10-14, CBM window closed 2020-09-16 and § 18(a)(1)(E) "financial product or service" gate not met. This forecloses a counterparty's suggestion that post-grant relief is available.
• Pull the D. Utah 1:07-cv-00135 docket and whatever settlement/license came out of it — prior licenses and the 2007 posture are the most likely source of a § 282 / standing / exhaustion argument.
• Search the continuation US 5,630,068 for IPRs. If the assertion you are facing targets claim scope rather than this specific number, that is where the invalidity work should go — and there may be PTAB activity there that this prompt's structured block does not cover.
• Do not over-read the EPO decision. T 0157/01 (dismissed appeal; inventive step held lacking in Europe) is useful background only and carries no US estoppel; verify the family linkage before citing it.

I'll research the assignment record for US 4,882,724, focusing on USPTO Assignment Center records, reel/frame numbers, and correspondents of record.

Let me try the USPTO assignment databases directly and other query formulations.

Let me try more specific searches for the reel/frame records and the correspondent attorneys.

Research note before the sections

I was unable to retrieve the underlying reel/frame numbers, execution dates, or correspondents of record from USPTO Assignment Center (or its assignment.uspto.gov predecessor) for US 4,882,724 within this session. My assignment-specific queries returned no direct Assignment Center hits. What I can verify is that two post-issuance assignment events exist and are recorded — they are surfaced as legal events on the Google Patents record (https://patents.google.com/patent/US4882724/en) because Google mirrors USPTO assignment data. Those two events give me assignor/assignee/date but not reel/frame or correspondent. I am flagging that gap explicitly rather than inventing reel/frame values, because a fabricated reel number would be worse than an admitted blank. Where I could not verify, I say so.

---

Inventors

Pattern note: This is an inventor-owned filing. The "Original Assignee" field on the issued patent reads "Individual" — meaning no employer obtained assignment before issuance, so the three inventors each held an undivided interest as tenants in common at grant. That is the opposite of the "all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months" fire-sale pattern you asked me to watch for; there was no corporate assignee to depart from. The inventors instead later formed their own vehicle (Vela Group, Inc., 1992) to hold the patent. That is the profile of a founder/inventor group commercializing a startup, not of employees whose rights were funneled to an operating company.

---

Original assignee

None at issuance. Original assignee = "Individual" (the three inventors collectively).

Their own holding entity, Vela Group, Inc., was not formed/used as the assignee until the 1992-08-14 recorded assignment — nearly three years after the 1989-11-21 grant.

Product / business / status: Not established from the record I retrieved.

• The invention is a shopping-cart-mounted electronic display and in-store messaging system for supermarkets. The specification is directed to a concrete commercial deployment (supermarket floor plans, checkout lanes, optical-fiber ceiling network, solar-recharged cart units).
• The current assignee of record, Klever-Kart, Inc., appears to be a genuine shopping-cart hardware/marketing-cart company, not a licensing shell — Klever-Kart, Inc. is also the assignee of record on US 6,177,880, "Automated shopping cart handle" (a later cart-hardware patent). That is consistent with an operating manufacturer.
• Whether Klever-Kart ever shipped a commercial product embodying the '724 claims (a smart-cart system of the type described) is not verified in materials I retrieved. I will not assert it either way.
• Current status of all entities (operating / acquired / dissolved / bankruptcy): not determined. No SEC filings, bankruptcy dockets, or dissolution records were surfaced for Vela Group, Inc. or Klever-Kart, Inc. in my searches.

---

Assignment timeline

Caveat repeated: The two entries below are real recorded events (mirrored from USPTO assignment data), but I could not retrieve reel/frame numbers, execution dates (as distinct from recording dates), or the correspondent of record. I therefore cannot report correspondents — which is the single most important field for your NPE-analysis purpose. I mark those fields as [not retrieved].

• Executed [not retrieved] / recorded 1992-08-14 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF INTEREST")
  • Assignor: SASSER, THURMAN; VELA, LEO; MARTIN, ROGER L. (all three inventors)
  • Assignee: VELA GROUP, INC.
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved] — cannot assess recurrence.
  • Context: Internal reorganization / founder consolidation. The individual inventors pooled their undivided interests into their own newly used holding entity. Not a fire-sale, not a third-party acquisition.

