US 5417684

I'll verify what I can and attempt to retrieve claim text, since the authoritative text provided to me stops before the claims section.

Let me pull the full claim set and check for any litigation/docket activity.

Let me pin down the independent claim preambles precisely.

US 5,417,684 — Verification Summary

Sourcing note: The authoritative full text you supplied is truncated immediately after "DETAILED DESCRIPTION … As defined in this application," so the claims section is not in the authoritative text. Claim language below comes from secondary sources (FreePatentsOnline, Justia, uspto.report, and the OCR'd grant PDF at patentimages.storage.googleapis.com). Bibliography comes from the authoritative text plus Google Patents. I flag every item I could not verify verbatim.

Bibliographic data

Note: one aggregator (Unified Patents portal) lists the priority date as 1993-03-10, while Google Patents and the patent's own continuation sentence say Mar. 11, 1993. I have not resolved that one-day discrepancy.

Abstract (verbatim from the authoritative text)

"A medical grasper device (10) that is useful for holding and manipulating a body organ is described. Grasper device (10) is inserted into a body cavity through a cannula port and in the form of a flexible strap (26) preferably made of a plastic material having traction formations, in the form of openings (34, 34D), ridges (34C) or scalloped edges (34B) provided along the length of a holding section and serving to prevent the strap from releasing from a position encircling the organ. The strap is housed within a tube (12) that is provided with a handle (68). During the laparoscopic procedure, the strap is moved by hand or by suitable manipulation mechanism out through the opposite, distal end (20) of the tube to define a loop (28) of adjustable size. The loop is thus useful for holding and manipulating body organs and body tissue."

Plain-language overview

A laparoscopic organ-grasper built around a flat plastic strap (preferably acetal) that doubles back on itself out the distal end of a tube to form an adjustable loop that is slipped over an organ and cinched down. Four features carry the disclosure:

1. Atraumatic gripping formations on the loop's inner face — through-openings, beveled openings, scalloped/serrated edges, ridges, or recessed pockets. Openings are preferred: moisture escapes and tissue bulges into them, so the tightened loop resists slipping off without cutting or crushing.
2. A strap guide at the tube's distal end that channels the strap so the loop is flexible in the plane of loop adjustment but semi-rigid normal to that plane, and that prevents the strap from rotating about its own axis — letting the surgeon steer the loop by rotating the handle.
3. A seal inside the tube (e.g., a slit elastomeric disc or O-ring) sealing directly against the strap or drive rod so pneumoperitoneum CO₂ and body fluids cannot escape out the proximal end, while still permitting strap/rod travel.
4. A user-accessible lock (locking screw with thumbwheel, cam lever, ratchet, slide lock, or threaded collet/collar) to freeze the loop at a chosen size.

Two architecture families are described: a "single-throw" device (one strap end fixed to the guide, the other end hand-manipulated) and a "double-throw" device (both strap ends overlapped and bolted to a drive rod/collar, so half the handle travel produces the same loop-size change). Several parts are singled out as disposable (the strap, the guide, the seal, and in FIGS. 45–50 a preformed memory-shaped loop).

Independent claims (plain language)

The patent has at least 64 claims. Based on retrieved claim text, the independent claims appear to be claims 1, 41, 47, 57, 60 (method), and 64.

• Claim 1 — Medical device (broadest device claim). A device insertable into a body cavity to hold/manipulate an organ from outside, comprising: (a) an elongated conduit (tube) with an inside passage and proximal/distal open ends, the proximal portion serving as a handle; (b) a flexible strap, wider than it is thick, doubled back on itself to define a loop with at least one recessed formation extending at least part way through the strap thickness, both strap sections extending back into the tube so the strap slides within it, with a manipulator to change loop size (flexible in the loop plane, relatively rigid perpendicular to it); and (c) manipulative means operable from the remote location to open the loop, place it around the organ, and tighten it. Key functional limitation: the recessed formation faces inward so moist tissue trapped under the strap pushes up into it, preventing the tightened loop from releasing while the organ is manipulated. (Retrieved verbatim: subparagraphs (b) and (c). Subparagraph (a) verbatim not captured — flagged as uncertain.)
• Claim 41 — Medical device, sealing-and-guide variant. Same conduit/strap/loop/recessed-formation core, plus (c) a guide means on the conduit that directs strap movement and prevents strap rotation about its longitudinal axis, and (d) a sealing means inside the conduit that seals directly around the width and thickness of the strap to block body-cavity fluids from reaching the proximal open end while allowing strap travel. (Retrieved verbatim except the preamble; the (a)–(d) lettering above is drawn from the retrieved text, but I could not confirm whether this particular (a)–(d) block belongs to claim 41 or claim 57 — the two independent claims are worded near-identically. Flagged as uncertain.)
• Claim 47 — Medical device, collapse-in-tube variant (the FIG. 45–50 "disposable loop" embodiment). The manipulator draws opposed strap portions into the conduit so they bear against opposed surfaces on the conduit to close the loop; pushing the strap back out through the distal open end releases it and re-expands the loop. Recessed formation faces inward for the wet-tissue grip. (Retrieved verbatim.)
• Claim 57 — Disposable device/kit claim. A "disposable" claim covering the conduit, strap with recessed formation, guide means, and sealing means. Label inconsistency to flag: dependent claim 58 calls it "the disposable medical device of claim 57" while dependent claim 59 calls it "the disposable kit of claim 57," so I cannot state with confidence whether claim 57 is drafted as a device or a kit.
• Claim 60 — Method. A method of holding and manipulating an organ inside a body cavity from outside, comprising: (a) providing the device (conduit + handle, strap whose thickness runs between a continuous inner surface and an outer surface with at least one recessed formation formed into the thickness from the inner surface, doubled back to form the loop, plus a manipulator); (b) inserting the device with the distal portion adjacent the organ while the proximal portion and manipulator stay outside; (c) manipulating the manipulator to define the loop; (d) manipulating the handle to position the opened loop around the organ; and (e) further steps (the retrieved text truncates mid-step (e)). (Retrieved verbatim through step (d); step (e) and any closing limitation not captured.)
• Claim 64 — Medical device, scalloped-edge variant. A device whose gripping formations are notches formed along the spaced-apart edges of the strap to give a scallop-like shape; the notches are recessed into the edges so the continuous inner surface of the tightened loop resists releasing from the organ. (Retrieved verbatim for subparagraphs (b) and (c); preamble partially captured.)

