US 5382784

I'll verify this patent against live sources and check for any 2026 litigation activity.

Let me check specifically for any 2026 litigation or Federal Circuit activity.

US 5,382,784 — Verification Summary

Sourcing note: I checked Google Patents, the USPTO-facing reproduction (uspto.report), the PCT/EPO family documents, and live court-docket sources. The bibliographic data below matches all of them. Where a search result conflicted with my prior assumptions, I deferred to the search result. I found no Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 docket naming this patent, and I explain the litigation picture at the end.

Bibliographic data

Assignee chain recorded on the face of the record: Eberhardt → Indala Corporation (1993) → HID Corporation (2002, from Motorola) → HID Global Corporation (2007 name change) → ASSA ABLOY Identification Technology Group AB (2007) → HID Global Corporation (2007).

Abstract (as published)

A hand-held dual reading head with a housing having a light-transmissive window at one end, containing an actuatable bar-code reader (produces a beam exiting via the window and detects reflected light to generate a signal corresponding to bar-code data) and an actuatable radio-frequency tag reader. The RF reader includes a transmit/receive coil mounted adjacent the window end for producing an RF signal of a first frequency to energize a transponder-type tag and for receiving an identifying signal of a second frequency, providing a second output signal preferably in the same format as the bar-code data. The head has a common signal output and a manually actuatable switch selectively actuating one of the two readers. Preferably the housing is gun-shaped and the switch is a normally-OFF trigger with two ON positions.

Independent claims in plain language

There are 11 claims total; the two independent claims are claim 1 and claim 10.

Claim 1 — "hand-held dual code reading head" (apparatus):

1. A hand-held housing with a light-transmissive window at one end.
2. Inside, an actuatable bar-code reader having (a) a light source producing a beam directed along a path out through the window toward a bar-code tag, (b) a scanning means that sweeps the beam along a scan line across the tag, and (c) a light sensor detecting reflected-light intensity and producing a corresponding electrical signal.
3. Inside, an actuatable RF tag reader that produces a first-frequency RF signal to energize an RFID tag and detects a second-frequency identifying signal from an energized tag, producing a corresponding output signal. Its coil is mounted within the housing at the window end so as to avoid the light path, with circuit means connected to the coil for producing the output signal.
4. A manually actuatable means (user-operated) for selectively actuating one or the other — bar-code reader or RF tag reader.

(Note: the claim text contains a literal duplicate — "…for producing said corresponding output signal; and, and means, which are manually actuatable…" — I am reading the identifier/text literally rather than correcting it.)

Claim 10 — "hand-held dual reading head" (apparatus, differently framed):

1. A hand-held housing with a window at one end.
2. An actuatable bar-code reader producing a light beam that exits through the window and detecting reflected light to generate a first electrical signal corresponding to bar-code data.
3. An actuatable RF tag reader with a transmit/receive coil adjacent the window end, producing a first-frequency signal to energize a transponder-type RFID tag and receiving a second-frequency identifying signal to provide a second electrical output signal in the same signal format as the bar-code data.
4. A common signal output connected to receive both the first and second electrical signals.
5. Manually actuatable switch means on the housing for selectively actuating one reader depending on the type of tag to be read.

Dependent claims (context for the independent claims): claims 2–9 depend from claim 1 (single-finger switch; three-position switch; normally-OFF trigger; gun-shaped housing with transverse handle; alternatively a pair of normally-OFF switches; format-conversion circuit plus common output; coil disposed around the light path; coil wound on a ferrite core extending transverse to the end). Claim 11 depends from claim 10 (gun-shaped housing; trigger-like normally-OFF switch with two ON positions).

Litigation / 2026 docket check

• No CAFC 2026 docket for US 5,382,784 was found. The patent's record shows anticipated expiration on 2013-02-08 and an "Expired – Lifetime" status, so it is not an enforceable patent in 2026.
• The Google Patents record lists one historical family litigation: California Central District Court, case 8:08-cv-00003 (via Unified Patents).
• Caution: my searches for HID Global litigation in 2026 returned unrelated matters, notably VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd. v. HID Global Corporation (D. Del. 1:25-cv-00229), which concerns U.S. Patent No. 7,724,143 (the "'143 patent") and an ex parte reexamination (No. 90,015,758) — not 5382784 — and WiFidelity LLC v. HID Global Corp. (W.D. Tex. 7:26-cv-00239), which does not match 5382784. Do not conflate the shared defendant (HID Global) with this patent number.

Uncertainty / limits

• I did not directly query PACER or the USPTO PatentCenter assignment database in a verifiable way; the litigation and assignment details above come from Google Patents' aggregation and public docket mirrors and should be confirmed against the primary sources before being relied on.
• I cannot confirm any specific 2026 CAFC appeal involving this patent; given the 2013 expiration, any such activity would be unlikely and I found none.

I'll search live sources for litigation specifically involving US 5,382,784.

Let me dig deeper into litigation-specific sources for this patent number.

Let me check the specific case Google Patents flags, plus Unified Patents and Darts-IP records.

Bottom line

I could not confirm any litigation in which US 5,382,784 (5382784) is actually asserted as a patent-in-suit. The only litigation-related trace on the patent's own record is a single docket reference that Google Patents attributes to the patent family via Unified Patents. I was unable to verify the parties, claims, or outcome of that docket before hitting my search-step limit, so I am flagging it as unverified rather than as a confirmed case. No CAFC appeal naming 5382784 was found.

I want to be explicit: this is not a clean "the record shows X" answer — it is "the record shows one unverified hit, plus several look-alike cases that involve the same accused companies but different patents."

Litigation trace on the patent's record (verbatim, un-corrected)

The patent record carries a "Family has litigation" marker and two litigation fields:

On that entry:

• Plaintiff(s): not stated in the record I retrieved.
• Defendant(s): not stated.
• Filing date: not stated (case number prefix "8:08" implies a 2008 filing in the Central District of California; I am treating that inference as unconfirmed).
• Patents asserted: not stated in the record — I cannot confirm that 5382784 itself was asserted.
• Outcome/status: not stated.

Because the parties and asserted patents are unstated, I cannot responsibly attribute plaintiff/defendant to this docket, and I will not guess. Given the patent's named entities (Indala → Motorola → HID Global), the most plausible candidates are the Indala/HID vs. Leighton Technologies disputes (see below), but that is a hypothesis, not a verified fact.

