US 5412193

I'll search for authoritative information on US patent 5,412,193, including any CAFC 2026 activity.

Let me check for any litigation history or 2026 CAFC activity specifically tied to this patent.

Summary: US Patent 5,412,193

Note on search scope: I searched for both the patent itself and for any CAFC 2026 docket activity. I found no CAFC 2026 appeal, IPR, or district-court activity involving US 5,412,193. Given the patent's status (see below), 2026 litigation activity would be unexpected, and I have no authoritative evidence of any — treat any such claim as unverified.

Bibliographic Data

Continuity: CIP of Ser. No. 07/863,259 (filed Apr. 3, 1992, now abandoned), which is a divisional of Ser. No. 07/699,417 (filed May 13, 1991, now US 5,191,197), which is a CIP of Ser. No. 07/193,265 (filed May 11, 1988, now US 5,144,120).

Abstract (verbatim)

A method for operating a point-of-transaction system carried by a fixture to efficiently use areas of a store during periods of differing intensity of usage, by placing the fixture at a prescribed area of the store and configuring the point-of-transaction system with point-of-transaction terminal components for processing items to be purchased by customers during a period of relatively intense usage. During a period of relatively less intense usage, the fixture is reconfigured as a display stand by relocating at least some of said point-of-transaction components from the fixture, and overlying remaining point-of-transaction components of the fixture with a display surface. During intense usage periods the components are located on a shelf overlying the fixture. The reconfiguration includes repositioning the shelf together with the remaining components to a location beneath the display surface within the fixture. The shelf is mounted on a slidable column above the fixture, so that reconfiguring includes detaching the shelf from the column, followed by lowering the slidable column into the fixture.

Independent Claims — Plain-Language Overview

There are two independent claims (1 and 12); the patent has 18 claims total.

Claim 1 — Mobile point-of-transaction system (apparatus).
A mobile checkout rig that can be wheeled from place to place, comprising four elements:

• (a) a wheeled carriage for transporting the system between locations;
• (b) a scanning terminal mounted on the carriage so it moves with it, which electro-optically reads coded indicia (e.g., barcodes) on items and determines transaction data for them;
• (c) transaction means (also carriage-mounted, moving with it) responsive to the terminal and operative to process the transaction data to complete the transaction; and
• (d) means for reconfiguring the system into a display stand (with a display surface) during periods of relatively less intense usage.

The reconfiguration is achieved by two structural limitations: (i) the transaction means sit on a shelf overlying the carriage, mounted on a slidable column above the carriage; and (ii) the reconfiguring means includes means for detaching the shelf from the column, means for supporting the detached shelf (and its transaction means) beneath the display surface inside the carriage, plus a passage for lowering the slidable column into the carriage.

Drafting note (interpreted literally): the claim text says "said configuring means" in clause (ii) while clause (d) introduced "means for reconfiguring," so the antecedent basis is arguably imperfect as written.

Claim 12 — Method of using store areas during differing usage intensity.
A method for operating a point-of-transaction system carried by a fixture, to efficiently use store areas, comprising:

• During relatively intense usage: place the fixture at a prescribed store area and configure the POS system with point-of-transaction terminal components for processing customer items.
• During relatively less intense usage: reconfigure the fixture as a display stand by relocating at least some POS components off the fixture and overlying the remaining POS components with a display surface.

Two structural/method limitations are tied in: (i) the components are on a shelf overlying the fixture, and reconfiguration includes repositioning the shelf (with remaining components) beneath the display surface within the fixture; and (ii) the shelf is mounted on a slidable column above the fixture, so reconfiguration includes detaching the shelf from the column, then lowering the slidable column into the fixture.

Dependent Claims at a Glance

• Claims 2–11 (depend from claim 1): countertop-mounted window with beam scanned in a pattern through it (2); on-board manual data entry (3); on-board display (4); on-board weighing scale (5); on-board receipt printer (6); electronic-payment means (7); cash-payment means (8); bag holder (9); push handle (10); and keyboard + display mounted for movement to, and storage in, a stored position (11).
• Claims 13–18 (depend from claim 12): moving the system to another area during low-intensity usage (13); wheeled fixture moved by wheeling (14); linking the POS terminal to a central terminal with a database (15); configuring exposes components to human-operator use (16); reconfiguring covers components to present the display surface (17); and reconfiguring covers components to present the overlying display surface (18). (Claims 17 and 18 overlap substantially.)

Prosecution / Legal Events (from the record)

• 1993-08-25 — Assignment to Symbol Technologies, Inc.; assignors Swartz and Sanders; reel/frame 006662/0815.
• 1998-10-26 / 2002-08-23 / 2006-10-06 — Maintenance fee payments (4th, 8th, 12th years).
• 2005-01-05 — Security interest assigned to JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. (reel/frame 016116/0203).
• 2012-05-02 — Anticipated expiration; status "Expired – Lifetime."

Cited Prior Art of Note

Examiner-cited references include US 3,836,755 (Gretag, self-service shop); US 3,997,850? — actually US 3,990,540 (NCR, checkout system); US 4,071,740 (Gogulski, mobile automated shopping system); US 4,373,133 (Clyne, self-service shop); US 4,659,344? — US 4,656,344 (NCR, integrated scale and optical scanner); US 4,779,706 (NCR, self-service system); US 4,789,048 (NCR, checkout counter); US 4,929,819 (NCR, customer-performed article scanning); US 5,149,947 (NCR, portable checkout system); US 5,157,181 (Symbol); US 5,250,789 (Johnsen, shopping cart); and EP 0 513 530 A2 (Symbol). The patent is also cited as prior art by later filings (e.g., WO 1997/043163 A1 concerning a trolley with hand-scanner support).

Uncertainty Flags

• A foreign search report renders the inventor name as "SMARTZ JEROME ET AL" (e.g., WO 1997/043163 A1). Interpreted literally as printed; the correct spelling per the front page is Swartz.
• There is a separate, unrelated Japanese patent JP 5412193 B2 (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries / Takasago Thermal Engineering, a turbo refrigerator). Do not conflate it with US 5,412,193.
• I found no CAFC 2026 docket entries for US 5,412,193 and cannot confirm any 2026 appellate activity.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 5412193.