USPTO litigation / CAFC docket check for 5,417,684

I searched for Federal Circuit and district-court activity on this specific number and found no 2026 CAFC docket, and no litigation at any date, naming U.S. 5,417,684. Limitations on this finding:

• I do not have direct PACER/CM-ECF or CAFC docket-system access; this is based on open-web searching only. An absence of results is not proof of absence.
• The apparent reason no 2026 case exists is structural: the patent's term ran from the 1993-03-11 priority date and Google Patents records it as expired as of 2013-03-11 ("Anticipated expiration"). It would have been ~33 years past priority in 2026.
• The Greatbatch v. AVX litigation I did surface (D. Del. No. 1:13-cv-00723-LPS; Fed. Cir. Nos. 2019-2314 and 2020-1225, nonprecedential Rule 36 affirmance, July 14, 2020) and the related IPR2014-00697 appeal concern different patents — U.S. 6,905,627, 5,905,627, and the '095/'553/'779 family (feedthrough filter capacitors). Those are not 5,417,684, and I did not find 5,417,684 asserted anywhere in that record.
• The only unrelated "5,417,684" hit is an FDA MAUDE report key (MDR Report Key 5417684, Iris International iChem Velocity) — a coincidental identifier, not this patent.

Known prior art cited on the face of the patent (from the authoritative text)

U.S. 5,163,942 (Rydell) — adjustable belt/cord loop with thumb-slide handle, serrated grip surface, no tube seal; U.S. 4,592,355 (Antebi) — strap-and-pawl tissue ligator; U.S. 3,828,790 (Curtiss et al.); and U.S. 480,870; 668,647; 1,461,864; 1,470,914; 2,054,149; 3,181,533; 5,084,054. Non-patent literature: Ponsky & Mellinger, Surgical Endoscopy (1991) 5:57–58; Henning & Seuberth, Endoscopy 20 (1988) 70–72.

Items I could not confirm

• Verbatim preamble of claim 1 and the exact lettering/preamble of claims 41 and 57 (the retrieved (a)–(d) block may attach to either).
• Total claim count and the full text of the last method step(s) of claim 60.
• Whether claim 57 is a device claim or a kit claim (the dependent claims contradict each other).
• The 1993-03-10 vs. 1993-03-11 priority-date discrepancy.
• Any post-2013 ownership or litigation events beyond the recorded security-interest reassignments listed by Google Patents (Fleet National Bank, Minrad Inc., Manufacturers and Traders Trust, KeyBank, First Niagara Bank, Laminar Direct Capital, Bank of America, Piramal Critical Care).

One OCR artifact worth noting without correcting: the grant PDF's extracted title reads "LAPAROSCOPIC SURGICAL GRASPER WITH A LAW OF THE GRIPPING FORMATIONS LAMP WITH GRIPPING FORMATIONS," which is scanner noise; the title of record per Google Patents and the specification is "Laparoscopic surgical grasper with a loop with gripping formations."

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 5417684 specifically.

Initial searches returned only patent citations, not litigation. Let me search targeted litigation databases.

Let me try a few more targeted database searches before concluding.

Answer: No litigation found involving US Patent 5,417,684

After searching for the specific number 5417684 across general web sources, patent databases, and litigation-oriented sources (including material indexed from Unified Patents' portal, CourtListener/RECAP, PACER-derived dockets, and CAFC opinion repositories), I found no evidence of any litigation — district court, ITC, PTAB, CAFC, or UPC — in which US Patent 5,417,684 was asserted, challenged, or otherwise at issue.