Related-but-different matters I found (do not conflate with 5382784)

These all share the same corporate players but involve different patents or non-patent claims:

1. HID Global Corporation v. Keith R. Leighton, N.D. Ohio, No. 1:07-cv-01972 (Judge Patricia A. Gaughan).
   • Breach-of-confidentiality/contract case, not a patent assertion. HID Global is described as "successor-in-interest to the Indala subsidiary of Motorola."
   • The opinion references a concurrent California patent-infringement suit between HID/Indala and Leighton Technologies. It does not name 5382784.
   • Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/ohio/ohndce/1:2007cv01972/144434/55
2. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd. v. HID Global Corp. (and Omni-ID), D. Del. (complaint; briefing May 2025) — asserts the '143 patent (U.S. 7,724,143), not 5382784.
   • Sources: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.88313/gov.uscourts.ded.88313.16.0.pdf, .../88313.12.0.pdf
3. HID Global Corp. v. Idemia Identity & Security USA LLC / L-1 Secure Credentialing, IPR2017-01938/-01939/-01940/-01941 — patents 7,207,494; 7,661,600; 8,083,152, not 5382784.
   • Source: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1496096/...
4. ASSA ABLOY AB et al. (incl. HID Global) v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty. Ltd. / Charter Pacific Corp., D. Conn., Civ. 3:22-cv-694 — declaratory judgment on patents 9,269,208; 9,665,705; 8,620,039, not 5382784.
   • Source: PTAB IPR2022-01006 Exhibit 2007-29 (Docket Alarm mirror).

⚠️ A likely false positive you should be aware of

A search result reports a U.S. Patent No. 5,382,784 in the Kemin Health v. OmniActive Health Technologies lutein litigation (M.D. Fla.), stating OmniActive's motion for summary judgment on infringement of "Kemin's U.S. patent No. 5,382,784" was denied.

• Source: https://www.supplysidesj.com/legal-compliance/kemin-omniactive-ip-dispute-continues (Sept. 28, 2009).

Take this literally-but-skeptically. The same article also refers to "the '714 patent" when describing OmniActive's counterclaims, and the subject matter (purified free lutein for dietary supplements) is wholly unrelated to a hand-held RFID/barcode reading head. This is almost certainly a typographical/mis-citation of the Kemin patent number (likely 5,382,7xx), not an assertion of the Indala patent. Per your strict rule I am not auto-correcting the number — I am reporting it verbatim and flagging the conflict. Do not treat this as litigation against US 5,382,784 without pulling the M.D. Fla. complaint to confirm the patent number on its face.

Why the absence of litigation makes sense

The patent's record shows an anticipated expiration of 1993-02-08 filing + 20 years = 2013-02-08, with status "Expired – Lifetime." Any assertion campaign would have had to occur roughly 1995–2013. The only litigation-era trace is the 2008 California docket above. There is no basis for any 2026 enforcement activity, and I found none.

What I could not verify (limits)

• I did not reach primary PACER or the Unified Patents litigant page for 8:08-cv-00003; my search budget ended before I could confirm plaintiff/defendant/patents/outcome. The court/case-number pairing comes from Google Patents' aggregation of Unified Patents data and should be treated as secondary.
• I could not determine whether the California case referenced in HID Global v. Leighton is the same matter as 8:08-cv-00003, nor whether 5382784 was among the asserted patents.
• No Darts-IP family-litigation entry's contents were retrievable.
• If you need a litigation list you can rely on, the next step is to pull the docket for C.D. Cal. 8:08-cv-00003 from PACER (or Bloomberg Law/Lex Machina) and confirm the parties, asserted patents, and disposition against the face of the documents — not against the aggregation.

Net answer to your question: On the evidence available, there is one unverified family-litigation docket reference (C.D. Cal. 8:08-cv-00003); I found no confirmed case in which US 5,382,784 is the patent-in-suit, and I expressly disclaim the Kemin/OmniActive hit as a probable number confusion.

I'll verify the structured "no PTAB activity" finding for US 5,382,784 against live sources before writing anything.

No hits yet. Let me run a few more targeted checks — including the Docket Alarm PTAB patent page and any 2013-era filings.

I ran four targeted searches for any AIA trial proceeding naming US 5,382,784. None returned a PTAB proceeding on this patent. My searches did surface substantial HID Global PTAB activity, but all of it involves other patents, and I flag it below specifically so it isn't misread as activity on this one. I was cut off before I could query PTAB E2E / Docket Alarm directly, so my verification rests on the structured ODP block plus web search — noted in the limits section.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings exist on US 5,382,784 — no IPRs, no PGRs, no CBMs, hence no claims invalidated, no claims sustained in a trial, no settlements, and no institution denials. The bottom-line defensive posture is that this is not a "hardened by PTAB" patent and not a "killed by PTAB" patent — it is an untested patent that is also expired, which for a 2026 defendant means the PTAB question is effectively moot: a patent that expired on 2013-02-08 ("Expired – Lifetime," anticipated expiration recorded as 2013-02-08) cannot support an injunction or ongoing-royalty theory, and no AIA estoppel or FWD record exists to work with.

Proceedings

There are no proceedings to enumerate. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal ingest) returns none, and my web searches did not surface any IPR/PGR/CBM naming 5,382,784 or "5382784." Because the output template calls for claim-level FWDs, judge panels, and settlement terms, I am stating plainly rather than back-filling from adjacent matters: inventing or transplanting a proceeding number here would be fabrication, and I decline to do it.

What I searched for and did not find: any petition, institution decision, FWD, or appeal naming 5382784; any PTAB proceeding captioned with Indala, Eberhardt, or the '784 patent number.

Why the silence is unsurprising (and not a red flag):

• PGR is unavailable. A post-grant review requires an effective filing date on or after 2013-03-16. This patent was filed 1993-02-08. PGR was never an option.
• CBM is unavailable. The CBM transitional program sunset on 2018-09-18, and this is a hand-held scanner hardware patent, not a covered business method patent — it would also face the "technological invention" exclusion.
• IPR's window barely overlapped the patent's life. IPR became available 2012-09-16; the patent expired 2013-02-08. That is a roughly five-month overlap in which a would-be challenger could file while the patent still had prospective force.
• The known enforcement predates the AIA. The one historical family litigation on the record is C.D. Cal. 8:08-cv-00003 (per Google Patents / Unified Patents). A 2008 defendant had no IPR to file — IPR did not exist for another four years.

Matters I found that are NOT this patent (do not conflate)

⚠️ Two structural cautions for anyone doing a quick docket search: (1) The 2014 HID press release language "multi-technology reader patents" is a near-miss trap for this patent's "dual technology" title — the asserted numbers are 5,952,935 and 7,439,862. (2) HID Global is a frequent petitioner in IPRs and a frequent defendant in § 337/patent suits; its name appearing near "PTAB" tells you nothing about whether this patent was challenged. I found no HID Global IPR, as petitioner or patent owner, involving 5,382,784.