The initial results contain references to a different '193 patent (Motorola's, in Apple v. Motorola). Let me search more specifically for the Symbol Technologies patent.

Let me search targeted litigation databases and the patent's own litigation records.

Litigation Search: U.S. Patent No. 5,412,193

Bottom line

Based on the searches I was able to run, I could not identify any litigation that specifically asserts U.S. Patent No. 5,412,193 ("Mobile point-of-sale supermarket checkout system," Symbol Technologies, issued May 2, 1995). I found no complaint, ITC investigation, PTAB proceeding, or reported decision naming the '193 patent as an asserted patent-in-suit.

I want to be candid about the limits here: I was cut off before completing a full sweep of the litigation databases, so I cannot state with certainty that no such suit exists — only that nothing surfaced. Treat the following as "no litigation found in the sources searched," not as a definitive negative.

Important caution — a different '193 patent

Several of the top search hits reference a "the '193 patent" in the Apple v. Motorola Mobility smartphone litigation (e.g., the N.D. Fla. and W.D. Wis. counterclaim filings). That is NOT this patent. Those filings concern a Motorola patent asserted against Apple's iPhone/iPad/Mac products — an unrelated patent that happens to share the "…193" shorthand. Per your standing rule, I am flagging this rather than merging it into the answer:

• Not relevant: Apple, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc., No. 1:10-cv-23580 (S.D. Fla.) and related consolidated actions — "the '193 patent" there belongs to Motorola, not Symbol, and does not cover a supermarket checkout.
• Not relevant: The USPTO "Patent Citations / Cited By" tables on the Google Patents page for US 5,412,193 — those are prior-art citations and later patents that cite '193 as background, not litigation. Do not mistake them for suits.
• Not relevant: Japanese patent JP 5412193 B2 (a 2014 Mitsubishi turbo refrigerator patent). Same digits, unrelated jurisdiction and subject matter.

Symbol Technologies enforcement activity that does NOT involve '193

For completeness — these are the major Symbol patent campaigns that surfaced, and none of them asserted '193:

None of these plead or assert U.S. 5,412,193.

Why the patent is litigation-quiet (contextual notes)

• Term/status: The Google Patents record shows the patent as "Expired – Lifetime," with anticipated expiration 2012-05-02. Given the May 11, 1988 priority claim and the ~17-year term from a 1995 grant, the enforcement window closed over a decade ago.
• Prosecution history: It is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 07/863,259 (now abandoned), itself a divisional of Ser. No. 07/699,417 (which issued as U.S. 5,191,197), a CIP of Ser. No. 07/193,265 (which issued as U.S. 5,144,120). If enforcement occurred in this family, it would more likely have run through the sibling patents — but again, I found no '193 assertion.
• Assignee chain: Symbol Technologies, Inc. → Symbol Technologies LLC (Zebra Technologies). Any historic assertion would show up under a Symbol/Zebra caption.

What I recommend you verify directly (I could not complete this)

Because I could not finish querying the specialized litigation databases, please confirm the negative against these specific sources:

1. Unified Patents Portal – litigation caselist: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist (search patent number 5412193)
2. CourtListener / RECAP (https://www.courtlistener.com) — search "5,412,193" and "5412193" in docket text
3. USITC EDIS (https://edis.usitc.gov) — Section 337 investigations
4. USPTO PTAB / Patent Center — any IPR/PGR (unlikely given expiry)
5. Google Patents "Litigation" tab for US5412193
6. Docket Alarm / Lex Machina — by patent number and by assignee (Symbol Technologies / Zebra)

Summary answer to your request

For US 5,412,193 specifically:

• Plaintiff(s): None identified
• Defendant(s): None identified
• Jurisdiction: N/A
• Case number: N/A
• Filing date: N/A
• Outcome / status: N/A

No litigation is known to me regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,412,193. The apparent "matches" in search results involve either Motorola's unrelated '193 patent (Apple v. Motorola) or Japanese patent JP 5412193 B2. I recommend confirming via the Unified Patents and CourtListener sources above before treating this as a final negative, since I was unable to complete the full database sweep.

Would you like me to draft a standard litigation-search declaration or a more formal "no known litigation" memo in this format for your file?

I'll verify the structured data against live sources before drafting.

Let me run a few more targeted checks before concluding.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 5,412,193: 0 (zero). Breakdown: active — 0; claims invalidated — 0; claims sustained — 0; settled — 0; institution denied — 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal structured block in this prompt reports no AIA trial proceedings, and independent web searches for IPR/PGR/CBM activity, FWDs, or Federal Circuit appeals naming 5,412,193 returned no PTAB records. As a result, there is no claim-level outcome to report, and I will not manufacture one. A defendant's posture here is not "hardened by surviving IPRs" and it is not "claims canceled" — it is no PTAB test case at all, on a patent whose term has already run out (see below). That distinction matters: the absence of proceedings reflects a short commercial window, not a merits victory.

Independent reason the PTAB question is largely academic: the patent's structured record shows "Anticipated expiration — 2012-05-02" and legal status "Expired – Lifetime." US 5,412,193 issued 1995-05-02, so under pre-URAA term its enforceable life ran 17 years from grant. Any infringement demand today would fail at the threshold on term grounds before a PTAB defense is even needed.

No proceedings to itemize

The requested per-proceeding template (Petitioner v. Patent Owner, Type, Filed, Status, Judge panel, Petition grounds, Institution decision, FWD, Settlement/termination, Appeal, Defensive value) has no entries. I checked:

• IPR/PGR/CBM dockets — no hits for "5,412,193," "5412193," or the patent title in a PTAB context.
• Federal Circuit / CourtListener — no appeal referencing this patent surfaced.
• Parallel district court litigation — no assertion campaign surfaced in search either, consistent with a patent that expired in 2012.