What the searches actually returned

Every hit for "5417684" was one of the following, none of which is litigation:

1. The patent itself and its family — US 5,417,684 A ("Laparoscopic surgical grasper with a loop with gripping formations"), inventors Robert C. Jackson, Jack A. Belstadt, and Paul D. Putt, Jr.; original assignee Wilson Greatbatch Ltd.; filed Aug. 12, 1994 as a continuation of Ser. No. 08/029,445 (filed Mar. 11, 1993); issued May 23, 1995. Foreign counterparts appear as AU 6405994, EP 0688184 A1, and WO 9420029.
2. Prior-art citations — the patent is cited as a reference in later patents (e.g., US 9,592,038; US 10,251,650; US 11,547,428; US 11,844,525; US D811,593) and in foreign search reports (e.g., WO 2017019653 A1; RU 2445025 C2). Being cited as prior art is not litigation.
3. Assignment/reassignment records — the chain of title (Fleet National Bank, Minrad Inc., Manufacturers & Traders Trust, KeyBank, First Niagara Bank, Laminar Direct Capital, Piramal Critical Care, Wilson Greatbatch Ltd.) reported on the Google Patents page. Assignments are not lawsuits.
4. False positives on the digit string — e.g., a Brazilian court docket number "5417684-69.2019.4.03.9999" (a social-security appeal, TRF-3), an FDA MAUDE report key "5417684," a Lithuanian registry notice number, and a USPTO PTAB petition artifact ID ending in 5417684. These are unrelated to the patent and should not be mistaken for patent litigation.

Why litigation is unlikely (context, not confirmation)

• The patent expired on March 11, 2013 (20 years from the March 11, 1993 priority date), per the legal-status data on the Google Patents record. Any infringement action would have had to be filed and adjudicated before that date.
• The patent is a fairly narrow surgical-instrument patent from the mid-1990s with substantial design-around history (the specification itself distinguishes Rydell US 5,163,942 and Antebi US 4,592,355), which is consistent with a low-assertion asset.

Important caveats

• I was not able to directly query the Unified Patents litigation caselist portal, PACER, Docket Navigator, or Lex Machina for this proceeding. My conclusion is based on web-searchable sources, which do not index every federal docket — particularly pre-2000 cases and cases that settled early without published opinions.
• An absence of search hits is not affirmative proof of no litigation. It is possible (though I found no indication) that a suit was filed and resolved without a discoverable opinion or docket entry.
• I found no PTAB/IPR/PGR proceeding and no CAFC appeal referencing this patent.
• Regarding the family members EP 0688184 and WO 9420029: I also found no evidence of national or UPC litigation on the European counterpart, but I could not exhaustively verify European national dockets.

Recommended verification steps

If you need a defensible "no litigation" representation, I would verify directly against:

1. Docket Navigator or Lex Machina (search by patent number 5,417,684) — these are the most reliable for complete assertion histories.
2. PACER / CourtListener RECAP "Nature of Suit 830" (Patent) dockets listing the '684 patent.
3. Unified Patents Portal — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist (and the PTAB caselist at https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/caselist).
4. USPTO PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) and USPTO Assignment records for any post-issuance proceedings.

Bottom line: On the available evidence, no litigation is known involving US Patent 5,417,684, and given the patent's March 11, 2013 expiration, any assertion would necessarily predate that date. Please treat this as "no litigation found" rather than a certified negative, and confirm with a docket-specific database before relying on it.

I'll verify the ODP-provided baseline against public sources before rendering the analysis.

Let me run a few more targeted checks before concluding.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file for US 5,417,684. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings, and my independent searches of public PTAB/PTABTS materials surfaced no petition, institution decision, or final written decision naming this patent. Breakdown by status: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials — a null set, not a clean sweep. The correct defensive posture is therefore not "the patent is hardened by surviving IPRs," but rather "no one ever bothered to challenge these claims at the Board, and the patent is expired — do not let a demand letter's silence on that point mislead you."

For the record, the structured data's canonical fields for the patent itself (from the USPTO/Google Patents record) are:

No proceedings to report

There is no IPR20XX-XXXXX, PGR20XX-XXXXX, or CBM20XX-XXXXX number I can give you for this patent, and per your instruction I will not invent one. Everything below is the explanation of why the null set exists and what it means, rather than a fabricated docket.

---

Strategic summary

Which claims are CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. Because no AIA trial ever reached a final written decision, the answer is stark: no claim of US 5,417,684 has ever been canceled, confirmed, or even adjudicated by the PTAB. Every claim is UNTESTED at the Board. Anyone characterizing the patent's claims as "upheld" or "invalidated" in PTAB proceedings is misrepresenting the record. One important verification point: the claim sets I retrieved from public databases are internally inconsistent in numbering — one index shows claim 1 with dependents 2–10 (the "recessed formation … moist tissue push up into the recessed formation" family, e.g. claims directed to the strap's gripping formations, the drive-rod/collar manipulative means, and the guide means that prevents strap rotation), while another public copy of the grant displays claims numbered at least into the 40s. I cannot reconcile that from the sources I searched, so verify the exact claim count and independent-claim structure against the official printed patent or PatentCenter before relying on it; I will not guess.

Estoppel landscape. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel is a non-issue here: estoppel attaches only to a petitioner that obtained a final written decision, and there are none. No petitioner, privy, or real party in interest is estopped from anything with respect to this patent. Conversely, a defendant gains no estoppel benefit from the Board's work — because there is no Board work. Any invalidity case would have to be built from scratch in district court.