Strategic summary

Claim status — all 11 claims UNTESTED. No claim of 5,382,784 has ever been canceled, confirmed, or construed by the PTAB. Claims 1 and 10 (the independents) and claims 2–9 and 11 (dependents) stand exactly as issued on 1995-01-17. There is no narrowed claim set to fall back on and no clean claim set to attack — the claim landscape is untouched.

Estoppel landscape — empty. Because no IPR was ever instituted, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to nobody. No petitioner, real party in interest, or privy is barred from raising any § 102/§ 103 ground, in any forum, on any claim. That is the theoretical good news, and it is nearly worthless in practice: a defendant in 2026 has no infringement exposure worth defending against. Damages under 35 U.S.C. § 286 reach back only six years from suit; a suit filed in 2026 reaches conduct from 2020 forward, and the patent expired 2013-02-08. There is no window of unexpired infringement to capture. Any demand letter citing this patent today should be met first with the expiration date and the § 286 arithmetic, not with a prior-art attack.

Pattern signals — none to read. This is not a heavily-asserted patent that has been through the PTAB mill, and it is not a patent that survived the mill. It is a 1993-filed, 1995-issued, 2013-expired patent whose single recorded enforcement event predates the AIA. Unlike the ordinary heuristic ("well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs"), the absence here has a fully benign explanation — the patent's IPR-eligible window was about five months, and it closed thirteen years ago. There is no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents, RPX) IPR in the chain; Unified Patents appears only as the source of the litigation link, not as a petitioner.

One secondary check I could not complete: I did not confirm whether an ex parte reexamination was ever filed against 5,382,784 (which would not appear in the AIA-trial dataset). My searches surfaced no such reexam, but I flag this as unverified rather than affirmatively cleared.

Recommended next steps

• No PTAB activity exists — say so plainly and don't build a strategy on it. There is no FWD to link to and no disposition to quote. Any draft asserting "the PTAB invalidated claims X–Y of the '784" would be a fabrication.
• If you hold a demand letter citing 5,382,784: respond on status, not on merits. The patent is recorded as Expired – Lifetime with anticipated expiration 2013-02-08, so it is not enforceable for any post-2013 conduct. Request the complainant identify (a) the specific asserted claims, (b) the accused products, and (c) the allegedly infringing acts and their dates. The § 286 six-year lookback plus the 2013 expiration should collapse the claim.
• If an IPR is nonetheless being contemplated (e.g., because someone asserts the patent in an active case): it remains legally available against an expired patent, and with no § 315(b) one-year bar triggered and no § 325(d) or Fintiv baggage, a petition could be drafted cleanly. But the cost/benefit is poor given the expiration. Verify the § 315(b) clock against the actual complaint service date before relying on any of this.
• Verify against primary sources before filing anything. I could not query PACER, PTAB E2E, or the ODP API interactively. Confirm the zero-proceeding finding at:
  • USPTO PTAB E2E / PTAB API: https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api
  • USPTO PatentCenter (this patent): https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ (application 08/014,523)
  • Google Patents record: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5382784/en
  • CourtListener (any CAFC appeal of a nonexistent FWD — expect none): https://www.courtlistener.com/
• Check the reexam/reexam-certificate tab in PatentCenter to close out the one open item I flagged above.

Limits on this analysis

1. My web searches returned no hit for a PTAB proceeding on 5,382,784; the structured ODP block independently reports none. I did not obtain a direct PTAB E2E or Docket Alarm screen confirming zero — my verification is search-based plus the structured ingest.
2. No proceeding number appears anywhere in this report that was not supplied by the structured data or found in a search result. I did not reconstruct any IPR/PGR/CBM number for this patent, because none exists in my sources.
3. The 11 claims, the two independent claims, and the claim text quoted in the prior summary section are taken from the authoritative full patent text and are not affected by this proceeding-level analysis.
4. All dates are in YYYY-MM-DD format. The 2008 C.D. Cal. case number (8:08-cv-00003) is reproduced literally from the record; I have not resolved the actual filing date or the parties from primary sources.

I'll verify the assignment chain against live sources before reconstructing it. Let me search.

Let me dig into the Indala/Motorola/HID chain and the 2008 litigation.

Let me try to pin down the 2008 case and any USPTO assignment reel/frame records.

I hit the search-step limit before I could pull the raw Assignment Center records directly. Below I reconstruct the chain from Google Patents' legal-events register (which mirrors the USPTO assignment data) plus corroborating press releases and court/PTAB filings — and I flag explicitly where reel/frame and correspondent data are not available to me.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 5,382,784

Sourcing / limitation note (read first). I was unable to open the USPTO Patent Assignment Search record pages directly within my step budget, and Google Patents' legal-events feed does not expose reel/frame numbers or the correspondent of record. Therefore I cannot supply reel/frame citations or correspondent names for this patent, and I will not invent them. Everything below is labeled by date and event type only; the timeline of events is corroborated, but the reel/frame field for each link is unverified. Verify each at the Assignment Center by patent number: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (front door: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/). Note also that this chain is largely a corporate-M&A chain, not a patent-licensing chain, which is itself the central finding.

Inventors

Pattern note: Only one inventor, and no evidence of post-filing inventor movement. There is no "all inventors departed within 12 months" pattern to report — but the relevant corporate event is different: Indala itself was acquired by Motorola in 1993, the same year the application was filed (ASSA ABLOY press release, 1 Nov 2001: "The company was founded in 1985 and acquired by Motorola in 1993"). So Eberhardt's employer was being absorbed essentially contemporaneously with the filing. That is an entity-level turnover, not an inventor-level one, and it is the origin of the entire downstream chain.

Original assignee

Indala Corporation (a.k.a. Indala Corp), San Jose, CA — the assignee named on the issued patent.

• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes. The specification itself names the assignee's commercial reader as a basis for enablement: the RF reader circuitry "may generally be of the type sold by the Assignee, Indala Corporation, under the Trademark 'RAPID ID', for example a reader model MHK-103." Indala manufactured RFID cards and readers (access-control and industrial), and at the time of the 2001 sale had an installed base of "60 million cards and 1 million readers" (ASSA ABLOY press release, 1 Nov 2001).
• Primary line of business: contactless/RFID identification — RFID cards, tag readers, and access-control systems. Founded 1985.
• Current status: No longer an independent operating entity. Acquired by Motorola in 1993; Motorola's Indala RFID access-control business was sold to HID Corporation (ASSA ABLOY Group) effective 1 Nov 2001; Arnlea Systems separately acquired Indala's industrial RFID product line and manufacturing in July 2002. The Indala brand survives inside HID Global's product line; the corporate entity is gone.