What I will not state, because I do not know it with confidence: whether a § 505/§ 301 ex parte reexamination (a non-AIA, examiner-driven proceeding outside the PTAB block) was ever filed against this patent. My searches did not surface one, but "not surfaced" is not "confirmed absent." If you need certainty on that point, pull the full file wrapper in USPTO PatentCenter (application 08/065,304) and check the "Reexamination" and "Post Grant" tabs directly.

Strategic summary

Claim status: all 18 claims UNTESTED at the PTAB, and all 18 now beyond enforcement. Claims 1 and 12 are the independents — claim 1 covering the mobile point-of-transaction system (wheeled carriage + scanning terminal + transaction means + reconfiguration means with a detachable, column-mounted shelf lowered beneath the display surface) and claim 12 covering the method of reconfiguring a fixture between intense- and less-intense-usage periods. Claims 2–11 depend from claim 1; claims 13–18 depend from claim 12. Because no FWD issued, no claim is CANCELED and none is SUSTAINED. The closest thing to an invalidity record is the examination itself: the examiner cited 22 references, including US 5,149,947 (Collins, Jr., Portable checkout system, NCR) and US 4,929,819 (Collins, Method and apparatus for customer performed article scanning) — both of which are squarely on point for a mobile/self-service checkout and are the natural starting points for any § 103 attack on claim 1 had one ever been filed. The patent family record also shows EP 0513530 A2 (Symbol's own mirrorless-scanner application) among the citations.

Estoppel landscape: empty, and that cuts both ways. § 315(e)(2) estoppel is petitioner-specific and is triggered only by an instituted IPR that reaches a final written decision. With zero instituted proceedings, no party is estopped from anything — not the patent owner, not any hypothetical challenger, and not any privy. Every prior-art ground, including the NCR Collins references and the Graebe shopping-cart-accessory patents (US 5,072,957; US 5,176,392), remains fully available in any forum where this patent could still be put at issue. Conversely, there is no FWD to borrow for a § 282 defense and no PTAB record to estop the patent owner from taking inconsistent claim-construction positions. Practically, though, this is moot: estoppel analysis on an expired patent is an academic exercise.

Pattern signals: none of the usual markers are present. There is no serial petitioner (no petitioner at all), no repeat-filer against this patent, no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents, RPX, or similar filing), and no PTAB-appeal activity by Symbol Technologies on this patent. The entire family's history is prosecution and prosecution-continuation work — a 1988 priority date (Ser. No. 07/193,265 → US 5,144,120), a divisional (Ser. No. 07/699,417 → US 5,191,197), a CIP (Ser. No. 07/863,259, abandoned), and this CIP-of-CIP (08/065,304) — plus a JPMorgan Chase security-interest reassignment in 2005. That is the profile of a patent that was quietly retired by its long term, not one that was aggressively monetized. Well-asserted patents attract IPRs; this one was never asserted in a way that surfaced.

Recommended next steps

1. If a demand letter cites US 5,412,193, lead with expiration, not invalidity. The record shows an anticipated expiration of 2012-05-02 and status Expired – Lifetime. Thirteen-plus years of lapsed term is dispositive; you do not need the PTAB. Respond on term grounds and, if suit is filed, move to dismiss.
2. Verify the file wrapper before relying on "no PTAB activity." The ODP block is the canonical list and shows none, and my searches corroborate that — but confirm the ex parte reexamination history directly in USPTO PatentCenter for application 08/065,304, since non-AIA reexaminations do not appear in the AIA-trial dataset.
3. Do not cite any FWD and do not attribute a claim-level disposition to this patent. There is no Final Written Decision to link to at USPTO PTAB Decisions or PTAB E2E, and no CAFC opinion on CourtListener. Any opposition brief that quotes a "Panel held claim 1 unpatentable" for this patent would be citing a document that does not exist.
4. If you need the invalidity theory anyway (e.g., a declaratory-judgment posture or a license-audit dispute over pre-2012 sales), the productive starting points are US 5,149,947 and US 4,929,819, both already of record, plus the Graebe cart-accessory patents — but expect a § 325(d)-style "already considered by the examiner" argument to be the patent owner's first line of defense, and note that any IPR would be filed against an expired patent where no claim amendment is available.

Bottom line for a defendant today: there is no PTAB activity to exploit and no PTAB loss to fear, because the patent expired on 2012-05-02 and was never subjected to an AIA trial. The "absence of IPRs is a signal" heuristic points here not to a hardened patent but to an unasserted, fully lapsed one.

I'll start by gathering corroborating information on the assignment record, the original assignee's corporate fate, and any assertion history for this patent.

Let me dig into the assignment record details and any assertion history.

I've gathered what the authoritative record provides. Here's the reconstruction.

Assignment Record — US 5,412,193 ("Mobile point-of-sale supermarket checkout system")

Caveat on correspondent data: The Google Patents legal-events table embedded in the provided source exposes reel/frame, conveyance type, assignor/assignee, and execution/recording dates, but it does not surface the "correspondent of record" (recording attorney/agent) field. I was not able to retrieve the Assignment Center correspondent field within this session. I therefore flag correspondent fields as not determinable from available data rather than guess. The reel/frame numbers below are the anchors to verify at USPTO Assignment Center.

Inventors

Pattern check: No unusual pattern. Both inventors assigned to their employer (Symbol) by an instrument executed 1993-05-21 — three days before the CIP filing date of 1993-05-24 — the textbook "assignment as condition of employment / obligation-to-assign perfected at filing" pattern. There is no evidence of inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing, and no pre-fire-sale inventor exodus. Swartz in particular remained with Symbol (the company he co-founded) through its independent era.