Pattern signals. There is no pattern to read. No serial petitioner, no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents IPR appears in the chain of custody), and no patent-owner appellate activity. The patent changed hands repeatedly through the Minrad → RXElite → Piramal Critical Care corporate chain and was repeatedly pledged as collateral (Fleet National Bank, Manufacturers and Traders Trust, KeyBank, First Niagara, Laminar Direct Capital), which tells you the asset's value lay in a security-interest schedule, not in an enforcement campaign. The absence of IPRs is explained partly by timing: AIA trials became available 2012-09-16, and the patent's 20-year term ran out 2013-03-11 — a window of under six months during which an IPR was even theoretically attractive. CBM review was never available (this is a surgical instrument, not a financial-product patent), and PGR was never available (a 1994 filing is nowhere near AIA first-inventor-to-file). A third party challenging these claims would have been attacking a patent with ~6 months of life left.

---

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant and no proceedings exist: say so plainly and lead with expiration. The Board has never touched this patent. But the more dispositive fact is that US 5,417,684 expired on 2013-03-11 (the "Anticipated expiration" entry in the structured record; status "Expired – Lifetime" with no maintenance-fee lapse shown). Under Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, 576 U.S. 446 (2015), post-expiration royalties are unenforceable, and an expired patent cannot be infringed by conduct occurring after its term. If a demand letter cites claims 1–10 (or any claim), the first response is that the asserted right lapsed more than thirteen years ago. Confirm current fee/expiration status at PatentCenter and pull the certified copy before you put that in writing.
• Verify the claim structure before you quote claim numbers. As noted above, my public sources disagree on whether the patent's claims run to claim 10 or into the 40s. Cite only claim numbers you have confirmed against the official patent copy; a demand letter or invalidity contention that misnumbers claims is an own goal.
• Do not build a defense around anticipated PTAB rulings. There is no institution decision to await, no FWD due date, and no statutory § 316(a)(11) one-year clock running — because there is no trial. There are no PTAB trial-stage milestones to calendar. Any suggestion that a Board proceeding is "pending" or "expected" should be treated as inaccurate until a petition number actually appears, which you can check directly at USPTO PTAB E2E / PTAB Decisions and the PTAB public-information petition search.
• Caveat on the null set. My searches covered the ODP structured block supplied in the prompt plus general public web/PTAB-material searches. I did not have direct query access to the PTAB E2E docket for this patent number, so treat "no proceedings" as strongly supported but not exhaustively verified — a short manual docket search under the patent number at the two links above would close that gap in a few minutes. I found nothing to flag, and I am reporting no proceeding numbers because I found none.

I'll research the assignment records and corporate history before assembling the analysis.

Let me dig into the Minrad/RxElite/Piramal chain and the assignment reel/frame data.

Let me try to locate the actual reel/frame identifiers and check for any litigation involving this patent.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 5,417,684

Patent: Laparoscopic surgical grasper with a loop with gripping formations
App. No.: 08/290,006 (continuation of 08/029,445, filed 1993‑03‑11, now abandoned) — filed 1994‑08‑12, issued 1995‑05‑23
Status as of today: Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration 2013‑03‑11)

Sourcing caveat up front, and it is a material one. The USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) and the Assignment Search legacy UI (assignment.uspto.gov/patent) are JavaScript applications that I could not query directly, and no indexed mirror I could reach exposes the reel/frame numbers or the correspondent of record for this patent. Everything below is reconstructed from the Google Patents legal‑events table for US5417684A (which reports the same recorded-assignment events with dates and conveyance types but without reel/frame) plus SEC filings and contemporaneous trade press. I have not fabricated reel/frame numbers or correspondent names. Where a required field was unavailable, that is stated explicitly rather than guessed.

---

Inventors

• All three residences sit within ~20 miles of Wilson Greatbatch Ltd.'s Clarence, NY headquarters — consistent with a captive R&D team rather than outside inventors.
• The work was filed (1993) and continued (1994) before Greatbatch formally stood up the "Greatbatch Scientific" internal division in 1996, but the asset was carried in that division by the time of the 1998 sale. So the trio's output is best characterized as Greatbatch Scientific‑line engineering.
• Unusual pattern — team, not individuals, changed hands. I could not verify individual departure dates for any inventor, and I found no evidence of the classic "all inventors leave within 12 months of filing" pre‑fire‑sale tell. What is documented is the inverse and equally notable pattern: the entire Greatbatch Scientific division was sold to Minrad in August 1998 and, per Diagnostic Imaging (1998‑09‑02), "Greatbatch Scientific Division employees have been absorbed into Minrad." The inventors' work moved as a unit with the asset; there was no inventor‑level spinoff or abandonment.

---

Original assignee

Wilson Greatbatch Ltd. (Clarence, NY) — the entity named on the issued face of the patent and in the 1998 assignment records.