⚠️ Flagged discrepancy (contradiction to resolve). RFID Journal (25 July 2002) reports that, under the Arnlea deal, "Arnlea acquires ownership of the patents for Indala's technology." That is in tension with the recorded chain below, in which the patent flows Motorola → HID Corporation. Possible reconciliation: the Arnlea transfer covered only the industrial-RFID patent subset, or the journalist was loose with "patents." I could not verify which. Treat this as an open discrepancy, not a confirmed assignment.

Assignment timeline

All five recorded events below come from the Google Patents legal-events register. Reel/frame: unavailable — not retrieved (see sourcing note). Correspondent: unavailable — not retrieved. Conveyance types are as characterized on the record.

1. 1993-05-10 (recorded) / executed on or about 1993-05-10 — Reel NNNNNN/NNNN (not retrieved)

   • Conveyance: Assignment (inventor-to-company)
   • Assignor: Noel H. Eberhardt
   • Assignee: Indala Corporation
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: Original employer assignment of the invention to Indala, executed ~3 months after filing and while Indala was being acquired by Motorola.

2. 2002-01-10 (recorded) / executed ~2001-11-01 — Reel NNNNNN/NNNN (not retrieved)

   • Conveyance: Assignment (asset/M&A transfer)
   • Assignor: Motorola, Inc.
   • Assignee: HID Corporation
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: Acquisition — ASSA ABLOY/HID's purchase of Motorola's worldwide Indala RFID access-control business, consolidated 1 Nov 2001 and recorded Jan 2002. Recording by the seller (Motorola) rather than by Indala is consistent with Motorola holding record title at that point.

3. 2007-03-05 — Reel NNNNNN/NNNN (not retrieved)

   • Conveyance: Change of Name (record states "CHANGE OF NAME (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
   • Assignor: HID Corporation
   • Assignee: HID Global Corporation
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: Internal reorg — name change only, no change in beneficial ownership.

4. 2007-05-18 — Reel NNNNNN/NNNN (not retrieved)

   • Conveyance: Assignment of Interest
   • Assignor: HID Global Corporation
   • Assignee: ASSA ABLOY Identification Technology Group AB (Swedish group entity)
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: Internal reorg — intra-group transfer up to the ASSA ABLOY identification-technology holding entity.

5. 2007-10-30 — Reel NNNNNN/NNNN (not retrieved)

   • Conveyance: Assignment of Interest
   • Assignor: ASSA ABLOY Identification Technology Group AB
   • Assignee: HID Global Corporation
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: Internal reorg — transfer back down to the U.S. operating company; this is the current recorded owner.

Recording gap worth noting: there is no recorded assignment from Indala Corporation to Motorola despite the 1993 acquisition. That is consistent with Indala having remained the same legal entity (a Motorola subsidiary) rather than having its patents reassigned — i.e., a stock-style acquisition — with the patent later moved out of Motorola by the 2002 asset assignment. I cannot confirm the deal mechanics.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 5382784
    1993 : Eberhardt files application
         : Rights assigned to Indala Corporation
         : Motorola acquires Indala
    2001 : ASSA ABLOY buys Indala business from Motorola
    2002 : Recorded transfer Motorola to HID Corporation
    2007 : HID Corporation renamed HID Global
         : Transfer up to ASSA ABLOY ITG AB
         : Transfer back to HID Global
    2013 : Patent expires
    2014 : HID Global sues Kwikset on other patents

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. Every link is an operating company: Indala Corporation, Motorola, Inc., HID Corporation, HID Global Corporation, ASSA ABLOY Identification Technology Group AB. None carries an "IP / Patents / Holdings / Ventures" suffix; none is a single-purpose LLC; each is a manufacturing or group-holding entity engaged in RFID/access control. (Dates: 1993-05-10; 2002-01-10; 2007-03-05; 2007-05-18; 2007-10-30.)

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. No link matches the public NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN/Mosaid-Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, etc.). HID Global Corporation does appear in litigation databases as an asserter, but classified as a "Product company" — Stanford's NPE database lists HID Global Corporation v. Kwikset Corp. (C.D. Cal. 8:14-cv-00947) under the "8 Product company" asserter category, i.e., an operating manufacturer suing a competitor, not an NPE. I found no evidence tying HID Global to any NPE directory listing.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (data not retrieved). I could not capture the correspondent of record for any of the five links. Given that links 3–5 are intra-group ASSA ABLOY reorgs, a single recurring corporate counsel is expected and would be benign here; this signal cannot be scored either way without the reel/frame pages.

4. Cascading transfers — PRESENT but benign in character. Two assignment-of-interest recordings within ~5 months (2007-05-18 and 2007-10-30) plus a name change on 2007-03-05 — three recordings in under 8 months. On its face that fits the "cascading" shape, but all three are transfers within a single corporate group (HID ↔ ASSA ABLOY ITG AB), not through chained third-party LLCs, and they do not move ownership outside ASSA ABLOY. I score the pattern present, the troll inference absent.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — UNCLEAR. Google Patents records a family litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, case No. 8:08-cv-00003 (per Unified Patents), which would post-date the 2007-10-30 transfer back to HID Global by only a few months — nominally a "clean standing" arrangement. However, the 2007 transfers were intra-group, so this looks like ordinary housekeeping rather than suit-driven standing engineering. I could not retrieve the parties or subject patents of 8:08-cv-00003, so I cannot confirm that 5382784 was even asserted there. Do not treat this as a confirmed pre-litigation transfer.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No assignor or assignee in the chain filed bankruptcy. The relevant divestitures were strategic: Motorola shedding a "low profitability" RFID unit (ASSA ABLOY release: ~USD 25 M turnover, "low profitability"), and HID/ASSA ABLOY later selling the industrial sub-line to Arnlea (July 2002). Neither was a distressed Chapter 7/11 sale.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. No evidence in the record, in SEC/ASSA ABLOY investor materials, or in the litigation record that HID Global transferred this patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf. HID Global asserts its own patents in its own name (e.g., HID Global v. Farpointe Data, C.D. Cal. SACV 10-1954; HID Global v. Kwikset; HID Global as IPR petitioner against Idemia).

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at HID Global Corporation, a product company. (Inverse observation: HID Global is itself a frequent defensive IPR petitioner — e.g., the ASSA ABLOY/HID family as petitioners in IPR2022-01006 and IPR2017-01938 through -01941 — but that is defensive assertion activity, not aggregation of this patent.)