Original assignee

• Entity named on the issued patent: Symbol Technologies, Inc. (New York corporation, Holtsville, NY — per the reel 006662/0815 assignment, which lists the assignee address as New York).
• Primary line of business: Operating company — the leading manufacturer of laser bar-code scanners, handheld/rugged mobile computers, and retail POS hardware. It shipped products embodying the claims: the mobile checkout stand and scanner module described in FIGS. 1–9 are Symbol's own commercial architecture (mirrorless oscillating laser scanner module), and the patent claims the wheeled POS carriage configuration.
• Current status: Not dissolved, not bankrupt. Following a 2003–2004 accounting-fraud scandal and restatement, Symbol was acquired by Motorola, Inc. for $3.9 billion (announced Sept. 2006; closed Jan. 2007). Symbol's enterprise-mobility business became the core of Motorola Solutions after the 2011 spin-off of Motorola Mobility. Google Patents lists the current assignee as Symbol Technologies LLC.

Important precision note: The legal-events table for US 5,412,193 shows no recorded USPTO assignment to "Symbol Technologies LLC," to Motorola, or to Motorola Solutions. The "Symbol Technologies LLC" current-assignee line is Google's attribution and most plausibly reflects the Motorola/Symbol corporate reorganization; it is not backed by a reel/frame in the data available. Do not treat it as a recorded transfer without confirming at Assignment Center.

Assignment timeline

Two assignment-type records exist; the rest are fee/maintenance and pre-exam administrative entries (not conveyances).

• 1993-05-21 (executed) / recorded 1993-08-25 — Reel 006662/0815

  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
  • Assignor: Swartz, Jerome; Sanders, Robert
  • Assignee: Symbol Technologies, Inc. (New York)
  • Correspondent: not determinable from available data — the reel's free-format description reads ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:SWARTZ, JEROME;SANDERS, ROBERT;REEL/FRAME:006662/0815 with an effective date of 19930521. Verify the correspondent field at Assignment Center.
  • Context: Initial assignment of inventor rights to the employing operating company (obligation-to-assign), perfected days before the CIP filing.

• 1994-07-29 — STPP "application undergoing pre-examination processing." Not an assignment.

• 1998-10-26 — FPAY, year 4. Not an assignment.

• 2002-08-23 — FPAY, year 8. Not an assignment.

• 2004-12-29 (executed) / recorded 2005-01-05 — Reel 016116/0203

  • Conveyance: Security Interest (Security Agreement / collateral grant)
  • Assignor: Symbol Technologies, Inc.
  • Assignee: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (as administrative/collateral agent)
  • Correspondent: not determinable from available data.
  • Context: Securitization / secured financing — this is the collateral-grant recording tied to the Credit Agreement dated 2004-12-29 among Symbol Technologies, Inc., the lenders, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (administrative and collateral agent), and Fleet National Bank (syndication agent), filed as an exhibit to Symbol's 2005 10-K. It is a lien instrument, not a transfer of ownership.

• 2006-10-06 — FPAY, year 12. Not an assignment.

• 2012-05-02 — Anticipated expiration. The patent term (17 years from the 1995-05-02 grant) ended; legal status is "Expired – Lifetime."

No post-issuance ownership transfer is recorded. The chain contains no assignment to an IP-holding subsidiary, no NPE LLC, and no defensive aggregator. The only two-instrument chain is: (1) inventors → Symbol, and (2) Symbol → JPMorgan as secured lender.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 5412193
    1988 : Priority application filed
    1993 : CIP application filed
         : Assigned to Symbol Technologies Inc
    1995 : Patent issued
    2004 : Security interest to JPMorgan Chase
    2007 : Symbol acquired by Motorola
    2012 : Patent expired

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No assignment to any entity bearing "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures." The only recorded lienholder is JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., a chartered bank acting as collateral agent (reel 016116/0203) — a secured-lending counterparty, not a licensing shell.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither recorded assignee (Symbol Technologies, Inc.; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.) matches Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or any Spangenberg-related entity. No such entity appears at any link.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear (data gap). Only two assignment records exist, and neither's correspondent field was retrievable here. A recurrence finding is impossible without the correspondent data; this is a data limitation, not a negative finding. Note that the sole assignment (reel 006662/0815) names both inventors on a single instrument, which is the routine corporate-hiring pattern rather than an NPE recording pattern.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only two assignment-type records spanning ~11.6 years (1993 → 2004), and the second is a lien, not an ownership transfer. No chained LLC hopscotch within 24 months.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No assignment dated within 6 months before any infringement suit naming this patent was identified. (Search for suits specifically naming US 5,412,193 did not return a confirmed result in this session.)

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Symbol Technologies suffered an accounting-fraud scandal and restatement in 2003–2004 but was not a bankruptcy sale case; it was acquired as a going concern by Motorola in 2007. The JPMorgan filing is a routine secured credit facility, not a distressed sale. (Contrast genuine fire-sales: Kodak, Nortel, Polaroid.)

7. Privateering — not present. No operating-company-to-NPE transfer is recorded; Symbol retained ownership and never spun the patent to an assertion vehicle per this record.

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

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

Justification: The complete recorded chain for US 5,412,193 consists of (1) the inventors' assignment to their operating employer, Symbol Technologies, Inc., at reel 006662/0815 (executed 1993-05-21, recorded 1993-08-25), and (2) a purely collateral security interest to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. at reel 016116/0203 (executed 2004-12-29, recorded 2005-01-05) tied to Symbol's Dec. 29, 2004 Credit Agreement. There is no shell-entity transfer, no known NPE in the chain, no cascading LLC transfers, and no defensive-aggregator terminus — the patent remained with the operating scanner manufacturer (now within Motorola Solutions) until its 2012-05-02 expiration.

Evidentiary limitation (stated plainly): I could not confirm a specific infringement action naming US 5,412,193, so the "assertion" component of this verdict is grounded in Symbol's status as a product-shipping operating company and its known enforcement posture in the scanner market, not on a verified complaint. The "NPE" component, by contrast, is affirmatively unsupported by the record. If strict to the definition, an arguably safer label would be "operating-company ownership with no NPE signal"; the correspondent fields at reel 006662/0815 and 016116/0203 are the one piece of evidence still needed to close the analysis.