• Executed [not retrieved] / recorded 2002-03-19 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: VELA GROUP, INC.
  • Assignee: KLEVER-KART, INC.
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved] — cannot assess recurrence.
  • Context: Transfer to the operating commercializer. The patent moved from the inventors' holding company to the entity that (per its later cart-hardware filings) appears to be the operating shopping-cart company. Appears to be a corporate transfer, not a transfer-to-asserter.

No further post-2002 assignments are on record. The chain terminates at Klever-Kart, Inc. — i.e., it was never sold into an NPE/shell LLC. The patent expired 2007-10-14 and its legal status is "Expired – Lifetime."

Contradiction / discrepancy to flag: The plaintiff in the only identified suit is "Klever Marketing" (Klever Marketing v. CABCO et al, D. Utah 1:2007cv00135, filed 2007-10-10), whereas the recorded assignee of record is "Klever-Kart, Inc." Klever Marketing is not the assignee of record in the timeline above. These may be affiliated entities (common principals), or "Klever Marketing" may be a trade name/related company — but the assignment record does not show a transfer to "Klever Marketing," so I cannot reconcile the plaintiff's standing with the recorded chain. This is a genuine inconsistency in the sources and I am surfacing it rather than harmonizing it.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 4882724
    1987 : Filed by Vela Sasser and Martin as individuals
    1989 : Patent issued to individual inventors
    1992 : Assigned to Vela Group Inc
    2002 : Assigned to Klever-Kart Inc
    2007 : Suit by Klever Marketing v CABCO in Utah
    2007 : Patent expires anticipated Oct

(Mermaid timeline event text kept punctuation-free; the label "anticipated Oct" is shortened from the 2007-10-14 anticipated expiration.)

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The chain (inventors → Vela Group, Inc. → Klever-Kart, Inc.) contains no "IP/Holdings/Licensing/Ventures" style licensing LLC. Klever-Kart, Inc. is a product-company name and is the assignee on a later cart-hardware patent (US 6,177,880, "Automated shopping cart handle"). No transfer into a single-purpose Delaware/Texas LLC is on record. (Reel/frame not retrieved, so I flag this as "not present on the evidence I have," not as a certified absence.)

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Neither Vela Group, Inc. nor Klever-Kart, Inc. appears on any of the public NPE rosters you listed (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). No Unified Patents / RPX high-frequency-plaintiff match was surfaced for either entity.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / cannot be assessed. The correspondents of record for the 1992 and 2002 recordings were not retrievable in this session. This is a necessary blank, not a negative finding — the recurrence test cannot be run without the correspondent field. If the same attorney/agent appears on both recordings (or on other Klever-family filings), that would be the one place a repeat-player pattern could hide here; I could not check it.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Only two assignments exist, separated by ~10 years (1992 → 2002), not a <24-month chained-LLC cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The last recorded transfer (2002-03-19) predates the 2007-10-10 suit by ~5.5 years. There is no assignment within 6 months of the litigation. The only notable timing is that the complaint was filed 4 days before the patent's anticipated expiration (2007-10-14) — a "last-gasp" filing, but not a pre-litigation transfer signal.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present / not found. No bankruptcy record for Vela Group, Inc. or Klever-Kart, Inc. was surfaced, and there is no recorded transfer to a buyer out of any estate.

7. Privateering — Not present on the evidence. No SEC filing or coverage showing an operating company transferring to an NPE to assert on its behalf against competitors was found. The litigation was brought by a Klever-affiliated plaintiff, i.e., the apparent owner-family asserting its own patent — the inverse of privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. The patent expired in the hands of Klever-Kart, Inc.

Net signal count: zero strong NPE signals; one genuine unverifiable field (correspondent) that could not be tested.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification: the recorded chain runs inventor-owned → Vela Group, Inc. (1992-08-14) → Klever-Kart, Inc. (2002-03-19) and then stops — there is no shell-LLC transfer, no known asserter, and no cascade or pre-litigation transfer; the patent expired in the hands of Klever-Kart. The single suit (Klever Marketing v. CABCO, D. Utah 1:2007cv00135, filed 2007-10-10) was brought by a Klever-affiliated party against a shopping-cart competitor, which is the operating-company-assertion profile rather than an NPE profile, and multiple enumerated NPE signals test not present on the evidence available.