• Relationship to Google Patents: the "Original Assignee" field on the Google Patents record reads "Greatbatch Ltd," while the front-page/FreePatentsOnline record and the 1998 reassignment entries read "Wilson Greatbatch Ltd." These are the same company at different points in its corporate history — the name change is directly evidenced by USPTO record 2009‑02‑25, which literally names "GREATBATCH LTD. (F/K/A WILSON GREATBATCH LTD.)" as assignee of a security release.
• Primary line of business: implantable medical device power sources and components (the company founded by pacemaker inventor Wilson Greatbatch in 1970). Parent = Wilson Greatbatch Technologies, Inc., taken private in the July 1997 DLJ Merchant Banking‑led LBO, later Greatbatch, Inc., now Integer Holdings Corporation (NYSE: ITGR).
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? For the grasper specifically I found no commercial SKU. But the originating business unit did ship product: Greatbatch Scientific held roughly eight FDA 510(k) clearances for endoscopy and laryngoscopy products and had an MR‑compatible endoscopy system cleared by FDA in July 1998. Sales for the unit were de minimis (under $0.1M from July 1997 to August 1998).
• Current status: Wilson Greatbatch Ltd. survives as a Greatbatch/Integer subsidiary entity (the 2021 recording below still uses that name); the original assignee is operating, not dissolved or in bankruptcy.

---

Assignment timeline

Note on dates: the dates below are the recording dates reported in the Google Patents legal‑events table. Where an execution date differs or is documented, I say so. Reel/frame and correspondent fields were not retrievable (see sourcing caveat) and are marked NOT RETRIEVED rather than invented.

• 1997‑11‑12 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Wilson Greatbatch Ltd.
  • Assignee: Fleet National Bank
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization — patent collateral pledged under the credit facility supporting the July 1997 DLJ Merchant Banking LBO of Wilson Greatbatch Ltd. (Fleet National Bank was the Administrative Agent under the WGL credit agreement per the company's Form S‑1 exhibit index). No ownership change.

• 1998‑10‑15 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Wilson Greatbatch Ltd.
  • Assignee: Minrad Inc.
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Acquisition — first of a duplicate pair recording the sale of the Greatbatch Scientific division (closed August 1998) to Minrad.

• 1998‑10‑19 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Wilson Greatbatch Ltd.
  • Assignee: Minrad Inc.
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Acquisition — second record of the same August 1998 division sale; the 4‑day gap suggests an initial record plus a supplemental/corrective filing for the IP schedule, not two separate transactions. This is the only true ownership transfer in the chain. Consideration was reported by Greatbatch as ≈12% of Minrad's stock, valued at ~$2.4M.

• 2001‑01‑31 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Wilson Greatbatch Ltd.
  • Assignee: Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company (M&T)
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization — M&T was administrative agent under WGL's bank credit agreement (see the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated 2002‑07‑09 among Wilson Greatbatch Ltd., the lenders, and M&T as administrative agent). No ownership change.

• 2005‑12‑27 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Minrad, Inc.
  • Assignee: KeyBank National Association
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization — first recorded patent collateral pledge by Minrad as an independent company. No ownership change.

• 2007‑07‑26 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (later corrected — see 2007‑08‑08)
  • Assignor: Minrad Inc.
  • Assignee: First Niagara Bank
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization — mislabeled on first filing as an outright assignment. Data‑quality flag.

• 2007‑08‑07 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: KeyBank National Association
  • Assignee: Minrad Inc.
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization housekeeping — KeyBank collateral released as First Niagara replaced it. No ownership change.

• 2007‑08‑08 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment (nature of conveyance corrected from Assignment to Security Agreement; collateral assignment of patents confirmed)
  • Assignor: Minrad Inc.
  • Assignee: First Niagara Bank
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization correction — confirms the 2007‑07‑26 entry was never an ownership transfer.

• 2008‑02‑25 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Notice of Grant of Security Interest
  • Assignor: Minrad Inc.
  • Assignee: Laminar Direct Capital L.P., as Agent
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization — short‑term secured facility during Minrad's deterioration. No ownership change.

• 2008‑05‑23 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Termination of Security Interest in Patents
  • Assignor: Laminar Direct Capital, L.P.
  • Assignee: Minrad Inc.
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization — Laminar's interest extinguished within 3 months of recording; a revolving/short‑duration lien typical of bridge financing into a distressed balance sheet.

• 2008‑12‑16 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: First Niagara Bank
  • Assignee: Minrad Inc.
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization — First Niagara collateral released as the Piramal transaction restructured Minrad's debt. No ownership change.

• 2008‑12‑22 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Bank of America, N.A. (as successor by merger to Fleet National Bank)
  • Assignee: Minrad Inc., as successor to Wilson Greatbatch Ltd.
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization cleanup — closes the 1997 Fleet lien. The assignee recital is independently significant: it is USPTO‑recorded confirmation that Minrad succeeded to the Wilson Greatbatch Scientific IP, including this patent.

• 2009‑02‑25 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company
  • Assignee: Greatbatch Ltd. (f/k/a Wilson Greatbatch Ltd.)
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization cleanup — closes the 2001 M&T lien against the former parent.

• 2012‑02‑22 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Merger and Change of Name
  • Assignors: Minrad Inc. and RxElite Holdings Inc.
  • Assignee: Piramal Critical Care, Inc.
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Acquisition — recording of the Piramal Healthcare Limited transactions: Minrad International merged into a Piramal subsidiary (announced 2008‑12‑22; closed March 2009 at $0.12/share; ~$40M total consideration including purchase of the 8% Senior Secured Convertible Notes), and Piramal separately bought 100% of RxElite Holdings, Inc. for ~$4.2M cash (announced 2009‑01‑28).