Verify the primary record at:

• USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 5412193 by reel 006662/0815 and 016116/0203)
• USPTO Patent Assignment Search — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events — https://patents.google.com/patent/US5412193/en

I'll research US 5,412,193's cited prior art, verifying citations against authoritative sources.

Let me research the remaining key cited references.

Prior Art Analysis — US 5,412,193

0. Scope notes and verification

Patent identity confirmed via USPTO/Google Patents: US 5,412,193 A, "Mobile point-of-sale supermarket checkout system," Appl. No. 08/065,304, filed 1993-05-24, issued 1995-05-02, priority 1988-05-11, inventors Swartz & Sanders, assignee Symbol Technologies. Front-page source: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/d2/fa/87/59b302b49a6149/US5412193.pdf and https://uspto.report/patent/grant/[5412193](/patent/5412193). This matches the number 5412193 literally; no CAFC 2026 activity found (consistent with the prior section).

Two conflation hazards to flag (per the operating rules, IDs interpreted literally):

• A JP 5412193 B2 exists (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries turbo refrigerator) — unrelated. (Already flagged in the earlier section.)
• More dangerous: the Neomedia reexamination documents in my search results repeatedly discuss a "'193 patent" that is US 5,640,193 (Wellner) — a barcode/Internet "index" patent, not US 5,412,193. Do not import Wellner's disclosures into this record.

Date discrepancy flagged: the system date is 2026-10-01; the task states "Current Date: April 26, 2026." I proceed treating the task date as controlling, but note the mismatch.

Legal-status note: The patent expired 2012-05-02. Anticipation analysis below is therefore historical/analytical, not tied to a live proceeding.

§102 critical-date caveat (important). Claim 1(d) and all of claim 12 recite the reconfiguration-as-display-stand features (shelf on a slidable column, detaching the shelf, lowering the column, overlying display surface). Those features correspond to FIGS. 8–9, which appear to be new matter added in the CIP chain (Ser. No. 07/863,259, filed 1992-04-03 → this application, 1993-05-24). The effective filing date for those limitations is therefore plausibly 1992-04-03 or 1993-05-24, not 1988-05-11. That materially expands the pool of §102(a)/(b)/(e) art (e.g., the 1992 NCR references). References resting only on the 1988 priority date would be weaker. I flag this because it drives which references can actually anticipate.

1. The 22 references cited on the face of US 5,412,193

Dates below are as listed in the patent's citation table (priority/filing dates as printed). "Relevance" targets the claim elements.

2. §102 anticipation — reference by reference (the close ones)

Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. §102 requires every element of a claim in a single reference. I analyze whether each close reference fully anticipates the two independent claims, then the dependents.

2.1 US 5,149,947 (Collins, NCR) — the closest single reference

Verified text: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5149947A](/patent/US5149947A)

• Full citation: US 5,149,947 A, "Portable checkout system," Donald A. Collins, Jr., NCR Corporation, filed 1989-03-27, issued 1992-09-22, appl. 07/328,659.
• Description: A portable scanning terminal encompassing—in a single housing—an optical scanner with a scanning window, a display, a keyboard, a printer, and a magnetic-stripe reader. It is removably mounted between two grocery-cart handles or on a cart handle, with a transceiver option; it scans, totals, prints a receipt, and accepts card payment.
• §102 analysis vs. claim 1: Discloses 1(a) (cart-borne/movable carriage — though the carriage is a grocery cart, not a purpose-built fixture), 1(b) (scanning terminal reading coded indicia and determining transaction data), and most of 1(c) (printer + card reader = transaction processing). It does not disclose 1(d) — the reconfiguration-as-display-stand, the shelf-on-slidable-column, detaching the shelf, supporting it beneath a display surface, and a passage for lowering the column. Result: does not anticipate claim 1 or claim 12. It is the best §103 primary reference against 1(a)–(c).
• Dependents: because claim 1 is not anticipated, claims 3–11 are not anticipated by this reference standing alone; but it independently discloses subject matter mapping to claims 3, 4, 6, 7.

2.2 US 4,929,819 (Collins, NCR)

Verified text: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/8b/81/70/928fdfc750281b/US4929819.pdf

• Full citation: US 4,929,819 A, "Method and apparatus for customer performed article scanning in self-service shopping," Donald A. Collins, Jr., NCR Corporation, filed 1988-12-12, issued 1990-05-29.
• Description: A detachable module containing a scanner and video camera mounts on a customer-operated cart; the cart carries goods to a checkout counter with data processing and video playback; cashier couples the module and prints the transaction record; customer pays to complete the transaction.
• §102 analysis: Discloses 1(a) (cart), 1(b) (scanner + data), and a checkout-counter transaction-processing step (1(c)), plus a self-checkout method. It does not disclose the claim-1(d) / claim-12 reconfiguration limitation (relocating components, display surface, shelf/column). Does not anticipate claim 1 or 12. Note it is a strong §103 reference, and its method maps partly onto claim 12's "configure with terminal components" step.

2.3 US 4,071,740 (Gogulski)

Verified text: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/8c/c6/64/937d3c2ca8c6d5/US4071740.pdf

• Full citation: US 4,071,740, "Mobile automated shopping system," Paul Gogulski, filed 1976-05-26, issued 1978-01-31, appl. 5/689,968.
• Description: Cart-mounted control panel with a hand-held scanner plus a second stationary scanner, visual display(s), a paper-tape printer producing a cumulative itemized receipt, a weight-sensing device compared against stored weights, and a radio transceiver to a store central computer. Cart brakes/warning light for security.
• §102 analysis: Discloses 1(a) (wheeled cart), 1(b) (line-encoded scanning + decoded data), and much of 1(c) (printer, central-computer price look-up and total). It maps well onto dependents 3 (data entry), 4 (display), 5 (weight/weighing), 6 (printer/receipt), 15 (link to a central database). It does not disclose 1(d)/12's reconfiguration-as-display-stand. Does not anticipate claim 1 or 12, but is the strongest old-art §103/§102 reference for the mobile, cart-borne scanner+display+printer+scale sub-combination.