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The chain terminates at HID Global Corporation (recorded 2007-10-30), the U.S. operating subsidiary of ASSA ABLOY that manufactures and sells RFID cards, readers, and access-control systems — the very product category this patent covers (the specification cites the assignee's Indala "RAPID ID" MHK-103 reader). Every link from 1993-05-10 (Eberhardt → Indala) through 2002-01-10 (Motorola → HID Corporation) and the three 2007 intra-group recordings is a corporate M&A or reorganization step; no NPE, licensing-only LLC, or defensive aggregator ever appears in the chain, and no known NPE-asserter name matches any assignee. The 2007-05-18 and 2007-10-30 recordings produce the "cascading transfer" shape on paper but are transfers within a single corporate group, so they do not support an NPE inference. Caveat: this verdict rests on the event dates only — I could not retrieve reel/frame or correspondent data, and the 2008 C.D. Cal. case 8:08-cv-00003 is unverified as to parties. Confirm at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Independently, the patent expired 2013-02-08 and is not enforceable in 2026, so any "assertion" characterization is historical only.

I'll research the prior art for US 5,382,784, focusing on the references cited on its face and those referenced in its specification.

Let me verify the specification-referenced prior art and the family citations.

Let me verify a few remaining reference details.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 5,382,784

Scope note: I searched specifically for patent number 5382784 (US 5,382,784 A, "Hand-held dual technology identification tag reading head"), not similar numbers, and pulled its citation record from Google Patents, the USPTO-facing reproductions (uspto.report), and the EPO/publication-server family documents. Everything below is keyed to that one patent.

Small flag on the task header: The running analysis gave today's date as 2026-10-01; this task header says April 26, 2026. That is the only inconsistency I see with the previously generated material, and it does not affect the prior-art findings (the patent expired 2013-02-08). I am not repeating the bibliographic/abstract/claim-mapping content already produced — I build on it.

1. What counts as "a citation for 5382784"

The record has four distinct layers of references, and it is important not to blur them:

A note on the "Cited By" list: several entries carry earlier priority dates (e.g., US 5,825,045, Norand, priority 1992-02-13) because they are continuation-family members that later cited 5382784. Priority date ≠ citation status; the citing event is what puts them in the list. None of Layer D can anticipate 5382784.

2. Layer A — The examiner's sole citation

US 5,216,233 — "Versatile RF terminal-scanner system"

• Full citation: US 5,216,233 A; inventors Douglas W. Main and Tim A. Kassens; assignee Norand Corporation (Cedar Rapids, IA); Appl. No. 07/966,907, filed October 26, 1992; issued June 1, 1993. A continuation of Ser. No. 07/321,932, filed March 9, 1989 (abandoned). URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5216233 ; https://uspto.report/patent/grant/[5216233](/patent/5216233)
• Description: A hand-held data-capture terminal (the commercial Norand RT2210 radio data terminal — 9.4 × 3.4 × 1.8 in, 2.0 lb) that accepts a family of detachable scanner modules of diverse technologies: "CCD bar code scanning, area image data reading, cyclically swept laser beam bar code scanning, and RF identification label scanning." FIGS. 5–7 show an RF/ID module 420 with an electromagnetic-field-permeable housing 421 containing an RF/ID antenna 422; the module snaps onto the terminal's D-connector (17/24) and hands decoded data to the terminal for RF transmission to a host. Claim 1 (as reprinted) is directed to the hand-held terminal + scanner module assembly.
• Which claim(s) it potentially anticipates (§102): This is the most material reference, and it is the one an examiner would reach for first against claim 1 and claim 10. It discloses a hand-held unit that reads either optical (bar-code) or RF identification data, and it discloses a coil/antenna for the RF reader. However, as granted it likely does not fully anticipate either independent claim, because:
  • It is a modular/substitutable system (one scanner technology at a time), not a single housing containing both an actuatable bar-code reader and an actuatable RF reader simultaneously;
  • It does not disclose "manually actuatable means ... for selectively actuating one of said bar code reader and said radio frequency tag reader" (there is one trigger for whichever module is attached, not a reader-selecting switch);
  • It does not disclose the RF coil "mounted within the housing at said one end ... so as to avoid said light path" — the RF/ID antenna sits in the detachable module, and placement is expressly left "within the skill in the art";
  • Claim 10's "same signal format as the bar-code data" plus "common signal output" limitations are absent.
  • Bottom line: anticipates neither claim 1 nor claim 10 as a whole on this record; it is the primary §103 basis, and it anticipates only a hypothetical broader claim to "hand-held terminal usable with bar-code or RF-ID scanner."

3. Layer B — References cited in the specification

US 4,806,742 — "Portable laser diode scanning head"

• Full citation: US 4,806,742 A; issued February 21, 1989. Cited in 5382784's description: "A bar code reader operating in the manner thus far described is known in the art and may, for example, be a reader of the type disclosed ... in U.S. Pat. No. 4,806,742 or U.S. Pat. No. 5,157,687."
• Description: A hand-held laser-diode bar-code scanning head — i.e., the light source + oscillating-mirror scanning means + photodetector sub-combination that claim 1 recites (light source 18, mirror 24, motor 26, detector 32 in the 5382784 embodiment). (I could not re-confirm the inventor/assignee in this session — my recollection is Symbol Technologies, but treat the inventor/assignee as unverified.)
• Which claim(s) it potentially anticipates (§102): None of claims 1–11 as a whole. It is prior art only against the bar-code-reader sub-element; claims 1 and 10 each additionally require an RF tag reader, a coil at the window end, format conversion/common output (claim 10), and selective actuation. Anticipation fails for lack of those elements; relevance is §103.

US 5,157,687 — "Packet data communication network"

• Full citation: US 5,157,687 A; assignee Symbol Technologies, Inc. (LaRoy Tymes family); issued October 20, 1992. URL: https://uspto.report/patent/grant/5157687 ; Part of the same family as US 5,029,183 / US 5,479,441 (division of Ser. No. 799,172).
• Description: A packet-data RF communication system linking hand-held bar-code-reading remote units to a central computer via base stations; the remote units transmit a data packet and receive an acknowledge packet in a rigid time window. It is cited in 5382784 simply as an example of a known bar-code reader.
• Which claim(s) it potentially anticipates (§102): None of claims 1–11. It concerns the RF data-output link, which in 5382784 appears only as an optional alternative ("it would be possible to provide an RF transmitter in the housing 10 to transmit the output data signal ... via a radio frequency link") — not as a claimed element of claims 1 or 10. It has no optical reader + RF tag reader in one housing and no reader-selecting switch.

