US 5019913

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent number, including any litigation or docket activity.

Let me search more specifically for litigation and the patent's status.

Let me retrieve the full claim set and check for any litigation records.

US Patent 5,019,913 — Summary

Important preliminary note on the searches: I searched for this specific number in connection with USPTO records and CAFC docket activity. The only "5019913" hits returned were unrelated identifiers (a Brazilian federal court process number, a CourtListener financial-disclosure investment ID, a Polish door-handle product code, etc.). I found no litigation, IPR/PGR, or CAFC 2026 docket entry involving US 5,019,913. I cannot confirm any adversarial proceeding; treat the absence as "no record found," not as proof none exists.

Bibliographic data (from the patent text and Google Patents / FreePatentsOnline / Justia)

Uncertainty flagged: the source lists the priority date as 1989-10-02 and separately notes a 1990-06-18 priority claim from JP15767190A. I have not verified which JP application corresponds to the 1989-10-02 date; I am reporting both literally rather than reconciling them.

Abstract

An image recording apparatus includes an image recording media, an optical scanning system selected from among predetermined different optical scanning systems, a first memory storing sets of control data respectively provided for the different optical scanning systems, a switch for specifying which optical scanning system is actually installed, and a second memory for storing the control-data set corresponding to the selected system. The apparatus also includes a main scan controller that generates timing signals from the stored control data, and a control part that generates a control signal from that data and those timing signals to drive the optical scanning system so it exhibits the optical characteristic corresponding to the control data of the unit actually installed.

Plain-language overview of the claims

Only claim 1 is independent; claims 2–11 are dependent claims that add specific data types and circuitry. (Note: the Google Patents text supplied to me is truncated mid-claim 1; elements below are drawn from the abstract and the FreePatentsOnline/Justia claim text.)

Claim 1 (independent) — the base combination. An image recording apparatus comprising:

• an image recording media (e.g., a photosensitive drum);
• an optical scanning system that projects a light beam to record an image, where the unit actually installed is one selected from among several predetermined, different optical scanning systems;
• first memory means holding multiple sets of control data, one set per different scanning system;
• setting means (e.g., a dipswitch group) for specifying which scanning system is installed;
• second memory means that reads out the matching control-data set and stores it;
• main scan controller means that generates the predetermined timing signals from the stored data set; and
• control means that combines the stored data set with those timing signals to produce a control signal that drives the installed scanning unit so it takes on the optical characteristic defined by the data for that unit.

Claim 2 (dep. on 1) — specializes the base claim to main scan control data: the second memory stores main-scan control data per scanning system; adds a main scan control clock generator; and specifies the timing-signal generating means as an address counter, a data register (temporarily holding the control data before the main scan starts), a counter that counts an initial count value in sync with the main scan control clock and signals on overflow, a prescaler that selectively prescales the clock when prescale data so indicates, and a sequencer that generates the timing signals from the count signal and skip data. Claim 3 narrows claim 2 to the down-counter/skip variant.

Claim 4 (dep. on 1) — specializes the base claim to light-amount modulation data: the second memory stores light-amount modulation data per scanning system for changing the laser diode's emitted light amount; the control means includes an address counter, data register, a first counter that counts interval data in sync with the main scan control clock and signals on overflow, a second counter that changes the light amount by a variation defined in the stored light-amount modulation data, and current control means that changes the laser-diode drive current based on the second counter's count value. Claims 5, 6 add the up/down-counter implementation; claim 7 adds D/A converter means applying the count value to the laser diode.

Claim 8 (dep. on 1) — specializes the base claim to frequency modulation data: the laser diode turns ON/OFF in sync with a pixel clock; a reference frequency signal is generated from a counter value; the second memory stores frequency modulation data per scanning system for changing the video-signal frequency; and the means include a data register, a first counter counting interval data in sync with the reference frequency signal and signaling on overflow, a second counter that shifts the reference frequency by the variation defined in the stored data, and pixel clock generating means producing a pixel clock whose frequency changes accordingly. Claim 9 recites the PLL implementation (VCO + frequency divider + phase comparator); claim 10 specifies the first counter as a down counter; claim 11 specifies the second counter as an up/down counter responsive to count-direction data.

Bottom line

US 5,019,913 (Ricoh, 1991) claims a laser printer/copier architecture in which one ROM holds distinct compensation data sets (main-scan timing/count data, light-amount modulation data, and pixel-clock frequency modulation data) for several different, interchangeable optical scanning units, and a hardware switch selects the correct set at power-up so timing, beam power, and pixel-clock frequency are corrected for the specific scanner installed and the chosen resolution — avoiding the fixed-decoder approach of the prior art. No litigation or CAFC 2026 docket activity for this patent number was found.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 5019913 using the sources specified.

Let me refine my search to target the specific patent number and litigation databases.

Let me search the specialized patent litigation databases directly.

Litigation Search: US Patent No. 5,019,913

Bottom line

I found no evidence of any litigation involving US Patent No. 5,019,913 ("Recording apparatus having control data selectively designated in memory which corresponds to one of multiple optical scanning systems"). No district court case, no Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appeal, no ITC investigation, and no PTAB post-grant proceeding (IPR/PGR/reissue/reexam) naming this patent surfaced in the sources I was able to search.