Confidence caveat: This verdict rests on assignor/assignee/date data only. I could not retrieve reel/frame numbers or the correspondents of record, so the repeat-correspondent test (the most sensitive NPE tell) is untested, and I could not independently confirm that Klever-Kart shipped products embodying the '724 claims or that "Klever Marketing" shares the assignee's ownership. A four-day-before-expiry filing also warrants no exculpatory gloss. If exact reel/frame/correspondent values are required, they must be pulled directly from USPTO Assignment Center (search by patent number 4882724) — the records exist; I simply could not read their detail fields from here.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (patent-number search: 4882724), with the Google Patents mirror at https://patents.google.com/patent/US4882724/en under "Reassignments."

I'll research the prior art citations for US 4,882,724. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me find the actual front-page "References Cited" of US 4,882,724 itself.

Let me pull the actual front-page references from dedicated patent databases.

Prior Art Analysis — US 4,882,724 (Vela et al.)

0. Critical sourcing note — please read first

I must be explicit about an evidence limitation before giving any citations, because the task asks me to "look at each patent citation for 4882724" and I want to avoid presenting reconstructed content as verified record.

• I confirmed the patent's identity (US 4,882,724 A, "Shoppers communication system and processes relating thereto," appl. no. 07/108,437, filed 1987‑10‑14, granted 1989‑11‑21, inventors Vela / Sasser / Martin) — consistent with the previously generated sections.
• I was not able to retrieve the patent's own front‑page "References Cited" (U.S. Patent Documents) list from a primary source within my search budget. The Google Patents full text supplied to me is truncated and does not include the "Patent Citations" block, and my supplementary searches returned citation tables about other patents, not the '724 front page.
• Consequence: the specific list below is not a verified reproduction of the '724 front page. Where I list a reference, I say exactly what I observed (number, inventor, date) and flag any element I could not verify (e.g., title, filing date, examiner's category). I will not invent a § 102 chart and present it as the examiner's own.

If a verbatim, authoritative citation list is required, it must be pulled from the USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter "References Cited" tab for application 07/108,437, or from the printed front page of the granted patent (page 1, columns 1–2). I can run that lookup if you re‑authorize a tool session.

---

1. First, a distinction that governs this whole analysis

There are two opposite directions of citation, and conflating them is the single most common error in this kind of request:

The overwhelming majority of what surfaced in my searches — US 4,973,952 (Malec), US 5,287,266 / 5,295,064 (Malec), US 5,630,068 (Vela, the '724 continuation), US 5,703,564 and the whole Begum cart‑handle family, US 5,420,606, US 6,013,244, etc. — are forward citations from design and utility patents owned by Symbol Technologies, Springboard Retail Networks, Cuesol and similar. They are not prior art to the '724 and I exclude them from the § 102 analysis.

Similarly, the citation of US 4,882,724 as "X" art against later cases (EP 1 003 119 A3, GB 2 417 347 A, WO 2004/084104, EP 1 581 901 B1, and the PTAB/IPR papers citing "Vela '724") shows only that '724 later became prior art to others — again not its own prior art.

---

2. Candidates for the '724's own prior art (with verification status)

The following references I could actually observe in retrieved search‑report tables, and they cluster plausibly with the '724's subject matter. All are shown with only the elements I verified. Titles are deliberately omitted where I could not confirm them.

Bottom line on sourcing: the only reference I can state with high confidence was actually mapped to the Vela disclosure as invalidating ("X") art — by a patent office, in a search report on the same family — is Baus, EP 0 170 194 A1 (1986‑02‑05). Everything else is candidate/contextual.

---

3. § 102 analysis (stated as conditional, keyed to claim groups)

Because I cannot verify the examiner's own application of these references, the following is my analysis, not the Office's. I use the claim grouping from the previously generated summary and the pre‑AIA statute (application filed 1987‑10‑14, so § 102(a)/(b)/(e)/(g) and the 1‑year bar of § 102(b), i.e. publications before 1986‑10‑14, are in play).

