Invalidity dossier
US 5354974
Automatic teller system and method of operating same
Current assignee: Base 10 Systems Inc
Added 9/24/2026, 1:37:51 AM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview — US 5,354,974
Title: Automatic teller system and method of operating same
Patent number: US 5,354,974 A
Application number: US 07/981,038
Inventor: Alan J. Eisenberg
Assignee: Base 10 Systems, Inc. (original assignee; assignment recorded 1992-11-24, assignor Eisenberg)
Priority/filing date: 1992-11-24
Publication (grant) date: 1994-10-11
Status (as listed): Expired – Fee Related; anticipated expiration 2012-11-24 (stated as an assumption, not a legal conclusion)
Classifications noted: G07F7/10, G07F7/1008, G07F7/1025, G07F7/1083, G07F19/20, G07F19/207, G06Q20/341
Purpose: To overcome disadvantages of existing automatic teller systems by letting a user actuate an alarm without alerting a thief or potential thief. The system assigns each user a personalized emergency PIN number in addition to the normal PIN number.
Plain-language scope (from the excerpt): An ATM (5) has a magnetic-stripe card reader (1), keypad (2), display (3), and cash dispenser (4). A central computer (10) compares an entered PIN against lists for the card's account to determine whether it is a normal PIN or an emergency PIN. On detecting an emergency PIN, the computer (a) actuates a silent alarm (7) notifying authorities, (b) actuates camera (6) to start, enhance, or add views, and (c) simulates a normal transaction — prompting for an amount, then reporting the credit limit as lower than requested so only a limited amount is dispensed, reducing the theft while appearing routine. Marked bills from a special supply may be dispensed for later identification; video and audio may be transmitted by modem to bank security or police. Because emergency PINs are personalized, one user's emergency PIN may equal another user's normal PIN, so a thief cannot tell an emergency PIN was entered (FIG. 2 steps 100–117).
What the excerpt does not establish: It does not address litigation, ownership transfers beyond the recorded assignment, validity, or prior art. It gives no claim text, no figures' details beyond what is described, and no independent verification of legal status or dates. Consult the source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5354974/en
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:31:15 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 5354974. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.