2.4 US 4,373,133 (Clyne)

Verified text: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/9a/a2/81/840a6da9d6bd9e/US4373133.pdf

• Full citation: US 4,373,133, "Method for producing a bill, apparatus for collecting items, and a self-service shop," Nicholas Clyne, filed 1980-01-03, issued 1983-02-08.
• Description: An electronic recording unit mounted on a container records item identity data as items are collected, sums price/weight from a central data store, and produces a bill; the unit may be combined with a weighing machine and a central data source.
• §102 analysis: Relevant to claim 12 as a method of processing items via a carried unit and to claim 15 (central data store). It lacks the mobile wheeled POS-fixture and, critically, the display-stand reconfiguration. Does not anticipate claim 12 (which requires relocating components and overlying a display surface).

2.5 US 3,836,755 (Ehrat/Gretag)

• Full citation: US 3,836,755, "Self-service shop" (Gretag AG), priority 1972-02-14, issued 1974.
• Description: Self-service shopping with cart-borne line-encoded scanning and weight recording/verification against known item weights.
• §102 analysis: Early disclosure of the scan-and-weigh-on-a-cart concept (claim 5; portions of 1(a)–(b)). Cited within US 4,071,740. Does not anticipate claim 1 or 12 (no reconfiguration, no full POS transaction suite).

2.6 US 5,250,789 (Johnsen) — timing caution

• Full citation: US 5,250,789, "Shopping cart," Edward L. Johnsen, priority 1991-10-31, issued 1993-10-05.
• §102 timing note: Filed 1991-10-31 and issued after US 5,412,193's 1993-05-24 filing. It can only be prior art under §102(e) (as a US application publication/patent with an earlier effective filing date) against claims whose effective date is the 1992/1993 CIP date — not against the 1988 priority date. Treat its status as date-dependent and unverified from the face record here.
• Discloses a cart with scanner/display → maps to 1(a)–(c), 3, 4. Same missing-element conclusion: no 1(d)/12 reconfiguration.

2.7 Supporting/anticipatory-for-sub-elements

• US 4,659,344 (NCR, 1985/1987) — integrated scale + optical scanner → claim 5 element.
• US 5,157,181 (Symbol, 1987/1992) and EP 0 513 530 A2 (Symbol, 1991/1992) and US 4,939,084 (Metrologic, 1989/1990) — hand-held/oscillating scanner structure → claim 1(b), claim 2.
• US 4,789,048 (NCR, 1987/1988) — checkout counter → claim 1/2 background.
• US 4,936,471 (Protoned, 1988/1990) — "carrying apparatus for merchandise display elements" is the only cited item that even brushes the display theme, but it is not a POS system and does not disclose overlying a display surface on POS components.

3. Bottom line

1. No cited reference anticipates independent claim 1 or independent claim 12. Every reference supplies the "mobile cart + scanner + transaction components" half, but none discloses the 1(d)/12 reconfiguration limitation — the shelf on a slidable column, detaching the shelf, relocating it with the remaining components beneath a display surface inside the fixture, and lowering the column. That reconfiguration-as-merchandising-display-counter is the point of novelty.

2. The three most relevant references (all directed at the mobile/cart-borne self-checkout concept) are:

   • US 5,149,947 (Collins, NCR, 1992) — closest overall; anticipates the sub-combination of 1(a)–(c) and claims 3, 4, 6, 7 if considered individually.
   • US 4,929,819 (Collins, NCR, 1990) — detachable cart scanner module; supports 1(a)–(c) and the self-checkout method of claim 12.
   • US 4,071,740 (Gogulski, 1978) — cart scanner + display + printer + weight sensor + central computer; strongest for claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 15 and as a §103 primary reference.

3. Secondary §102 support: US 4,373,133 (Clyne) and US 3,836,755 (Gretag) for the collect-and-total and scan-and-weigh concepts (claims 5, 12, 15); US 4,659,344 for the scale (claim 5); the Symbol/Metrologic scanner patents for claim 1(b)/2.

4. The dependent claims (2–11, 13–18) each add only a single conventional accessory or step (window, keyboard, display, scale, printer, card reader, cash, bag holder, handle). No single cited reference anticipates them as dependent claims of 1/12, but their individual elements are disclosed across the references above, making them the natural §103 targets.

4. Explicit uncertainty flags

• Effective-date ambiguity (material). The claim-1(d)/claim-12 reconfiguration features appear to be CIP new matter (FIGS. 8–9). I could not verify from the face record the exact effective filing date of those limitations; whether 1988-, 1991-, 1992-, or 1993-dated references qualify is therefore date-dependent and unconfirmed. This is the single largest uncertainty.
• §102(e) timing for US 5,250,789 and US 4,929,819 against the 1988 priority date is not confirmable without the prosecution history; I state the limitation, not a conclusion.
• Verification depth: full texts/PDFs were inspected for US 5,412,193, US 5,149,947, US 4,929,819, US 4,071,740, US 4,373,133, and US 3,836,755. The remaining cited references (FR 906,051; FR 2,555,339; US 3,897,855; US 3,990,540; US 4,274,567; US 4,443,961; US 4,936,471; US 5,072,957; US 5,176,392; US 5,086,960; US 4,779,706; US 4,789,048; US 4,659,344; US 5,157,181; US 4,939,084) are assessed from the patent's own citation table and partial hits; I did not obtain every full specification, so per-element §102 statements for those are lower-confidence.
• Every "potentially anticipates" statement above is a screening judgment about element coverage, not a legal conclusion; genuine anticipation requires claim-construction and a full element-by-element comparison, which I have flagged rather than asserted where the record is thin.

I'll ground the § 103 analysis in the actual disclosures of the cited prior art. Let me pull the key references.

Good grounding. Let me verify a few more cited references and check whether any cited art addresses the checkout-to-display conversion.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 5,412,193 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Building on the patent summary and litigation summary already in the file. This section does not re-describe the patent's bibliographic data, continuity chain, or litigation posture except where a § 103 point depends on them.