3.1 Baus — EP 0 170 194 A1 (pub. 1986‑02‑05) — strongest candidate

• Description: a store information/output system associated with the shopper's path through the sales floor. As cited by the ISA it was mapped to claims covering a cart‑associated unit that receives information and outputs it to the shopper as the shopper traverses the premises, and to location‑responsive output. That is precisely the architectural core of the '724.
• § 102 exposure:
  • Claim 1 — potentially, on the "relay unit movable with the cart + remotely generated signals + computer‑controlled display" combination, if Baus discloses a cart‑borne display with its own control computer. Uncertain without the reference text.
  • Claims 45 (cart‑location indicium) and 24 / 52 (zone‑ or location‑conditioned delivery) — plausible § 102 exposure, because location‑responsive delivery is the asserted point of Baus.
  • Claims 22 / 47 (optical‑channel or "local area" delivery) — only if Baus uses optical/floor‑associated channels; I could not verify that, and the '724's optical‑fiber‑over‑floor delivery is likely a genuine point of distinction.

3.2 Gomersall et al., US 4,500,880 (1985‑02‑19)

• Description: electronic display system in which data (price/promotional information) is transmitted from a central source to in‑store electronic display devices. This is the classic electronic shelf‑label art.
• § 102 exposure: directed mainly at claims 25–26 and 51–52, 62 (central generator + message‑file storage + delivery of displayable messages to plural remote display units). It does not, so far as I know, place the display on a shopping cart or require shopper interactivity — so it is better characterized as § 103 material (central‑display delivery + cart‑mounted display unit being the combination) than as a clean § 102 anticipation of the cart‑centric independent claims.

3.3 Gogulski, US 4,071,740 (1978‑01‑31) and the cart‑structure art (Akers, Bush, Haarhaus, Ehrat, Marmon)

• § 102 exposure: principally the structural independents — claim 27 (cart + supported relay unit) and claim 61 (relay unit mounted on the cart handle). These patents are cart/rack/handle hardware from 1956–1982; on their face they would not disclose a computer‑controlled video display. They are relevant only as background for the handle‑mount limitation of claim 61, and I would expect them to be § 103 references at best when combined with display/computer art.

3.4 Clyne et al., US 4,373,133 (1983‑02‑08) and Baus US 4,750,151 (1988‑06‑07)

• Status: unverified as to content, and date‑problematic. US 4,750,151 issues after the '724 filing; any § 102(e) argument would have to rest on its U.S. filing date, not its German priority (Hilmer). I flag this as not established rather than asserting it.

3.5 Method claims (38, 40, 43, 45, 47, 51, 52, 62, 63)

Method claims that recite the generating steps are harder to anticipate with any of the above, because '724's independent method claims are premised on a computer‑controlled video display moving with the cart. The closest realistic § 102 attack is on claim 63 (audio advertising to a zone) and claim 62 (generic advertising message to the area), which are the least structurally specific independents — a location‑responsive in‑store advertising system (Baus‑type, or a store broadcast system) is the most plausible anticipatory art there.

---

4. What I would need to close the analysis properly

To give you a defensible, claim‑by‑claim § 102 chart I need, and do not currently have, the following:

1. The verbatim front‑page "References Cited" list of US 4,882,724 (USPTO PatentCenter, application 07/108,437, "References Cited" tab) — including any foreign patent documents and other publications cited, which my searches did not surface at all.
2. The full text of Baus EP 0 170 194 A1 (and its DE 3 428 104 A1 original), since it is the only reference I can currently tie to an office's "X" designation against this family.
3. The EPO opposition file for the '724 family and the appealed decision T 0157/01 ("Shopping Cart/KLEVER‑KART," 19 March 2003, appellant Klever‑Kart/opponent Wincor Nixdorf) — the prior‑art cited there would be a strong indicator of what the family's actual weakest points are, and it is referenced in the previously generated summary.
4. The Wincor/other party invalidity contentions in Klever Marketing v. CABCO, D. Utah No. 1:07‑cv‑00135 (filed 2007‑10‑10, four days before the '724's 2007‑10‑14 anticipated expiration), if any were filed — noted in the prior litigation section as unverified.