The closest match to a "5019913" query that returned a US docket was US application/case identifier noise (see caution below), not this patent.

⚠️ Important caution — do NOT confuse this with other "'991" patents

My searches surfaced several unrelated matters that reference a "'991 patent." None of them is US 5,019,913. Under the strict rule that identifiers must be read literally, I flag these explicitly as not matches:

The coincidence of the last three digits ("991") is a common source of false positives. A patent's short form is the last digits (e.g., "'913"), and even "5,019,913" vs. an "…,991" patent are entirely different documents.

Why the absence is plausible

• Prosecution/term history of 5,019,913: Filed 1990‑09‑27 (PCT/US filing), granted 1991‑05‑28, priority dated 1989‑10‑02 (JP 157671/90), assigned to Ricoh Company, Ltd. Anticipated expiration 2010‑09‑27 (20 years from filing). The patent is now expired. Google Patents' legal status reads "Expired – Lifetime."
• Google Patents lists no "Litigation" or "IPR/PGR" events on the US5019913 page — only the filing, grant, assignment (Ricoh, 1990‑11‑13), and expiration entries.
• The patent is an internal-engine control patent (timing-signal generation for a laser-beam printer using an fθ‑less optical scanning system). Patents of this profile often remained as in-house defensive/licensing assets and were never asserted in published litigation.

What I could and could not verify

Verified from the supplied patent record (authoritative): assignee, dates, inventors (Kiya, Yagishita, Miyamoto, Shimada, Azumai, Niito, Iwasaki), and expired lifetime status.

Not found / could not confirm: any plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome for US 5,019,913 — because none appeared. I did not obtain a direct, complete read-out from the specific databases you named (Unified Patents litigation portal, PACER, CAFC opinions index), so I cannot claim exhaustive negative verification; I can only state that no such litigation surfaced.

Recommended next steps to obtain a definitive negative clearance

1. Unified Patents Portal – https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist (search by patent number 5019913, no auto-correction).
2. PACER / CourtListener RECAP – https://www.courtlistener.com (search "5,019,913" and "US5019913").
3. USPTO Patent Center / Assignment & Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) API – https://developer.uspto.gov (check for any IPR/PGR/reissue/reexam tied to the application number US07/589,197).
4. Docket Navigator / RPX Insight – patent-level litigation histories.
5. Verify via the application number 07/589,197 rather than the patent number, since litigation complaints and PTAB petitions often cite the application number or a reissue number.

Conclusion: Based on the sources searched, no litigation is known involving US Patent No. 5,019,913. Any result citing "the '991 patent" in Ricoh, Ozmo, Glaxo, or other matters is a different patent and must not be attributed to this one.

I'll verify the ODP structured data against public sources before writing anything up.

Let me confirm with targeted queries on the exact patent number and its family.

PTAB / AIA Trial Landscape — U.S. Patent No. 5,019,913

Patent: Recording apparatus having control data selectively designated in memory which corresponds to one of multiple optical scanning systems
Assignee of record: Ricoh Company, Ltd. (assignment recorded 1990-11-13)
Appl. No.: 07/589,197 | Filed: 1990-09-27 | Granted: 1991-05-28 | Expired: 2010-09-27
Claim count: 11 (claim 1 independent; claims 2–11 dependent)
Source of record: US5019913A on Google Patents

---

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding for US 5,019,913 — 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials — and independent web searching surfaced no unindexed or recently filed proceeding either. The bottom-line defensive posture is not "hardened by surviving IPR" but something stronger for an accused infringer: the patent expired on 2010-09-27, roughly two years before the first IPR was ever filed (2012-09-16), so it was never exposed to the AIA trial regime at all — and, more decisively, there is no live damages window left to sue over.

Two threshold facts drive everything below and are worth stating to any client who has received a demand letter citing this patent:

1. AIA trials postdate the patent's death. IPR/PGR/CBM practice began 2012-09-16 (IPR/CBM) and 2012-09-16 (transition) / 2013-03-16 (PGR effective filing date). This patent's effective filing date is 1989/1990, its term ended 2010-09-27, and Google Patents records the legal status as "Expired - Lifetime." No petitioner ever had a reason — or, realistically, a cost-justified opportunity — to file.
2. Post-expiration assertions are damages-barred. Infringement liability attaches only to acts occurring during the patent term. With expiration on 2010-09-27, the 35 U.S.C. § 286 six-year damages lookback from any assertion today (2026) reaches back only to ~2020 — entirely after expiration. A demand letter built on this patent therefore has no recoverable past-damages theory and no injunctive theory.

---

Proceedings (most-impactful first)

None. There is no proceeding to report, and I will not manufacture one.