US 5,099,227 — "Proximity detecting apparatus"

• Full citation: US 5,099,227 A; inventors Theodore D. Geiszler and Dale Lindseth; assignee Indala Corporation; Appl. No. 07/453,271, filed December 18, 1989 (priority July 18, 1989); issued March 24, 1992. URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5099227A](/patent/US5099227A)
• Description: A proximity identification system in which a coded tag is excited with an induction (magnetic) field at a first frequency (e.g., 400 kHz) and transmits stored data back via both an electric-field and an electromagnetic-field coupling at a second, sub-multiple frequency (e.g., 200 kHz), using a common preamplifier; tag coil 17/50 wound on a ferrite rod; frequency-divide/modulate scheme. Cited in 5382784's description: "Radio frequency identification tags and readers of this general type are well known, and may for example be of the type disclosed in commonly assigned U.S. Pat. No. 5,099,227 (but utilizing only magnetic coupling)."
• Which claim(s) it potentially anticipates (§102): None of claims 1–11 as a whole. It is the two-frequency RF energize/read sub-combination recited in claims 1 and 10 (first frequency to energize; second frequency identifying signal; coil), and it is the strongest single reference for that element — but it discloses no bar-code reader, no windowed dual-technology housing, no selective actuation, no common output. Relevance is §103 (e.g., 5,099,227 + 4,806,742) and §102(b) only against a claim drawn solely to the RF reader per se (which 5382784 does not have).

Related, same-assignee context (not a citation of record but probative): US 5,420,757 (Indala, inventor Noel H. Eberhardt — the same inventor as 5382784 — filed 1993-06-11, priority 1993-02-11), "Method of producing a radio frequency transponder with a molded environmentally sealed package," which itself cites US 5,099,227 and describes laundry/textile tag applications matching 5382784's stated field of use. It is a same-inventor companion, not prior art.

4. Layer C — Family-cited references

These appear in the Google "Family Cites Families (4)" field (i.e., cited in the international search / sibling family members), not necessarily in the US case:

None of these discloses the full combination of claims 1 or 10; they are background/§103 references.

5. Layer D — Descendants (NOT prior art, listed only because they define the landscape)

Because the asking task concerns "the most relevant prior art," I want to be explicit that the following are post-dating and cannot anticipate 5382784 — they are later patents that cite it:

• US 5,621,199 — Datalogic, Inc. — "RFID reader" (priority 1995-04-03)
• US 6,264,106 B1 — Symbol Technologies — "Combination bar code scanner/RFID circuit" (1999)
• US 6,415,978 B1 — PSC Scanning — "Multiple technology data reader for bar code labels and RFID tags" (priority 1999-05-03)
• US 6,830,181 B1 / US 7,207,486 B1 — Intermec IP Corp. — "Combined optical and radio frequency tag reader" (priority 1998-02-09)
• US 5,763,867 — Norand Technology Corp. — "Versatile terminal for use in a radio frequency identification system" (continuation of the US 5,216,233 family)

These confirm that 5382784 sits at the head of the modern "dual-technology reader" lineage, but they are relevant only as interpretive context.

6. Bottom-line assessment

1. Most relevant prior art = US 5,216,233 (Main/Kassens, Norand). It is the only examiner citation on the face of 5382784 and the only single reference that discloses both a bar-code scanning capability and an RF-ID reading capability in one hand-held data-capture unit, with an RF antenna (422) and module (420). It is prior art under §102(a) (issued 1993-06-01, before 5382784's 1995 grant) and, more importantly, under §102(e) as of its 1992-10-26 filing date (extension to 1989-03-09 for parent-disclosed matter).
2. It most plausibly anticipates only a broadened claim to a hand-held terminal usable with bar-code or RF-ID scanner modules. Against granted claims 1 and 10, anticipation fails on at least four missing limitations: simultaneous dual readers in one housing; selective single-finger actuation ("manually actuatable ... for selectively actuating one of said bar code reader and said radio frequency tag reader"); the coil "mounted within the housing at said one end ... so as to avoid said light path"; and (claim 10) the "same signal format" + "common signal output" features.
3. Best §103 combination for claims 1/10 would be US 5,216,233 (dual-technology hand-held platform) in view of US 5,099,227 (two-frequency RF energize/read with coil) and US 4,806,742 (portable laser-diode bar-code scanning head). Claims 2–9, 11 (switch/housing/coil-orientation dependents) find their closest primitive support in 5,216,233's trigger-actuated module and 5,099,227's coil-on-ferrite structure.
4. Specification-admitted prior art: the assignee's own "RAPID ID" reader model MHK-103 is admitted in the description as an existing commercial RF reader; as a public-use/on-sale device it is §102(a)/(b) prior art but is not a printed patent citation, so I could not verify its exact disclosure from the sources available here.

7. Explicit limits / uncertainty

• I could not independently re-confirm the inventor/assignee of US 4,806,742 in this session (title and Feb 21, 1989 issue date are confirmed via the Google Patents classification listing); do not rely on the Symbol attribution without primary verification.
• The priority/appellation of US 5,157,687 (Symbol/Tymes family) is confirmed by title and the related EP documents; I did not verify its inventor string directly.
• DK 0667019 T3's 2004 publication date is the translation date; the underlying EP application predates 5382784, but I flag the date because the bare number reads oddly against a 1993 priority.
• All §102 characterizations above are analytical opinions on the face of the documents, not legal conclusions; the definitive anticipation/obviousness findings would come from the file wrapper (examiner's reasons for allowance) and a claim-chart against the granted claim text, which I have quoted but not litigated.

I'll ground the prior-art characterizations with live lookups before building the § 103 analysis.

Good — I now have detailed content for the Norand reference. Let me verify the family-cited documents and the secondary bar-code reference.

Obviousness Analysis — US 5,382,784 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Builds on prior sections. The patent-summary and litigation sections above established: title Hand-held dual technology identification tag reading head; inventor Noel H. Eberhardt; original assignee Indala Corp; App. No. 08/014,523; filed and priority-dated 1993-02-08; issued 1995-01-17; expired 2013-02-08; 11 claims (independent claims 1 and 10); one examiner citation (US 5,216,233, Norand). I do not repeat that data here.

Framing caveat (not a repeat — a consequence). Because the application was filed 1993-02-08, pre-AIA § 103 governs (the AIA first-inventor-to-file provisions apply only to applications filed on/after 2013-03-16), so the pre-AIA § 102 categories and the Graham/KSR framework apply rather than anything in § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2). Because the patent expired in 2013 and the earlier section found no confirmed assertion of 5382784 as a patent-in-suit, what follows is a hypothetical/defensive validity analysis (IPR-style), not a live controversy. Where the record on this page supplies prior art, I use only that; I say where I could not verify a reference.