• 2013‑03‑11 — anticipated expiration (patent term ended)

• 2021‑11‑22 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company
  • Assignee: Wilson Greatbatch Ltd.
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Anomaly. A second release of the same 2001 M&T security interest, recorded ~8 years after the patent's 2013‑03‑11 expiration and ~12 years after the first release at 2009‑02‑25. Late‑filed housekeeping/corrective recording; likely a portfolio‑wide blanket release. Two observations follow: (a) it uses the pre‑2009 entity name "Wilson Greatbatch Ltd." rather than the "Greatbatch Ltd." name used in 2009; (b) it is a non‑ownership record and does not disturb the chain. Flag as unclear, non‑material.

Bottom line on the chain: there is exactly one substantive ownership transfer in the entire record — Wilson Greatbatch Ltd. → Minrad Inc. in 1998 — plus one merger‑and‑name‑change recording in 2012 giving Piramal Critical Care, Inc. Every other entry is a security interest, release, or correction.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 5417684
    1993 : Priority application filed
    1994 : Continuation filed
    1995 : Patent issued to Wilson Greatbatch
    1997 : Fleet National Bank security deal
    1998 : Greatbatch Scientific sold to Minrad
         : Greatbatch gets about 12 percent of Minrad
    2001 : M and T Trust security interest
    2005 : KeyBank security agreement
    2007 : First Niagara security agreement
         : KeyBank lien released and corrected
    2008 : Laminar security interest recorded
         : Minrad agrees to Piramal merger
         : Fleet and First Niagara liens released
    2009 : Piramal closes Minrad and RxElite buys
    2012 : Merger recorded to Piramal Critical Care
    2013 : Patent expires
    2021 : Late release of M and T interest

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT.
There is no transfer to a licensing‑only vehicle anywhere in the chain. The single ownership transfer (1998‑10‑15 and 1998‑10‑19, Wilson Greatbatch Ltd. → Minrad Inc.) moved the patent to Minrad Inc., a then‑operating medical device company in Orchard Park/Buffalo, NY that manufactured and sold image‑guided surgery instruments and, after December 2000, generic inhalation anesthetics from a Bethlehem, PA plant. The 2012 termination of the chain is at Piramal Critical Care, Inc., the U.S. operating arm of Piramal Enterprises Ltd. No name carrying an "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" suffix appears as an owner, and no registered‑agent service address appears in any ownership record. (The one "Holdings" entity in the chain, RxElite Holdings Inc., appears only as a co‑assignor in the 2012 merger recording and was an operating gas‑distribution business bought for ~$4.2M — not a shell.)

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT.
No assignee or assignor at any point matches the reference lists: not Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, nor any Spangenberg entity. Adjudicated negatively, not merely unchecked: the 2012 terminus is Piramal Critical Care, Inc., and the 1998 assignee is Minrad Inc./Minrad International, Inc. (AMEX: BUF), whose only litigated patent matter I could identify was defensive — Minrad was the defendant in Baxter's Hatch‑Waxman suits over U.S. 5,617,906 concerning desflurane (D. Del. C.A. No. 09‑054 GMS, filed 2009‑01‑23).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNABLE TO ASSESS.
The correspondent of record for each recording was not retrievable from any source I could reach; the Google Patents legal‑events table for this patent omits it and the Assignment Center UI was not queryable. I will not infer a firm. Required to close this out: pull the correspondent field for each of the 15 entries above directly from assignmentcenter.uspto.gov and compare against Unified Patents / RPX / Patent Progress assertion lists. Predictively, I would expect a Greatbatch/Integer‑side corporate firm on the 1997–2009 Greatbatch entries and a Minrad‑era firm on the 2005–2008 Minrad entries — the 2008 Minrad proxy statement names Hodgson Russ LLP as Minrad's M&A counsel and Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP for the noteholders — but that is inference from deal counsel, not from any recorded correspondent field, and I flag it as such.

4. Cascading transfers through chained LLCs in <24 months — NOT PRESENT.
The 2007‑07‑26 / 2008‑02‑25 / 2008‑12‑16 cluster looks dense on a list, but every entry in it is a security interest or release, and the 2007‑08‑08 corrective assignment explicitly recharacterizes the 2007‑07‑26 record from Assignment to Security Agreement. The 1998‑10‑15/1998‑10‑19 pair are two records of a single transaction four days apart — one seller, one buyer, no chained intermediates. The 2012 recording is a merger, not a daisy chain. No two assignees in this chain share a correspondent address or common principals.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT.
No infringement suit naming US 5,417,684 was found in the sources I could reach, so there is no litigation date for a transfer to precede. The only transfer (1998) predates any conceivable suit by 15 years, and the 2012 merger recording is ~28 years removed and was a corporate reorganization of a $40M operating acquisition.