---

5. Honest summary

• Patent confirmed: US 4,882,724, Vela et al., filed 1987‑10‑14, granted 1989‑11‑21.
• I could not verify '724's own "References Cited" list from a primary source in this session; I am not going to present a reconstructed list as if it were the record.
• Best‑supported prior‑art candidate: EP 0 170 194 A1 (Baus), published 1986‑02‑05 — the only reference I found that a patent office (the ISA on the family's counterpart WO 89/03555) treated as "X" art against the Vela disclosure. Potential § 102 exposure: claims 1, 24, 45, and 52 (cart‑associated, location‑responsive message delivery); possibly claim 62. Not, on the evidence I have, the optical‑channel claims (22, 47) or the shopper‑interactive list/graphics method claims (38, 40, 43).
• Secondary candidates (content unverified): US 4,500,880 (Gomersall, 1985) — central‑to‑display message delivery, § 102/§ 103 vs. claims 25–26, 51–52, 62; US 4,071,740 (Gogulski, 1978) and the 1956–1982 cart/handle art — § 102 vs. claims 27 and 61 on structure only.
• Excluded as irrelevant (forward citations): US 4,973,952; 5,287,266; 5,295,064; 5,630,068; 5,420,606; 5,703,564; 6,013,244; 6,324,753 and the Symbol/Begum design‑patent family.

If you authorize another search session, my first action would be to pull the USPTO PatentCenter "References Cited" tab for application 07/108,437 and the '724 front page directly, which would let me replace § 2 above with a verified list and convert § 3 from a conditional analysis into an actual claim‑by‑claim chart.

I'll locate the prior-art references cited on the patent's Google Patents page before running the §103 analysis.

Let me pin down the exact reference list cited on the '724 patent itself.

I hit the tool-step ceiling before I could pull the '724 page's citation table directly, so I'll be explicit about what I have and what I don't. Everything below is built on the earlier sections (bibliographic data, claim taxonomy, litigation) without repeating them.

---

§103 Obviousness Analysis — US 4,882,724 (Vela et al.)

0. Source provenance and a required caveat

What the supplied page text gave me: the Google Patents page for US 4,882,724 contains a "Prior art keywords" field listing only computer, message, display device, marketing area, signal. That keyword list is a machine-generated term extraction — it is not a prior-art reference list and cannot support a §103 combination by itself.

What I retrieved by search: a Google Patents "Patent Citations (12)" table appearing alongside US4882724A (surfaced via https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5264822](/patent/US5264822)#6). Nine references from that table are visible in the retrieved snippet:

Three honesty flags you must carry forward:

1. Provenance ambiguity. The (12) table was returned in a snippet anchored to the US5264822 page (US5264822 is "System for transmitting audio advertising messages to shopping carts moving through spatially defined transmission zones arranged in a store"), with US4882724A appearing inside that table. So this table is either the '724's own cited-art list or US5264822's list in which the '724 appears as a citation.** I could not close that gap.** Because US5264822 post-dates the '724, the table is most consistent with the '724's own prosecution/search citations, but treat that as an inference, not verification.
2. I did not read the reference texts. The element-by-element mappings below are constructed from the literal titles above plus general knowledge of these well-known documents. Every mapping is a candidate theory requiring verification against the reference full text before it is used in any paper.
3. The table lists 12; I captured 9. Up to three references (possibly foreign/EPO search-report items) are unaccounted for.

---

1. Governing law and framework

The '724 has a 1987-10-14 filing/priority date (per the prior section, and per https://patents.google.com/patent/US4882724/en). It is therefore a pre-AIA patent: §102(a)/(b)/(e) and pre-AIA §103(a) apply, and the Board/courts assess obviousness under Graham v. John Deere with the flexible, expansive test of KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) — which applies to pre-AIA claims. KSR permits reliance on any of the recognized rationales, including:

• (A) combining prior-art elements by known methods to yield predictable results;
• (B) simple substitution of one known element for another;
• (C) use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way;
• (D) applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement;
• (E) "obvious to try" — choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions;
• (F) design incentives / market forces;
• (G) known work in one field prompting variation for use in the same or an analogous field.

Prior-art status of the nine references (assuming the table is the '724's own art):

• Refs 1–8 all issued before 1987-10-14 → clean §102(a)/(b) art usable in §103 combinations.
• Ref 9 (US4750151A) issued 1988-06-07, i.e. after the '724's filing date, so it is not §102(a)/(b) art. It is §102(e) art only as of its US filing date, which the table shows as 1984-10-04. Under pre-AIA §102(e), a US patent was prior art as of its US filing date but pre-AIPA §102(e) did not carry the benefit of a foreign priority date — so if US4750151's 1984-10-04 date is a foreign (DE) priority date rather than its US filing date, its §102(e) date shifts later and may fall after the '724's date. This needs verification against the face of US4750151 before relying on it.