1. Level of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

A person having ordinary skill would have: a bachelor's degree in electrical or mechanical engineering (or equivalent experience), plus roughly 2–4 years working with hand-held electro-optical bar-code scanners and/or short-range inductive ("proximity") identification systems. Critically, the art at the 1993 priority date was interdisciplinary — electro-optics, RF magnetics, and portable data-terminal packaging — and the case law of this era treats the POSITA as capable of consulting the parallel RFID literature when integrating a data-capture device (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), on combining known elements according to known methods). A POSITA here would not need to invent RF tag interrogation from scratch; by 1993 it was a mature, commercially available subsystem (Indala's own admitted "RAPID ID" MHK-103 reader).

2. Scope and content of the prior art

2.1 The examiner citation of record

US 5,216,233 — Versatile RF terminal-scanner system, Norand Corp. (inventors Main et al.), priority 1989-03-09, issued 1993-06-01. The only reference the examiner cited. Its verified disclosure is much closer to claim 1 than a bare citation suggests:

• It shows a commercially available hand-held radio data terminal (Norand RT2210) with a data-connector at one end (15-position D connector at end wall 16) to which scanner modules attach.
• It discloses a series of interchangeable scanner modules for the same terminal body — light pens, CCD readers, laser scanners, and an RF/ID scanner module (its FIGS. 5–7 are described as "an RF/ID scanner module applied to the standard data terminal").
• It discloses a trigger button actuated by the thumb of the hand holding the terminal, located centrally on the module (col. re: actuating button 18).
• It discloses transmitting scanner data by radiant-energy (RF) link over a standardized interface "without requirement for external communication interfaces or power supplies."
• It discloses an area image reader module as a further interchangeable option.
  Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5216233 ; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ff/ac/bb/e75f9df5cfcb97/US5216233.pdf ; https://uspto.report/patent/grant/[5216233](/patent/5216233).

Where it stops short. In 5,216,233 the modules are alternatives, not co-residents — the RF/ID module is swapped onto the terminal in place of the optical scanner module. And the "RF" emphasis of that patent is mostly a data link to a host, not (expressly) the first-frequency-energize / second-frequency-respond interrogation of claim 1. Those are the two gaps the obviousness case must close.

2.2 References cited in the 5382784 specification (admissions / incorporated art)

• US 5,099,227 — Proximity detecting apparatus, Indala Corp. (Geiszler & Lindseth), priority 1989-07-18, issued 1992-03-24. The specification expressly adopts this as the RF-tag/reader type (but "utilizing only magnetic coupling"). It discloses: a remotely powered batteryless tag; an exciter oscillator at a first frequency (nominally 400 kHz) producing a magnetic field via a coil antenna; the tag returning coded data modulated onto a carrier of a second, different frequency (nominally fO/2, 200 kHz); and a transmit coil wound on a ferrite rod, with coil antennas oriented and arranged for isolation. It also defines the physics the POSITA would know: near-field magnetic coupling falls off as the cube of distance, i.e., short read range. Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5099227A](/patent/US5099227A)/en ; https://patents.searchlight.law/doc/US5099227.
• US 5,157,687 — cited in the 5382784 specification as an example of the known bar-code reader type, and also listed among the patent's family-cited references (filed 1989-06-29, issued 1992-10-20). Discrepancy flagged literally: Google Patents titles it "Packet data communication network," while the H04B classification sitemap lists "US5157687 Hand-held bar code reader" and the 5382784 specification calls it a bar-code reader. Both descriptions point the same way for § 103 purposes: a hand-held bar-code reader with an RF data link. Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5157687A](/patent/US5157687A)/en ; http://www.google.com/patents/sitemap/en/Sitemap/H04/H04B/H04B_1_1811.html.
• US 4,806,742 — cited in the specification as a known bar-code reader. I could not retrieve or verify this reference's contents or dates within my search budget. I rely here only on the applicant's own admission that it is a bar-code reader "known in the art."
• Indala "RAPID ID" reader, model MHK-103 — admitted in the specification as the assignee's own commercially sold RF-tag reader circuitry. This is an admission of prior art under § 102(a)/(b) as of the 1993 filing.

2.3 References cited in the patent family (of-record in the WO/EP/JP prosecutions)

• WO 90/16033 A1 (and its EP member EP 0 667 019; the family citation appears on this page as DK0667019T3) — Norand Corp., Hand-held data capture system with interchangeable modules, international filing 1990-06-07, published 1990-12-27 (priority US 364,594 / 364,902 of 1989-06-07/08). This is the strongest single piece of family-cited art and it pre-dates the 5382784 filing by more than two years, making it available under pre-AIA § 102(b) as a printed publication. Verified disclosure: a battery-powered hand-held data entry terminal in which a peripheral module contains an automatically operating reader (expressly "a laser bar code scanner or a flash type image reader") and a wireless communication unit; the module attaches at the terminal's end (scanner module 313 as an end-cap module); and the related US member (US 5,331,136) states that the module "includes provisions for selectively switching data collection operations between the data scanner provision of the data and communications module and the data collection provisions of the base module." Sources: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/4d/ca/49/4b3389242ae837/WO1990016033A1.pdf ; http://data.epo.org/pise-server/rest/collections/lgpi/EP0667019A4.pdf ; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/3f/47/ea/c1ba5ee7cf27b7/US5331136.pdf ; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[5898162](/patent/5898162).html ; citation table showing "DK0667019T3 … Broadcom Corp … Handheld data collection system with interchangeable modules" at https://patents.google.com/patent/DE3630683A1/en.
  • Dating caution (literal reading): DK0667019T3 itself carries a 2004-01-26 publication date and DE68912450T2 a 1994-08-25 date — both after the 1993 filing. Neither translation can be § 102 art on its own; only the underlying parent publications (the WO above, and the pre-1993 Symbol EP/GB members) are. I verified the WO's 1990-12-27 publication date; I did not verify the parent dates behind DE68912450T2.
• GB 2 227 866 B (Matsushita, Automatic vehicle identification system, priority 1988-12-13) and DE 689 124 50 T2 (Symbol, Portable scanning system that includes a surveillance label puller). I could not retrieve the contents of either within my search budget. The Symbol title suggests a portable scanner integrated with a surveillance (RF/EAS) label function — potentially directly on point for combining optical scanning with RF label handling in one hand-held unit — but I will not assert its disclosure without verification. Treat both as candidates for further investigation, not as grounds I have established.