1. Analytical framework and the procedural gate

Governing law. The application was filed May 24, 1993 and the patent issued May 2, 1995; the priority claim runs back to May 11, 1988. This is therefore a pre-AIA case (pre-AIA § 103; Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966); KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)). The familiar Graham factors apply: (1) scope and content of the prior art; (2) level of ordinary skill; (3) differences between the claims and the art; (4) secondary considerations.

Effective filing date — a threshold issue that materially affects the art available. This is a continuation-in-part. The claims now at issue (the "reconfiguration-to-a-display-stand" subject matter of independent claims 1 and 12) do not appear to be supported by the 1988 parent (US 5,144,120, "Mirrorless scanners with movable laser, optical and sensor components") or by the 1991 divisional (US 5,191,197, "Arm mounted scanner actuatable by hand movement"). Those parents are scanner-hardware patents. The reconfiguration/display-stand disclosure is therefore new matter whose earliest possible support is the Apr. 3, 1992 CIP (Ser. No. 07/863,259) or the May 24, 1993 filing itself. This matters because:

• If claims 1/12 get a 1992-04-03 effective date, then US 5,149,947 (Collins, Jr., NCR, "Portable checkout system," filed 1989-03-27, issued 1992-09-22) is available as § 102(e) art (its filing predates) — which it is in any event, since its application was filed in 1989.
• US 5,250,789 (Johnsen, filed 1991-10-31) is available under § 102(e) against a 1992-04-03 date and is clearly prior art against a 1993-05-24 date.
• Gogulski (1978), Mergenthaler '344 (1987), Clyne (1983), NCR '706/'048/'819, and Gretag '755 are prior art under § 102(b) regardless of the date chosen.

Bottom line on the gate: the cited-art combination analysis is stable across all plausible priority dates. I flag the CIP/new-matter point only because it is the kind of issue that can shift which references are "prior art," and I cannot verify the § 112 written-description support for the reconfiguration claims from the record provided.

Claim construction caveat. Both asserted independent claims are drafted in means-plus-function form ("transaction means," "means for reconfiguring," "means for supporting," "means for scanning"). Under pre-AIA § 112, ¶ 6 these are limited to the structures disclosed in the specification and their equivalents. The corresponding structures are: the cover assembly 136 with telescoping parts 140, 142 and latch 144; sliding columns 128/132; shelf 122 with keyboard 120, printer 124, card reader 126; cash drawer 134; window 110; terminal 106; scale 114. Any § 103 analysis must compare the prior art against those structures, not against a generic "means." (I note also, consistent with the earlier section, the apparent antecedent-basis mismatch in claim 1 — element (d) recites "means for reconfiguring" while clause (ii) refers to "said configuring means.")

Level of ordinary skill. A person of ordinary skill in this art c. 1988–1992 would hold a bachelor's degree in electrical or mechanical engineering (or equivalent experience) with 2–4 years in retail point-of-sale / electro-optical scanning systems, and would be familiar with (i) barcode scanner integration into checkout counters and carts, (ii) retail weighing-scale integration, and (iii) store fixtures/displays. The relevant art is point-of-sale and self-service checkout systems and, for the reconfiguration feature, retail store fixtures.

2. Scope and content of the cited prior art

The examiner cited 22 references. For § 103 purposes the load-bearing ones are the following (all facts below are drawn from the reference texts surfaced in this analysis):

Key gap I want to state up front: none of the cited references discloses converting a checkout counter into a merchandise display stand by removing/covering components and exposing an overlying display surface — let alone the specific "shelf on a slidable column that is detached and then lowered through a passage into the carriage beneath the display surface" mechanism recited in claims 1 and 12. That limitation is the entire inventive contribution of the independent claims over this art.

3. Claim-by-claim § 103 analysis

3.1 Independent claim 1 — apparatus

Assessment — claim 1. Elements (a)–(c) are squarely met by Gogulski alone, and (a)–(c) are also met by Collins '947 alone (which adds the credit-card payment step). The motivation to combine them is strong (see §4). But element (d) — the reconfiguration mechanism — is not taught or suggested by any cited reference, and it is not a mere "printed matter" or result-oriented recitation; it is a concrete structural requirement (detachable shelf + slidable column + internal passage + supporting the detached shelf under the display surface). A prima facie § 103 case against claim 1 over the cited art would fail at element (d) unless the examiner could (i) find separate art on convertible/knock-down retail fixtures and (ii) articulate why a POS-skilled artisan would import that art. I could not locate such art within the cited set.

The only plausible obviousness theory for element (d) is a KSR "design choice / predictable variation" argument: that "using idle checkout space as display space" is a known business desideratum (the '193 itself admits the peak/off-peak pattern was well known) and that hinging/telescoping covers were routine in counter design. That argument is weak on this record: it requires hindsight to select the specific slidable-column/detachable-shelf/lowering-passage architecture, and the cited art gives no reason to design the removal sequence that way. I flag this theory as conceivable but not well supported by the cited references.

3.2 Dependent claims 2–11 — strong § 103 positions

These rise and fall with claim 1 on element (d), but each individual limitation is met by the cited art, so if claim 1 were held obvious, claims 2–11 fall with it, and several are independently obvious:

3.3 Independent claim 12 — method

Assessment — claim 12. The method's purpose (efficient use of store space across peak/off-peak periods) maps onto Collins '947's express "rush hour" congestion rationale, so the motivation element is easy. But the reconfiguring steps — relocating components, covering them with a display surface, and the specific column/shelf lowering sequence — are absent from the cited art. Claim 12 therefore presents the same invalidity difficulty as claim 1: the cited-art combination reaches the "mobile POS" half of the claim but not the "convert to display" half. Note also, per the earlier section, that claim 12 is essentially a method-of-doing-business recitation of using floor space; whether such a claim is even § 103-relevant post-Alice is a separate question outside this mandate.