POSITA definition (proposed): an engineer or system designer with a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering or computer science and 2–3 years' experience in retail point-of-sale, in-store electronic marketing, or short-range/zone-based communications and display systems, or equivalent. This is a routine mechanical/electrical combination art — not an unpredictable art — which matters because KSR makes predictable-result combinations relatively easy to establish. Weakness: it also makes the "analogous art" and "reasonable expectation of success" arguments strong for the systems claims but weaker for the optical-medium claims, discussed in §5.

---

2. The motivation story is supplied by the patent's own background

This is the strongest structural point in the analysis. The '724's own specification (quotations as they appear in the supplied page text) frames the problem:

"the second problem of communication has to do with product advertising at the point of product selection. Shelf space is limited in any marketing area and the use of placards or posters at the points of display for the items offered for purchase, although used extensively, is unsatisfactory."
"the posters obscure the view of the products being displayed, take up space and must frequently be so small in some marketing areas as to be ineffective for their intended purpose."
"the use of the posters and displays is limited by many store managers to product item specials that are frequently displayed in large quanities and usually located at the ends of the aisles..."

Under KSR rationale (D) and (F), this is an expressly identified problem in the field plus an express statement of known deficiencies in the prior approach. That converts the motivation-to-combine question from speculative to nearly self-proving: any reference that (i) moves the advertising message off the shelf, (ii) puts it at the point of selection, and (iii) makes it addressable to a location, is combining known elements to solve a stated problem with a predictable result.

---

3. Element-to-reference map (candidate)

---

4. Combination theories, claim group by claim group

Group A — Claim 1 (core cart-mounted system)

Primary combination: Gogulski US4071740 + Campbell US4670798 + Macplum US3157871, optionally + Smith US3660762.

• Gogulski supplies the cart-carried, computer-driven shopper information unit.
• Macplum supplies the express teaching of putting the receiving apparatus on the shopping cart.
• Campbell supplies the in-store point-of-purchase advertising broadcast — i.e., the store-side generating equipment apart from the cart units.
• Smith supplies the area/zone-selective addressing that lets a message reach only the shoppers in the relevant part of the store.

Motivation (KSR (A), (D), (F)): the '724's own background identifies posters as space-consuming, view-obstructing, size-constrained and limited to aisle-end specials. Each reference addresses one facet of that problem, and the assembled result — a cart-mounted, computer-controlled display fed addressable store-side messages — is the predictable union of known elements solving a stated need. There is a clean reasonable expectation of success because none of the elements needs to change its principle of operation to cooperate; the cart unit simply becomes the output device of the store-side messaging plant.

Strength: strong, subject to verifying that Gogulski discloses a display (not merely a data terminal) and that Campbell's delivery is spatially limited.

Group B — Claims 21–26, 56 (video picture / control-center-side claims)

Combination: Campbell + Bonitz/Hodson + Gogulski (+ Smith for zone addressing).

• Claims 25–26 are largely control-center-side recitations (generating system, optical-channel delivery network, remote computer, message file storage facility feeding the generator; units fixed to carts; messages to a contiguous plurality of subdivisions defining a zone). Every one of those elements except the optical medium is disclosed or suggested by Campbell + Smith + Gogulski.
• Claims 21–23 and 56 add "video picture of an item." Rationale (B) — substitution of a known element: substituting a video image for an audio, placard, or alphanumeric point-of-purchase message is the classic use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. The specification's own framing ("a video picture of a fixed or moving product that is available for purchase") shows the video image is an advertising-content presentation choice, not a change in the system's operating principle.
• Claim 26's "fixed to and mounted on" limitation is answered by Macplum and Gogulski; "message delivered to a contiguous plurality of subdivisions defining a zone" is answered by Smith and by Campbell's point-of-purchase delivery locale.

Strength: moderate-to-strong for 21, 23, 25, 26 and 56; weaker for 22 and 24 (see §5).

Group C — Claim 27 (cart + relay unit combination)

Combination: Macplum + Gogulski + Campbell. Claim 27 is the narrowest combination claim in the set (cart + supported relay unit + means for generating/delivering messages including a video picture + display + computer + receiver). Macplum gives the cart-mounted receiver, Gogulski the cart-carried display/computer, Campbell the store-side advertising generation. Strength: strong. A combination claim reciting only the physical juxtaposition of a known cart and a known cart-mounted shopper device plus a known store-side message source is the paradigm KSR predictable-result case.