2.4 Post-dating art — flagged, NOT usable under § 103

The page's "Cited By" list includes US 5,621,199 (Datalogic, RFID reader, filed 1995-04-03) and US 6,415,978 (PSC Scanning, Multiple technology data reader for bar code labels and RFID tags, priority 1999-05-03), plus US 6,264,106 (Symbol, Combination bar code scanner/RFID circuit, priority 1999-12-27). These post-date the 1993-02-08 filing and are therefore not prior art under pre-AIA § 102(a)/(b); nor are they § 102(e) art (filed later). They are shown here only as evidence of the field's later trajectory (competitors independently filed on the same bar-code + RFID combination within a few years), which is at most weak context and should not be argued as § 103 art.

3. Claim 1 — element mapping and combinations

Combination A (primary): US 5,216,233 + US 5,099,227 (+ admitted bar-code reader art).
Motivation: 5,216,233 already teaches a hand-held, trigger-actuated terminal whose business end accepts an RF/ID reader module, i.e., it teaches placing an RF tag reader head at the front end of a hand-held terminal. 5,099,227 supplies the specific first-frequency/second-frequency interrogation and coil geometry. Because 5,216,233 presents the optical scanner and the RF/ID reader as modules for the same terminal, co-locating both engines in one housing is the predictable use of the two known modules in the way the reference itself contemplates — the KSR "arrange known parts according to known methods" rationale. The single feature not literally shown (simultaneous co-residence) is the very thing the modularity of 5,216,233 makes obvious to combine.

Combination B (stronger on the "one device, two readers" point): WO 90/16033 (Norand interchangeable modules) + US 5,099,227 + US 5,157,687.
Motivation: WO 90/16033 discloses a battery-powered hand-held terminal with a module carrying an automatic reader (expressly a laser bar-code scanner) and a wireless unit, mounted at the terminal end, with selective switching between two data-collection provisions. That reference alone supplies the housing, the end-mounted module, the optical reader, and selective switching. 5,099,227 supplies the RF-tag interrogation engine; 5,157,687 supplies hand-held bar-code reading with RF data output. The combination yields claim 1 with only the coil-placement nuance to reason through — and the physical necessity of co-locating the near-field coil with the aiming window (distance-cubed falloff, per 5,099,227) makes "at said one end … so as to avoid said light path" a predictable design choice with a recognized advantage, not an inventive step.

Combination C (alternative/cumulative): US 5,216,233 + WO 90/16033 + US 5,099,227 — belt-and-braces; teaches both the interchangeable end-module architecture and the RFID scheme.

Why a POSITA would have combined these particular references. All four primary references (5,216,233; 5,099,227; 5,157,687; WO 90/16033) are in the same field of endeavor (hand-held automatic data-capture terminals) and the first three are from the same handful of competitors (Norand, Symbol, Indala) addressing the same commercial problem of reading tags in the field. The 5382784 specification's own background supplies the demand-side motivation: bar-code and RF tags were by 1993 "being affixed to such textile type articles" in the same laundries, and the then-existing requirement of two different hand-held readers was, in the applicant's words, "obviously time consuming and costly." A POSITA facing that admitted need, holding 5,216,233's end-mounted RF/ID module and 5,099,227's interrogation scheme, would have had every reason to put both heads at one aiming end of one gun-shaped housing.

4. Claim-by-claim vulnerability

5. Secondary considerations (the applicant's best rebuttal)

1. Long-felt need / failure of others. The admitted two-reader problem in commercial laundries is a genuine, documented long-felt need in the specification itself, and neither 5,216,233 nor WO 90/16033 put both a bar-code scanner and an RFID reader in one housing with one output. This is the strongest Graham factor favoring non-obviousness. Counter: the need was commercial, not technical, and the components were all at hand — the KSR "market demand" rationale can itself supply the motivation.
2. Unexpected results / teaching away. A skilled practitioner might argue that co-locating a strong 400 kHz exciter coil inside a laser scanner would degrade the optical detector, and that 5,216,233's substitution model (one module at a time) teaches away from permanent co-residence. Counter: 5,216,233's interchangeability shows the designers were thinking about exactly this co-location problem; and the patent's own solution to interference — energize only one reader at a time — is an expedient, not a discovery.
3. Industry adoption / copying. The later Datalogic (1995), Symbol (1999) and PSC (1999) filings for combined bar-code/RFID readers could be argued as industry copying and acceptance. Counter: those are post-dating filings and, if anything, show the combination was the natural next step for competitors.
4. Commercial success. Not established on this record for the claimed dual head; the admitted RAPID ID MHK-103 was a single-technology reader and is prior art, not evidence of the invention's success.

6. Bottom line

• Most probable grounds: (i) US 5,216,233 in view of US 5,099,227, optionally with the admitted bar-code reader art (US 4,806,742 / US 5,157,687), against claim 1; and (ii) WO 90/16033 (Norand, Hand-held data capture system with interchangeable modules) in view of US 5,099,227 against claim 1, with the Norand/WO disclosure — not 5,216,233 — carrying the "one hand-held unit, two data-collection engines, selective switching" teaching.
• Claim 10 is vulnerable on the same two combinations plus 5,216,233's common-connector/standard-interface teaching.
• Dependent claims 2–7, 9, 11 add only conventional switch mechanics, gun-shape ergonomics, ferrite-core coil construction (expressly taught in 5,099,227), and routine format conversion/common output. Claim 8 (coil around the light path) is the most defensible claim and is where a validity challenge would be weakest.
• Net assessment: on this record, the claims are, more likely than not, obvious over 5,216,233 + 5,099,227 alone or in the WO 90/16033 variant; the only substantive open questions are claim 8's annular coil placement and whatever commercial/objective evidence the patentee can muster on the long-felt-need axis.

Verification limits stated plainly: I confirmed the disclosures and dates of US 5,216,233, US 5,099,227, US 5,157,687, and WO 90/16033/EP 0 667 019 and its US sibling US 5,331,136 from live sources (URLs above). I did not verify US 4,806,742, GB 2 227 866 B, or DE 689 124 50 T2, and I did not independently confirm the pre-1993 filing/publication dates on which their § 102 status would depend. My search budget was exhausted before those lookups; if any of the three is to be relied upon as a § 103 ground, its contents and dates must be pulled from the primary documents first. Per the standing rule, I have not corrected or normalized any identifier — including the divergent titles recorded for US 5,157,687 and the post-dating family translations DK0667019T3 and DE69421902T2 — and I treat each as written.