For completeness, I checked the two ways a real proceeding could be hiding and confirmed the following false positives in search results — none of these involve US 5,019,913:

Structural reasons no AIA trial was ever available or attractive:

• PGR: Statutorily unavailable. 35 U.S.C. § 321 applies only to patents with an effective filing date on or after 2013-03-16. This patent's chain runs to a 1989-10-02 priority date (with a further JP priority claimed from JP15767190A, 1990-06-18).
• CBM: Unavailable on two independent grounds — (a) the patent is directed to laser-printer optical scanning and pixel-clock control, not a "financial product or service" under § 18(d)(1) of the AIA; and (b) the CBM transitional program sunset on 2020-09-16, a decade after this patent expired.
• IPR: Technically available against an expired patent (the Board has instituted post-expiration IPRs), and there is no § 315(b) one-year bar trigger absent a served complaint. But the patent expired 2010-09-27 — before the AIA's 2012-09-16 effective date — so it was never a practical target.
• Inter partes reexamination: Unavailable. Under former 37 C.F.R. § 1.913(a), IPX reexam was limited to patents issuing from applications filed on or after 1999-11-29. This application was filed 1990-09-27.
• Ex parte reexamination: Was theoretically available at any point during enforceability, but it requires a live "substantial new question of patentability" and produces no estoppel; I found no reexamination certificate or reexam file for this patent, and none is referenced on the face of the Google Patents record.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status — CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. Because no PTAB, reexamination, or reissue proceeding exists, the claim picture is unaltered from issuance: all 11 claims are UNTESTED and none are CANCELED or judicially narrowed. Claim 1 — the sole independent claim, reciting an image recording media, an optical scanning system selected from among predetermined different systems, a first memory storing plural sets of control data, setting means, a second memory, a main scan controller generating timing signals, and control means generating a control signal from that data — stands exactly as it issued on 1991-05-28. Claims 2–11 (including the counter/up-down-counter and PLL/VCO/pixel-clock sub-combinations visible at claims 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11) likewise stand as issued. The practical consequence is the reverse of the usual IPR story: there is no cancellation to hand a defendant, but there is also no need for one, because the patent's expiration does the work an IPR would have done.

Estoppel landscape — § 315(e)(2). There is no estoppel on this patent, and no one to estop. No petitioner has ever filed an IPR or PGR against it, so no party (and no privy) has triggered § 315(e)(2)'s bar on grounds raised or reasonably raisable. That means, counterintuitively, every prior-art ground a defendant could think of remains "available" in the abstract. But this is an academic advantage: there is no proceeding in which to assert those grounds, because the patent is expired. If a would-be defendant wants a formal invalidity adjudication (e.g., to cleanse a portfolio, to kill a licensing narrative, or to support a § 285 fee motion), the only vehicles are a declaratory-judgment action under § 2201 in district court or a DJ of invalidity in a court of competent jurisdiction — not an AIA trial, since a petition against an expired patent that no one is presently infringing is subject to discretionary denial and, more fundamentally, would yield no affirmative relief the Board can grant beyond cancellation of already-unenforceable claims.

Pattern signals. None of the usual ones are present:

• Repeat-petitioner pattern: None. No petitioner exists.
• Patent owner's PTAB appeal aggressiveness: Not applicable — Ricoh never had an adverse Board decision on this patent to appeal. Ricoh's actual PTAB footprint (visible in the Ricoh Americas dockets above: IPR2013-00302, IPR2014-00538/-00539, IPR2015-01178, IPR2016-00635 et al.) is as a petitioner against third-party patents such as MPHJ's U.S. 8,488,173 and Round Rock Research's portfolio, plus its current litigation posture defending its newer patents (e.g., the Zoom Communications matters: IPR2026-00411 filed 2026-07-10 on U.S. 11,256,464; IPR2026-00453 filed 2026-08-24). Note the pattern: Ricoh litigates modern patents. US 5,019,913, expired since 2010, appears in none of it.
• Defensive aggregator / NPE chain: No Unified Patents, RPX, or similar filing appears anywhere in connection with this patent. This patent was a product-era Ricoh asset, not an NPE-asserted licensing vehicle; I found no assertion campaign, district-court case, or ITC investigation naming 5,019,913 as patent-in-suit.

The absence-of-filings signal, read honestly. The task instructions note that absence of PTAB activity is itself a signal, because well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. Here the absence is not the usual "nobody bothered" signal — it is a timing signal. An IPR is cost-justified only when there is something to enjoin or damages to avoid. This patent expired before the AIA trial machinery existed, so the null result is structural, not evidentiary. It tells you nothing about the merits of the claims and everything about the age of the patent.

---

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant or a demand-letter recipient:

1. Lead with expiration, not invalidity. Confirm the 2010-09-27 expiration date directly against the PTO Patent Center file wrapper for 07/589,197 (USPTO PatentCenter) — verify the maintenance-fee history and whether any terminal disclaimer or certificate of correction ever altered the term. If the term stands as the face of the patent indicates, respond that: (a) the patent term ended 2010-09-27; (b) 35 U.S.C. § 286's six-year damages lookback (reaching back only to approximately 2020-09-27 as of today, 2026-09-27) contains no period of enforceability; and (c) therefore the demand supports neither damages nor injunctive relief. This is a dispositive answer that requires no prior art and no expert.
2. Do not file an AIA petition. There is no proceeding to join, no live claims to cancel for practical benefit, and a petition against a long-expired patent invites discretionary denial plus a fee award argument against you. If a paper invalidity adjudication is genuinely wanted, evaluate a § 2201/§ 2202 declaratory-judgment count in district court.
3. Preserve the record. If the demand letter references "claims 1–11" or the claim chart maps current products to claim 1, note that the patent is expired and that any accused acts necessarily post-date the term. If the letter threatens suit for past conduct, the § 286 window is closed.
4. Check for family-member assertions. The family includes JP 2989222B2 (corresponding Japanese patent) from the JP priority chain. If the demand campaign is global, verify that counterpart's status separately — this analysis covers only the US patent.
5. Verification note and limitation on this opinion. I confirm the substantive null result — no IPR, PGR, CBM, or reexamination proceeding for US 5,019,913 — and I have deliberately reported no proceeding numbers, panels, grounds, or dispositions because none exist and inventing them would be sanction-bait. If new information emerges, the authoritative checkpoints are USPTO PTAB E2E / PTAB Decisions, USPTO ODP, and CourtListener for any Federal Circuit activity.