Group D — Shopper-guidance methods, claims 38, 40, 43, 45, 47

Combination: Gogulski + Baus (US4750151) [+ Smith for zone-addressing; + Patented Technology US3755818 for cart position].

• 38 (list of items + indicia indicating item locations): Gogulski's automated shopping system is the natural anchor; Baus supplies the interactive retrieval of stored item data at a display. Motivation: shoppers cannot find items; the whole premise of Gogulski.
• 40 (graphics display of floor plan + layout of display facilities): a natural extension of 38 — once you are telling the shopper where items are, and you know the store layout, rendering the layout is an obvious presentation step (KSR (C): known technique of displaying spatial data).
• 43 (first indicia during list display, second indicia positioned relative to depicted facilities during graphics display): a design choice in indicia placement; no change in principle of operation. Moderate.
• 45 (indicia showing the cart's own relative location): US3755818 is directed exactly to synchronizing a device's operation to its movement along a predetermined route — i.e., knowing where the moving thing is and acting on it. Combined with Smith's zone addressing, the cart's position in the store is derivable. Motivation (KSR (A), (D)): a "you are here" marker is a predictable addition to a location-aware cart system, and it was obvious to try given a finite set of presentation options. Moderate-to-strong.
• 47 (graphics display of only a portion of the area, with indicia within that portion): this is the weakest claim in the entire patent for an obviousness attack on this record. None of the nine retrieved references is directed to localized/zoomed area display centered on the observer. An examiner would need either (i) a display-scaling/zooming reference, or (ii) a pure KSR "finite number of predictable solutions" argument (total view vs. local view is a binary that the '724 itself treats as a switchable option), plus the '724's own admission that the local view is a mere alternative to the total view. Strength: weak-to-moderate — flag as the primary validity risk to any §103 theory.

Group E — Advertising-delivery methods, claims 51, 52, 62, 63

Combination for 63 (audio): Campbell US4670798 + Hodson US2626995 + Bonitz US1810264 + Macplum US3157871 + Smith US3660762.

This is the strongest combination in the set. Campbell is titled as a point-of-purchase advertising system; Bonitz and Hodson supply decades-old audible-signboard and broadcast/intercom messaging; Macplum puts the receiver on the cart; Smith confines the transmission to preselected areas. Claim 63 (audio advertising message passed into a zone, detected, delivered to an audio transmission system, computer-controlled) is essentially a recitation of those five references' combined disclosures with no element left over. Motivation: pure KSR (A) + (F) — market incentive to advertise at the point of selection, in a store where the '724 itself says shelf placards are ineffective.

Combination for 62 (generic advertising message, computer-controlled): same set minus the audio limitation; strong.

Combination for 51 and 52 (advertising message with video picture): Campbell + Bonitz/Hodson + Gogulski + Smith, with the video image as a known substitute for the known message medium. Claim 52's "predetermined zone" is supplied by Smith/Campbell. Moderate-to-strong.

Group F — Claim 61 (handle mount + master/slave computers)

Combination: Macplum + Gogulski + Smith. Cart-handle mounting is a placement choice (Macplum mounts the receiver on the cart); the handle is the known ergonomic location for shopper-facing apparatus. A first computer controlling a second computer is routine in the host/terminal architectures shown by Gogulski and Smith, and KSR (A) makes a hierarchical control arrangement between a store-side host and distributed cart units a predictable design.

Strength: strong. Of all the independent claims, claim 61 has the least substantive content beyond known architecture plus a placement choice.

---

5. Where the obviousness case is genuinely weak, and why

Claims 22, 23, 24 — the light/optical-medium limitations. These claims are not merely "deliver messages to zones"; they require:

• a light signal generating system, and
• a signal delivery system of optical channels that are offset from and overlie the marketing-area floor, each channel serving a predetermined subdivision, and
• (claim 24) a return-path light signal generator on each unit plus remote detecting means for the returned light signal.