6. Bankruptcy fire‑sale — UNCLEAR, leaning present‑in‑substance but not in form.
Minrad International, Inc. was in acute distress through 2008: an NYSE Alternext delisting notice on 2008‑12‑11, an $8M 8% Senior Secured Convertible Note stack whose holders held a $48M change‑of‑control put the company could not fund, a $12M Piramal bridge loan signed concurrently with the merger agreement, and a board that expressly weighed filing for bankruptcy protection before choosing the merger at $0.12/share. The patent exited via that distressed $40M sale. However, I found no confirmation that a Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 petition was ever filed — the proxy statement discussed bankruptcy as the rejected alternative, not a completed event. Per the constraints, I do not upgrade distress to bankruptcy without a docket. Marked unclear because the economic character is a fire‑sale while the legal form is a solvent merger.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
No operating company transferred this patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf. The closest analogue — Greatbatch taking a ~10–12% equity stake in the acquirer — is a standard seller‑note/rollover in an asset divestiture (Greatbatch wrote the investment down by $0.9M in 1999), not a covert assertion vehicle, and no assertion followed.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at Piramal Critical Care, Inc. The patent simply expired on 2013‑03‑11, which neutralizes it by operation of law rather than by aggregation.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Strictly applied, one prong of the label is unmet and I want that on the record: I found no infringement suit naming US 5,417,684, so there is no "assertion" to point to. Selecting among the five buckets, this is nonetheless the only one that describes the actual fact pattern — a patent held continuously by operating companies, with a single genuine ownership transfer at the 1998 Greatbatch Scientific division sale (recorded 1998‑10‑15 and 1998‑10‑19, Wilson Greatbatch Ltd. → Minrad Inc., ~12% of Minrad's stock, ~$2.4M) and a single merger recording in 2012 (recorded 2012‑02‑22, Minrad Inc. and RxElite Holdings Inc. → Piramal Critical Care, Inc.) following Piramal's $40M distressed purchase of Minrad at $0.12/share. There are zero NPE indicators across all eight signal categories: no shell vehicle, no listed asserter, no LLC cascade, no pre‑suit transfer, no privateering. The 2007–2008 density in the record is an artifact of secured lending, not ownership churn — the recorder itself corrected the 2007‑07‑26 entry from Assignment to Security Agreement at 2007‑08‑08. The patent expired 2013‑03‑11 and is a dead asset today.

Two open items I could not close, stated plainly rather than filled in:

1. Reel/frame numbers for all 15 entries — not retrievable from the sources I could reach; must be pulled from assignmentcenter.uspto.gov by patent number 5417684.
2. Correspondent of record for all 15 entries — likewise unavailable, which is precisely the field that makes signal #3 (repeat correspondent) decidable. Signal #3 remains unable to assess, not "not present."

Verify at:

• USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 5417684)
• USPTO Patent Assignment Search (legacy index) — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events used as the date/conveyance source — https://patents.google.com/patent/US5417684/en

Corroborating sources for the corporate narrative: Greatbatch/Wilson Greatbatch Technologies Form S‑1 and 10‑K disclosures (d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001114483/...) on the August 1998 Greatbatch Scientific asset sale for ~12% of the acquirer's stock valued at $2.4M, the affiliation with the 1997 DLJ Merchant Banking LBO, and the M&T administrative‑agency credit agreement; Diagnostic Imaging, 1998‑09‑02, on Minrad's acquisition of the division and absorption of its employees; Minrad International DEFM14A (2008) on the delisting notice, noteholder put, and $0.12/share Piramal merger; Piramal Healthcare press release, 2009‑01‑28, on the RxElite Holdings acquisition.

I'll verify the citation data for the patent and each of its cited references before building the § 102 analysis.

I have the key references. Let me verify the remaining cited patents and pull the face-of-patent reference list.

I've hit the search-call ceiling for this session, so I'll report what I verified and flag precisely what I could not. Below is the prior-art analysis for US 5,417,684, keyed literally to 5417684 / application 08/290,006 — no similar numbers substituted.

---

Prior Art Analysis — US Patent 5,417,684

0. Search scope and verification notice

I confirmed the identification of 5417684 (title, application number, filing/priority/grant dates, inventors, assignee, status) from the authoritative full text and the Google Patents / Justia / uspto.report records. I could not directly query the USPTO's interactive systems (PatentCenter, Patent Public Search, PTAB E2E) — they are JavaScript applications that returned no machine-readable data — and I could not retrieve the printed front page "References Cited" list. The reference set below is therefore reconstructed from:

• the patent's own PRIOR ART narrative (authoritative text) and incorporated-by-reference sentence confirmed in the OCR'd grant PDF, and
• secondary sources (Google Patents, Justia, uspto.report, RPX/Insight, searchlight.law, everypatent) for each reference's dates and content.

Where I could not verify a field, I say so rather than fill it in. Consistent with the earlier sections of this file, I note the priority-date discrepancy: Google Patents and the patent's own continuation sentence read 1993‑03‑11, while the Unified Patents portal lists 1993‑03‑10. I do not resolve it; I flag it where it affects the critical date.

§ 102 framework applied. Anticipation requires a single reference disclosing every limitation, arranged as claimed. The patent is a pre‑URAA case, so the presumptive § 102(b) critical date is one year before the earliest effective U.S. filing date (the parent, 1993‑03‑11) → ≈1992‑03‑11. Anything published on or before that date is § 102(b); anything between 1992‑03‑11 and the invention date is § 102(a)/(e) only.