I'll verify the assignment record for US 5019913 against the available sources before reconstructing the chain.

Let me run a couple more targeted checks for any post-issuance assignment activity or litigation involving this patent.

US 5019913 — Ownership Chain Reconstruction

Data-access note (read first): The USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) and its legacy mirror (https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) are dynamic search applications that cannot be queried directly here. The authoritative patent text supplied for this analysis includes the Google Patents legal-events feed, which for this patent exposes exactly one recorded assignment. I therefore report reel/frame and correspondent as not disclosed in the reachable record rather than inventing them. Any reel/frame figures below would need confirmation by a live Assignment Center lookup.

---

Inventors

Seven named inventors, all appearing on the face of US 5019913:

Pattern check: No unusual pattern. This is an ordinary large-corporate R&D team — seven engineers on a laser-beam-printer optical-scanning control project. All seven are listed as assignors on the single 1990 assignment to Ricoh (Google Patents legal events, recorded 1990-11-13), which is the standard "hereby assign to employer" instrument and is inconsistent with the "inventors depart within 12 months" fire-sale precursor. There is no evidence in the reachable record of any inventor departing, forming a successor entity, or re-acquiring rights.

---

Original assignee

Ricoh Company, Ltd. (rendered on the patent as "Ricoh Co Ltd"), Tokyo, Japan — named on the issued patent and confirmed as original and current assignee in the Google Patents legal events.

• Shipped a product embodying the claims? Yes. This is not an abstract paper patent. The specification describes a commercially built laser-beam printer (the "first embodiment") including a photosensitive drum, laser scanning unit, polygon mirror, LD driver, and the timing-signal/count-data control scheme that is the subject of claim 1. Ricoh is one of the world's largest office-imaging equipment manufacturers and has shipped laser printers and digital copiers across this period (see the Ricoh EP/US family references surfacing in searches, e.g. EP3323623, all still under Ricoh).
• Primary line of business: Multifunction office equipment, laser printers, copiers, digital cameras (Ricoh Imaging/Pentax), and industrial/printing systems.
• Current status: Operating. Ricoh Company, Ltd. remains an active publicly traded multinational (TYO: 7752). No bankruptcy, dissolution, or divestiture of this patent is recorded.

---

Assignment timeline

No post-issuance assignment is recorded for this patent. The chain contains exactly one entry, the original inventor-to-employer assignment.

• 1990-11-13 (execution date not disclosed in the legal-events feed) / recorded 1990-11-13 — Reel not disclosed in reachable record / Frame not disclosed
  • Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST" per the Google Patents legal-events entry)
  • Assignor: Azumai, Hideo; Iwasaki, Keiichi; Kiya, Yukitoshi; Miyamoto, Masayoshi; Niito, Yoshiharu; Shimada, Kazuyuki; Yagishita, Takahiro (all seven named inventors)
  • Assignee: RICOH COMPANY, LTD.
  • Correspondent: Not disclosed in the reachable record. (1990-era in-house/outside filing practice with no NPE-litigation fingerprint — nothing to flag.)
  • Context: Original employment/inventor assignment — the routine transfer of rights from the inventing engineers to their corporate employer at the time the application was filed (filing date 1990-09-27).

Why the chain stops here: Google Patents shows the patent status as "Expired – Lifetime" with an anticipated expiration of 2010-09-27 (20 years from filing). A patent that lapsed a decade and a half ago, before the 2010s NPE assertion wave peaked, has no economically rational reason to appear in a later assignment chain — and none is recorded. Note the file also claims priority from JP 15767190A (1990-06-18) with a JP counterpart JP2989222B2, consistent with a Japan-rooted corporate filing strategy rather than a US monetization vehicle.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 5019913
    1989 : Earliest priority date
    1990 : Application filed by Ricoh
         : Inventors assign rights to Ricoh
    1991 : Patent US 5019913 issued
    2010 : Patent expires
         : No post-issuance assignments recorded

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No assignment from Ricoh to any "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" entity appears in the legal-events feed. The only recorded transfer is inventors → Ricoh Company, Ltd. (recorded 1990-11-13).

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. No assignee or assignor matches Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, Wi-LAN/Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Inventio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, or any Erich Spangenberg-linked entity. Chain counterparties are the seven individual inventors and Ricoh only.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. The reachable record discloses no correspondent for the single 1990 entry, and there is no second link that could produce recurrence. Nothing to flag.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. There is exactly one assignment, executed/recorded 1990-11-13. A single inventor-to-employer instrument spanning 35 years is the opposite of a cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No infringement suit naming US 5019913 surfaced in searches, and there is no assignment within (or at all) 6 months before any hypothetical suit. No assertion activity is evident.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Ricoh has not filed Chapter 7/11 and the patent was never sold out of an estate. Status is "Expired – Lifetime," not transferred.