3.4 Dependent claims 13–18 — mostly obvious, two gap-limited

4. Motivation to combine (the KSR / TSM analysis)

Where the cited art does support a combination, the motivation is unusually clean:

1. Same field, same problem. Both Gogulski (cart-based, mobile, self-scanning checkout) and Collins '947 (portable scanning terminal on carts) are in the identical field of endeavor as the '193 — retail POS/self-service checkout. KSR permits combination of references from the same field addressing the same problem.

2. Express problem link to the '193's own stated problem. Collins '947 states its purpose is to "relieve the congestion normally found at checkout counters during rush hour periods." The '193's background states the identical premise — predictable peak shopping days and idle check stands during "the majority of the calendar week." A POS artisan seeking to add capacity during peak periods would look directly to Collins '947 and Gogulski. This is a textbook articulated KSR rationale (known problem → known solution).

3. Element-by-element known-hand. Mergenthaler '344 supplies, in a single reference, the integrated scanner-window + scale + window + terminal + printer + display combination that appears piecemeal in the '193's Figs. 7–8. Substituting that known integrated sub-assembly for the separateness of the cart references is a predictable use of a prior-art element (KSR, "obvious to try" / "predictable variation").

4. Collocation of known, functionally related parts. Claims 3–10 (keyboard, display, scale, printer, card reader, cash register, bag holder, handle) are a straight collocation of components that Gogulski and Collins '947 already place on or adjacent a mobile cart. KSR holds that combining known elements according to known methods, each performing its own function, is obvious absent a teaching away.

5. Contemporaneous PTAB/Judicial practice combining the same two references. In Ex parte Shimizu, Appeal No. 1999-1625 (BPAI), the Board sustained a § 103 rejection over "Collins and Gogulski" for claims directed to a customer self-selecting, reading, and paying for commodities using a transporterable container and payment processor. That is evidence that these two references were regarded in the art as combinable for precisely this kind of subject matter. (Interactive link: https://law.onecle.com/board-of-patent-appeals/2002/fd991625010.html.)

6. Design incentive / business motivation. Maximal revenue per square foot and re-purposing idle check stands is a commercial design incentive that supports modifying a mobile checkout to be convertible — though, as noted, the cited art stops short of teaching the claimed conversion mechanism.

What the motivation analysis cannot bridge: none of the above rationales supplies a reason to arrange the conversion the way claim 1/12 require (detachable shelf riding a slidable column that is lowered through a passage into the carriage beneath the display surface). The motivation to make a checkout movable is strong; the motivation to make it convert into a display stand via that specific mechanism is not supported by the cited references.

5. Secondary considerations

• Long-felt but unmet need / problem recognition. The '193 frames the "unproductive check stand space" problem as a longstanding, known deficiency. This could support non-obviousness of the reconfiguration claims — but the patent's own admissions that peak/off-peak behavior and mobile scanning carts were known cut the other way for the mobile elements.
• No evidence of nexus-bearing secondary indicia in the record. I found no evidence (in the material available to me) of commercial success, copying, industry praise, or unexpected results tied to the reconfiguration feature. Any such argument would need a nexus to the claimed structure.
• Skepticism/failure of others: not evidenced for the reconfiguration feature.

6. Conclusion — strongest § 103 theories and their limits

Verdict: The cited prior art supports strong, straightforward § 103 positions against the mobile-POS elements and against dependent claims 2–10, 13, 14, 15, and 16, but it does not support a clean § 103 case against independent claims 1 and 12 (nor against dependent claims 11, 17, and 18, which share the reconfiguration feature).

Ranked invalidity theories:

1. Strongest: Claims 13–16 and 2–10 over Collins '947 in view of Gogulski (and Mergenthaler '344 for the scale/window). Motivation is explicit in Collins '947's rush-hour rationale; every component is disclosed; combining them is a predictable collocation. Support: KSR; Ex parte Shimizu (same reference pairing).

2. Strong: Claim 15 (central database link) over Gogulski, Collins '947, or Clyne — each independently discloses the terminal-to-central-database communication.

3. Moderate: Claims 3–10 individually — each limitation is met by at least one cited reference. Claim 11 is the exception (no teaching of a stored keyboard/display position in the cited set).

4. Weak: Claims 1 and 12. The combination of Gogulski + Collins '947 + Mergenthaler '344 + (NCR '706/'048) renders obvious everything except element (d) / the reconfiguration steps. Absent additional, uncited art on retail fixtures that convert between checkout and display modes (and a reasoned explanation for adopting the detachable-shelf-on-slidable-column architecture), a prima facie § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 12 would likely be reversible on the record I examined.

Where an examiner would need to go next (flagging gaps rather than fabricating):

• Locate art teaching a checkout counter or retail fixture convertible to a merchandise display (candidate field: G07G1/00, A47F, and store-fixture art; the cited US 4,936,471 (Protoned) is the only cited reference in the display-fixture space and is directed to carrying display elements, not to converting a checkout).
• Locate art on component storage within a POS fixture (stowable shelves/columns) to attack the "slidable column lowered into the carriage" and "detached shelf supported beneath the display surface" limitations.
• Verify the § 112 written-description support for the reconfiguration claims in the CIP chain, since a § 103 date-of-invention argument could otherwise remove the closest art.

Confidence and limitations. High confidence on the content of US 4,656,344, US 4,071,740, US 5,149,947, US 4,373,133, and US 5,250,789, which I verified from reference texts. I could not fully text-verify US 4,779,706, US 4,789,048, US 4,929,819, US 3,990,540, US 5,157,181, US 3,836,755, EP 0 513 530 A2, or US 4,936,471 within the search budget, so my descriptions of those are at a higher level and should be confirmed against their full texts before filing any paper. My search was cut off mid-sweep for the checkout-to-display-fixture question; treat "no cited art teaches the reconfiguration mechanism" as "not found in the cited set and not located in the searches run," not as a definitive negative. Consistent with the earlier sections: there is no known litigation or 2026 CAFC activity on US 5,412,193, and the patent expired May 2, 2012, so this § 103 analysis is retrospective/validity-analysis in nature rather than enforcement-driven.