None of the nine retrieved references is, on its face, a light-signal / optical-fiber in-store distribution reference. If that is the true state of the art, then:

• The examiner's best route is KSR (C)/(G): applying a known point-to-multipoint delivery technique (optical/IR signalling) to a known zone-addressed messaging system, with the motivation being physical confinement of the signal to the intended subdivision (a light/optical channel inherently spills over far less than a broadcast RF or audible signal — which is exactly the concern the '724 addresses when it says only one audio message should be delivered to a subdivision at a time) plus freedom from RF spectrum regulation and cross-system interference. That is a legitimate, articulable motivation, but it is a medium-substitution argument, and it will draw an argument that the medium was not obvious.
• Claim 24's optical return path is the hardest single limitation in the patent. A $103 theory needs either a reference teaching a light-based position/locate return (from the cart back to a fixed sensor) or a strong KSR (E)/(F) argument that a receiving station already knows it needs to know which zone each cart is in, and a return signal is one of a small number of predictable ways (RF, ultrasonic, optical) to get it. I would rate claim 24's obviousness as the single most contestable proposition on this record, alongside claim 47.

Caveat on the medium-substitution theory: if the mechanism were truly a matter of routine choice, one would expect light/optical to appear in the art; its absence from the retrieved list is at least some evidence, though not dispositive, that a POSITA at the time might not have seized on it. KSR does not require that the specific reference exist, but this is where a patent owner would concentrate its rebuttal.

---

6. Secondary considerations (Graham factor 4)

I found no evidence bearing on secondary considerations and will not manufacture any:

• Commercial success / nexus. The prior section documents the assignment chain to KLEVER-KART, Inc. and the 2007 Utah infringement action (Klever Marketing v. CABCO et al., No. 1:07-cv-00135, D. Utah, filed Oct. 10, 2007 — four days before the '724's 2007-10-14 anticipated expiration). A suit being filed is not evidence of commercial success and has no nexus to claim scope. No sales, share, or licensing-revenue evidence was retrieved.
• Long-felt but unmet need. The '724's own background recites the inadequacy of shelf placards. That is the applicant's statement, and the problem it describes was the expressed subject matter of contemporaneous references (Campbell, Smith, Bonitz, Hodson), which undercuts long-felt need.
• Industry praise, copying, failure of others, unexpected results: nothing retrieved. Note that the '724's own operation — burst-mode incremental transmission of video/audio into zones each cycle — is a design necessity for the disclosed architecture, not a surprising result. I saw no evidence of unexpected results.

---

7. External corroboration and adjacent proceedings

Two items from the prior sections bear on this analysis and should be carried forward:

1. EPO Board of Appeal T 0157/01 ("Shopping Cart/KLEVER-KART"), 19 March 2003 — appeal dismissed; inventive step found lacking, and Art. 123(3) extension found for the 3rd auxiliary request. This is not prior art and is not binding on US analysis (different claim set, different legal standard, EPO "problem-and-solution" approach), but a European tribunal's no-inventive-step finding on the same disclosure is meaningful corroboration that the technical contribution was incremental.
2. PTAB proceedings that cite the '724 as prior art — the PTACTS records at petitions 1557286 (claims of the '296 patent charted against "Vela '724") and 1518855 (prosecution/appeal papers citing Vela '724 against application 08/158,025) show the '724 being used offensively as §102/§103 art against later patents. That is a different thing from the '724's own validity, and I found no IPR, PGR, reexam, or DJ action against the '724 itself. I also found no CAFC 2026 activity, consistent with the prior section's negative finding and with the patent having been Expired – Lifetime since 2007-10-14.

Practical note (builds on the prior section): because the '724 expired on 2007-10-14, any §103 challenge today is academic as to damages, but it remains relevant to (a) the family's later members, notably US 5,630,068 (continuation, filed 1994-01-05), and (b) any dispute over the '724's status as prior art against other patents.

---

8. Bottom line — claim-by-claim §103 scorecard

Three things to do before this analysis is filing-ready:

1. Verify the provenance of the "(12)" citation table on the '724 page (is it the '724's own cited art, or US5264822's?) and capture the three missing references.
2. Read the nine reference texts and confirm each element mapping — in particular whether Gogulski discloses a graphical display and whether Smith's "preselected areas" transmission is a light medium (which would substantially strengthen claims 22–24).
3. Verify the §102(e) date of US4750151A (US filing date vs. German priority) before relying on Baus in any combination, and locate a light-signal/optical-distribution reference and a localized-display reference to close the two gaps in §5. Until those gaps are closed, claims 24 and 47 are the claims I would not assert an obviousness position on.