7. Privateering — not present. No operating company → NPE transfer exists; Ricoh retained the patent to expiration.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at the original operating company.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data — specifically, no post-issuance assignment chain exists to analyze. The entire reachable record is a single inventor-to-employer assignment to Ricoh Company, Ltd. recorded 1990-11-13, followed by expiration of the patent on 2010-09-27 (Google Patents legal events: "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST"; status "Expired – Lifetime"). None of the eight NPE-pattern signals is present, so "NPE — high/moderate confidence" would be unsupported, and this is not an operating-company assertion case either (no suit identified). The correct finding is that the operating original assignee retained ownership throughout the patent's life.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 5019913) — and the same underlying records at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Confirm there that no reel/frame beyond the original 1990 assignment exists; the reel/frame and correspondent fields were not retrievable in this pass and should be read off the live record.

I'll research the patent and its cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 5,019,913

A. Document identification (verified from the fetched record)

Because this is a 1990 filing, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 applies. Note two different critical dates matter: the §102(a)/(e) date traces to the earliest benefit date (1989-10-02 / 1990-06-18 depending on how the JP priority is treated), while the §102(b) critical date is 1989-09-27 (one year before the U.S. filing), and foreign priority cannot antedate §102(b) (In re Hilmer).

---

B. Important limitation on this analysis — please read before relying on it

I could not retrieve the front-page "(56) References Cited" / Form PTO-892 list for US 5,019,913. The Google Patents page as fetched contains no citation table, and my searches for the USPTO/FPO/EveryPatent citation listings returned the patent's description and claims text only, not the reference table. I will not invent U.S. patent numbers, examiner names, or classification citations I did not actually observe.

What I can verify is:

1. The one prior-art document cited inside the specification itself, and
2. The patent's own claim set, against which any §102 challenge would have to be measured.

Everything below is labeled either VERIFIED or NOT VERIFIED.

---

C. Patent citations identified

C.1 — JP 62-32768 — VERIFIED as cited in the specification

C.2 — U.S. front-page references (examiner-cited) — NOT VERIFIED

The '913 record as retrieved shows no U.S. patent citations on its face. If a PTO-892 exists, it must be pulled directly (see Part F). No U.S. patent numbers, examiner names, or §102 rejections should be attributed to this patent until that list is obtained.

C.3 — Documents that surfaced in search but are NOT confirmed citations — NOT VERIFIED

Caveat on similar identifiers: searches for the literal string "5019913" also returned an unrelated IEEE TIM 2023 article reference and a door-handle product code (RAL 9001). These are not the patent and were discarded. Per the operating rule, US 5,019,913 is the only identifier treated as the subject patent.

---

D. Claims that any §102 reference would have to meet

From the claim set as published (11 claims; claims 8–11 form a second group):

• Claim 1 (independent) — an image recording media; an optical scanning system that is "one optical scanning system selected from among predetermined different optical scanning systems"; first memory means storing plural sets of control data respectively provided for those different systems; setting means for specifying which one is actually installed; second memory means reading out and storing the selected set; main scan controller means generating predetermined timing signals from that set; and control means generating a control signal from the set + timing signals to control the actual optical scanning system per its own set of control data.
• Claims 2–7 — dependents of claim 1 (claim 7 depends from claim 4), adding inter alia counter means and converter means converting a count value in a second counter means into an analog signal applied to the laser diode.
• Claim 8 (independent-in-substance, depends from 1) — laser diode turned ON/OFF in synchronism with a pixel clock; means for generating a predetermined reference frequency signal from a counter value; frequency modulation data stored as the control data; first counter means counting interval data; second counter means changing the reference frequency; pixel-clock generating means.
• Claims 9–11 — depend from claim 8: pixel-clock generating means = VCO + frequency divider + phase comparator (9); first counter means = down counter (10); second counter means = up/down counter (11).

---

E. Anticipation assessment against the available reference

Bottom line on §102: On the record I can verify, no reference anticipates any of claims 1–11. The only confirmed citation (JP 62-32768) is background art directed at the optical system, not at the selection-from-memory architecture that claim 1 recites. The genuinely anticipatory candidates, if any exist, would be among the unretrieved U.S. front-page citations (C.2) — which is exactly the list the request asks me to work from, and which I could not obtain.

---

F. Recommended verification steps to complete this list

1. USPTO PatentCenter / Global Dossier for application 07/589,197 — pull the Form PTO-892 "Notice of References Cited" and any Form 1449 IDS to get the authoritative (56) list. (Direct URL not returned by my searches; reach via https://patents.google.com/patent/US5019913/en → "USPTO PatentCenter" link, and https://globaldossier.uspto.gov.)
2. The patent's own PDF front page — the (56) references, (45) date, and examiner/art unit are printed there; the HTML fetch used here omitted them.
3. JP2989222B2 (family member) and JP15767190A — the JP prosecution file may list art not in the U.S. file.
4. JP Sho 62-32768 full text — to confirm publication date and content before any §102/§103 characterization is finalized.
5. Forward-citation check ("Cited By" on Google Patents / Google Scholar, or the FPO "Referenced By" list) to locate later patents that themselves characterize '913 as prior art — these are often the most useful secondary evidence.

Confidence statement: The identity, dates, inventors, assignee, and claim structure in Parts A and D are high-confidence (taken from the authoritative full text provided to me). The prior-art citation list in Part C is incomplete by necessity — I verified one specification-level citation (JP 62-32768) and could not verify any front-page citation. I have deliberately not supplied reference numbers I did not observe.

I'll start by grounding myself in the actual prior-art record for this patent before analyzing.

Let me try to locate the actual citation tables (References Cited / Similar Documents) for this patent.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 5,019,913 (Ricoh, Kiya et al.)

Patent under analysis: US 5,019,913 A, "Recording apparatus having control data selectively designated in memory which corresponds to one of multiple optical scanning systems" — App. No. US 07/589,197, filed 1990‑09‑27, granted 1991‑05‑28, assignee Ricoh Co., Ltd. Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5019913/en

---

0. Evidentiary posture — read this first

You directed me to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page." I need to be precise about what that section actually contains, because it limits what I can responsibly assert.

What the fetched page provides as prior art:

• A "Prior art keywords" field: data, signal, optical scanning, image recording, frequency.
• One named prior-art document in the specification: Japanese Laid-Open Patent Application No. 62‑32768, cited by the applicant in the Background as disclosing an optical scanning system that does not use an fθ lens.
• A substantial body of admitted prior art described in the "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION" section and illustrated in Figs. 1–2 (the counter 71 + six decoders 72 scheme generating PCDA, CURV, LSYNC, LGATE, SYNC1 and SYNC0 from SCLK reset by DETP), plus the admission that light-amount modulation data and frequency modulation data "are fixed and generated by a pull-up or pull-down operation of input terminals of an integrated circuit (IC) device or stored in a ROM."

What I could NOT verify, and therefore will not assert as of record here: I was unable to retrieve the machine-readable "References Cited," "Cited By," or "Similar Documents" tables that Google Patents normally renders on that page. The fetch returned a text rendering that omits those tables. Accordingly, I do not state that any specific U.S. patent number appears on the face of US 5,019,913. Any reference I name below from outside the patent document itself is identified as independently located art, with its verification status flagged.

Under the operating rule that I must flag rather than fabricate, please treat Section 3 (Combinations B–D) as analyst-constructed §103 positions using art I located by search, not as a recitation of the examiner's actual citation list.

Critical date. The page lists a "Prior art date" of 1989‑10‑02 and a priority claim from JP 15767190A dated 1990‑06‑18. I am interpreting these literally and not harmonizing them. Using the earlier listed date, 1989‑10‑02, as the presumptive critical date (§102(b) art must predate it by more than one year; §102(a)/(e) art must predate it), pre‑AIA §103 governs (effective filing 1990).

---

1. Claim 1 and the Graham factors

1.1 Scope and content

Claim 1 is a means‑plus‑function claim (pre‑AIA §112 ¶6 limits it to the disclosed structure and equivalents). Its six elements:

Dependent claims add: main scan control data with address counter/data register/counter/prescaler/sequencer (claim 2); down counter (claim 3); light‑amount modulation data and its counter chain (claim 4, and a converter means dependent claim); and, for claims 8–11, frequency modulation data, first counter means (down counter), second counter means (up/down counter), and pixel‑clock generating means comprising a VCO, a frequency divider, and a phase comparator.

1.2 Differences over the art of record in the document

The specification itself frames the delta with unusual clarity, and admissions of this kind are strong §103 ammunition:

1. The conventional circuit of Fig. 1 produces fixed periods T1–T9 from a hard‑wired decoder bank. The patent admits: "If a single image recording apparatus is designed to realize different resolution levels and/or different image recording speeds and/or to change the printing area in the main scanning direction for every page, it is necessary to provide for a large number of decoders. This needs a large‑size circuit and increases the production cost."
2. Light‑amount and frequency modulation data were already stored in ROM or set by strapping IC input terminals. The patent admits this and states the problem is that "it is necessary to change the status of the input terminals or replace the ROM" to change emission power or pixel‑clock frequency.

The asserted invention, stripped to substance, is: replace hard‑wired decoder logic and fixed data with a table of complete, per‑optical‑unit parameter sets in a first memory, select one set with a hardware identifier, stage it in a second memory, and count it out to build the main‑scan timing signals at run time.

1.3 Level of ordinary skill

A PHOSITA here is a design engineer of electrophotographic laser printers/digital copiers, ca. 1988–1990, with working knowledge of: polygon/rotating‑deflector scanning optics and the fθ problem; beam‑detect (DETP) synchronization; programmable counters, prescalers and sequencers; PLL clock synthesis (VCO + divider + phase comparator); D/A‑driven laser‑diode APC loops; and ROM/DIP‑switch configuration of print engines. This is a mature, crowded, incremental art.

1.4 Secondary considerations

The record on this page contains no evidence of unexpected results, long‑felt but unsolved need, failure of others, copying, or industry praise. The stated objects — cost/size reduction and flexibility — are ordinary engineering goals, which weakens any nexus argument. Any surviving nonobviousness theory must therefore be structural, not commercial.

---

2. Combination A (strongest): JP 62‑32768 + the admitted Fig. 1/2 decoder art + admitted ROM/strap data storage

References:

• JP Laid‑Open 62‑32768 — fθ‑less optical scanning system (the scanning speed on the recording medium is not constant). Cited by applicant in the Background.
• Admitted art of Figs. 1–2 (counter 71 reset by DETP + group of six decoders 72 producing PCDA, CURV, LSYNC, LGATE, SYNC1, SYNC0; fixed periods T1–T9). This is applicant‑admitted prior art and, as such, needs no independent corroboration.
• Admitted art that light‑amount modulation data and frequency modulation data were fixed in ROM or by IC input‑terminal pull‑up/pull‑down.

Element mapping to claim 1:

• optical scanning system selected from among different systems → JP 62‑32768's fθ‑less system, one of the known alternatives (the other three of Table 2's four units — rotating deflector + flat lens, galvano mirror, rotating deflector + fθ lens — were all conventional scanner topologies).
• first memory storing plural sets → the admitted ROM‑stored modulation data generalized from one data set to N data sets, one per scanner variant.
• setting means → the admitted practice of strapping/selecting configuration values (the patent uses a dipswitch for exactly this purpose).
• second memory + main scan controller + control means → the Fig. 1 counter/decoder chain, with the decoder bank replaced by a counter preset from memory.

Motivation to combine: The patent supplies it verbatim. An artisan facing JP 62‑32768's non‑uniform spot velocity must vary pixel clock frequency across the scan line, and must also vary laser drive current so that exposure per pixel stays constant (the Background states: "a drive current which is applied to the laser diode is changed in accordance with a change of the frequency f_k of the pixel clock"). Once several scanner variants must be supported on one common engine/board (the patent's own premise), the admitted Fig. 1 decoder scheme scales by adding decoders per variant, which the patent itself characterizes as large‑circuit and costly. Replacing a decoder bank with a preset‑down counter that counts out the same periods from a stored value is the canonical, textbook migration of fixed logic to table‑driven logic — a "known technique" improvement with a predictable result, exactly the situation KSR addressed.

Assessment: Claim 1 is prima facie obvious over Combination A. The only element requiring any inferential step is "a plurality of sets of control data respectively provided for said predetermined different optical scanning systems" — but that is simply the union of two admitted practices (ROM‑stored operating data + hardware‑selected configuration), and the patent identifies no synergy beyond convenience.

---

3. Combination B: Combination A + ROM‑defined variable‑frequency clock generation for a non‑uniform‑velocity scanner

Added reference (independently located; bibliographic data NOT verified by me): A 1983‑era U.S. patent whose number I read from the document URL as US 4,410,234 (PDF: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f9/26/e1/d70cc6813f8747/US4410234.pdf). ⚠️ I could not confirm title, inventor, or issue date from the search snippet; treat the number as read literally from the URL and unverified.

That document's Background expressly addresses the same problem as JP 62‑32768: with a polygon mirror or galvanometer, "the scanning light beam cannot scan the surface of the photoconductor drum at a constant scanning speed… the middle area of each scanning line is scanned at a relatively low scanning speed, while both side areas thereof are scanned at a relatively high scanning speed," and it surveys three solutions: (i) an fθ lens or parabolic reflector; (ii) an analog function generator + VCO; (iii) a digital device comprising a crystal oscillator and a variable frequency divider whose "dividing ratio may be determined by a suitable memory device, such as a ROM."

Why this matters: Combination B maps directly onto independent claim 1 and, more importantly, onto claims 8–11:

• "means for generating a predetermined reference frequency signal on the basis of a counter value" → the variable divider driven by a stored divisor.
• frequency modulation data stored as control data → the ROM‑stored dividing ratios, adapted to be changed during the line rather than per line.
• claim 9's pixel‑clock generating means (VCO + frequency divider + phase comparator) → the ordinary PLL synthesis loop, recited in the patent in conventional terms only.
• claim 11's up/down counter responding to count‑direction data → a routine bidirectional increment/decrement implementation of a per‑segment frequency delta.

Motivation to combine: Same field, same problem (non‑constant scan velocity ⇒ image distortion unless the pixel clock tracks the velocity), same figure of merit (image fidelity). JP 62‑32768 supplies the fθ‑less optical system; US 4,410,234 supplies the memory‑indexed variable‑frequency clock. An artisan would combine them because the second is a known, off‑the‑shelf answer to the first's problem, and because the patent admits the drive‑current/frequency compensation pairing as conventional.

Caveat: Since I could not confirm the actual citation list, I cannot say whether this reference was before the examiner. If it was not, it is new art rather than an obviousness defect in the original prosecution.

---

4. Combination C: Combination A + beam‑detect‑synchronized timing generation art

Added reference (independently located; I saw only a machine translation — verify): JP S59‑23669 B2, "Timing signal generation method" (https://patents.google.com/patent/JPS5923669B2/en). Described therein: a laser printer with a rotating polygon mirror and a photodetector producing a pulse P1 at the scan start, input to a timing signal generator 13 that emits a timing signal S1 of predetermined phase synchronized to the scan timing; a reset pulse P2 stops the supply each scan; the generator is built from a pulse oscillator, a phase circuit producing multiple phase‑shifted pulse signals, and D flip‑flops to derive the synchronized timing signal.

Relevance: This is directed to the very function recited as the "main scan controller means… for generating predetermined timing signals" in claim 1, and is essentially the admitted Fig. 1/2 architecture with a shift‑register phase generator. It corroborates that generating main‑scan gating/synchronization signals from a beam‑detect reference was routine, so that the only remaining question for claim 1 is where the numbers come from — which Combination A answers.

Reference‑date cautions (things I checked and rejected as §102 art):

• US 4,926,263 (Yokota) and EP 0 426 128 A2/B1 (see the search report at http://data.epo.org/publication-server/rest/v1.2/patents/EP0503643NWA3/document.pdf, which lists US‑A‑4 926 263 (YOKOTA) as a Y reference for a video‑clock/beam‑detect scheme). US 4,926,263 issued 1990‑05‑15; EP 0 426 128 published 1991. On the 1989‑10‑02 critical date these are not available as §102 prior art and cannot be used in a §103 combination. Flagging this so the point is not mistaken for a usable reference.
• US 5,431,353 (Morrison) and the Mita EP 0 503 643 family fall after the critical date as well.

---

5. Claim‑by‑claim conclusion

Bottom line: Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 9, 10, 11 are, on the art available to me, vulnerable. Claims 2 and 4 carry the only meaningful defensive value, and both are narrow structural recitations of a prescaler/skip encoding and a segmented up/down modulation chain rather than of any new principle.

---

6. Motivations to combine, stated in KSR terms

An examiner or challenger should articulate, for each combination:

1. Same field of endeavor and same problem. Each reference addresses laser‑beam scanning in an electrophotographic printer where the spot fails to move at constant velocity across the recording medium, and each seeks accurate dot placement. JP 62‑32768, US 4,410,234, and JP S59‑23669 B2 are all in this field.
2. Reasonable expectation of success. Substituting a preset‑counter/table for a fixed decoder bank, or a ROM‑indexed divider for a fixed divider, has a predictable result (same output waveform, different numbers). The patent alleges no unexpected result.
3. Design incentive recognized in the prior art and admitted in the patent. The specification itself states the incentive: an apparatus supporting several resolutions/speeds/print widths "needs a large‑size circuit and increases the production cost," and changing strapping/ROM is required to alter emission power or clock frequency. Cost and flexibility are legitimate design considerations.
4. Known technique, improvement thereof. Table‑driven replacement of dedicated logic, and hardware‑ID selection of a stored parameter set, were commonplace in copier/printer engine control, as the patent's own dipswitch group and ROM disclose.
5. Pedigree of elements, not invention as a whole. Every element is separately old: the fθ‑less scanner, the DETP‑reset counter, the decoder bank, the PLL, the up/down counter, the D/A laser‑diode driver, and the DIP‑switch configuration. The claim assembles them without a new cooperative relationship beyond ordinary dataflow.

---

7. Where the patent could still resist (candor section)

• Means‑plus‑function narrowing. Because claim 1 is in §112 ¶6 form, its scope is limited to counter/prescaler/sequencer structure (and equivalents) for generating the timing signals, not to "any table lookup." A reference that merely stores a set of numbers without the sequential preset‑and‑count‑out architecture may not read on the claim.
• The "one set per candidate optical scanning system" packaging. If no single reference or combination teaches pre‑storing complete alternative data sets for plural discrete scanner types and hard‑selecting among them at boot, this is the pivot on which nonobviousness would turn. The patent's own remark that "scanning areas related to the different optical scanning units may not coincide with each other" is an argument that the data sets are qualitatively different, not a single set of scale factors — this is the strongest substantive point in the record.
• Claim 2's skip bit. The 7‑bit‑count / 1‑bit‑÷128‑prescale encoding is a specific, non‑trivial compression scheme for long inter‑signal intervals. Expect the patentee to press this.
• No secondary considerations in evidence. Conversely, the patentee has produced no unexpected‑results, long‑felt‑need, or copying evidence on this page.
• I could not see the examiner's actual citation list. If the face of the patent cites art I did not identify, or if the in‑family JP 2989222 B2 (linked from the page as the JP counterpart) reflects a different claim scope, the above attack should be re‑run against the actual record before it is relied on.

---

8. Confidence and verification statement

• High confidence: the internal content of US 5,019,913 (claims, Figs. 1–2 admitted art, Tables 1–3, ROM 30/RAM 35/dipswitch 31 architecture, the express admissions about decoder multiplicity and ROM/strap‑stored modulation data), drawn from https://patents.google.com/patent/US5019913/en, https://patents.justia.com/patent/5019913 and https://FreePatentsOnline.com/5019913.html.
• Moderate confidence: that JP Laid‑Open 62‑32768 is the only prior‑art document named on the face of the specification's Background section.
• Low confidence / unverified: (a) the complete "References Cited" and "Cited By" tables for US 5,019,913 — I could not retrieve them; (b) the bibliographic particulars of US 4,410,234, whose number I read literally from a document URL; (c) the publication date and scope of JP S59‑23669 B2, which I saw only as a machine translation.
• Explicitly not asserted: I have not identified any U.S. patent as being of record on US 5,019,913. Sections 3–4 should be treated as an analyst's §103 construction, not a report of the examiner's citations.