---

1. The claim set I am mapping against

Per the previously generated sections (authoritative for cross-reference), the independent claims appear to be 1, 41, 47, 57, 60 (method), and 64, with a total count that public sources render inconsistently (one index shows claims 1–10; another shows numbering into the 40s). Recurring limitations drawn from retrieved verbatim text:

• Claim 1 — conduit/tube + handle; flexible flat strap doubled back into a loop, with at least one recessed formation formed into the thickness from the inner surface; manipulative means; loop flexible in its plane, relatively rigid normal to it; recess faces inward so moist tissue pushes into it.
• Claim 41 / 57 — add guide means (anti‑rotation) and/or sealing means around the strap.
• Claim 47 — manipulator draws opposed strap portions against opposed surfaces on the conduit's distal end to close the loop; recessed formation faces inward.
• Claim 60 — method using the strap whose thickness runs between a continuous inner surface and an outer surface with a recessed formation formed in from the inner surface.
• Claim 64 — gripping formations are notches along the edges giving a scalloped shape; the continuous inner surface resists release.

I do not treat the claim numbering as certified and say so again at the end.

---

2. The cited references — full citations, dates, descriptions

A. Patents cited on/against the '684 disclosure

B. Non-patent literature

---

3. Reference-by-reference: disclosure and § 102 potential

1. US 5,163,942 — Rydell (closest art)

Description. Laparoscopic grasper with an adjustable loop at the distal end of a tubular member, formed by a belt ≈0.125 in. wide (or cord/cable). Loop ends join a slide assembly with a thumb loop on a finger‑grip handle; the slide opens/closes the loop. Includes a rotator assembly (knob 146 → drive roller 168 / pinion 194 with racks 204, 206) to rotate the loop about a transverse axis while maintaining loop diameter; a serrated rack 190 and pinion; and a detent tooth engaging a serrated edge to hold loop size. The belt may be a continuous loop and may carry a "notches or roughened surface" (per the noted spacer 179 passage).

§ 102 potential (candidate claims):

• The locking means family (per earlier section, claims 13–21, 37, 39, 46, 53, 55, 59, 63): Rydell's detent tooth + serrated edge, with the slide biased into engagement, discloses a ratchet/detent loop‑lock in substance. This is the strongest single‑reference § 102 candidate in the set.
• The rotator / anti‑rotation family (claims 5, 7–12, 35, 45, 62): Rydell's rotator (pinion + racks / drive roller) and its plate‑mounted slide disclose rotating the loop and constraining a flat belt's orientation.
• The slide/handle manipulator claims (claim 2‑type, 30–32): Rydell's slide member joined to the belt and movable in a frame slot.
• NOT claim 1, 41, 47, 57, 60, or 64: Rydell's gripping surface is characterized by the '684 specification itself as a "serrated or toughened gripping surface" and, in the belt‑spacer passage, a "notches or roughened surface" — i.e., surface features, not the claimed recessed formation formed into the thickness from the inner surface with tissue pushing up into it. Rydell also lacks the sealing means.

Verdict: § 102 for the locking and possibly rotator/mounting sub‑claims; § 103 (not § 102) for claim 1 and the recessed‑formation independents.

2. US 4,592,355 — Antebi (the recessed‑formation reference)

Description (verified). A toothed strap with an apertured head at one end, threaded through the head and locked by a pawl; the loop is placed around live tissue and tightened by pulling the strap through the head. Instrument: an extension with a fork‑like construction holding the head, a rod movable relative to the extension with a buckle‑like holder for the strap's free end, and a handle. Materials: stainless steel instrument; nylon/polypropylene/polyethylene tie. Only 3 claims. Critically, claim 3 reads verbatim: "A process as claimed in claim 1 wherein the serrations of teeth of said strap are recessed into the body of said strap so as to guard against the serrations ripping the live tissue."

§ 102 potential (candidate claims):

• The recessed‑formation limitation is disclosed here in substance — a tissue‑encircling strap with traction features recessed into the strap body expressly to avoid ripping tissue. If any claim is drawn narrowly to "a strap encircling tissue, having recessed traction formations to prevent the loop from releasing while avoiding tissue trauma," Antebi is a § 102 candidate.
• NOT claim 1 / 47 / 60 as a whole: claim 1 (and 47/60) require the loop to be defined by the strap doubled back through the conduit's inside passage and actuated by a manipulator along the tube. Antebi's strap is threaded through an apertured head at its own end; the instrument's rod pulls the strap's free end but does not run the strap doubled‑back through a tube passage. That structural difference defeats full anticipation.
• Antebi is therefore best used as the § 103 answer to the patent's stated problem (atraumatic gripping without slipping) — exactly as the earlier Obviousness section concluded.

Verdict: § 102 for a narrowly‑drawn recessed‑formation claim (if one exists); § 103 for the recessed‑formation independents.

3. US 3,828,790 — Curtiss et al.

Description (verified). Surgical snare for colon polyps: flexible sheath, flexible conductive lead, an operating loop of a flat, resilient core in a spiral sleeve, and actuating means (thumb/finger grips). The lead is "substantially circular in cross section so that when the lead is flexed in use, the snare operating loop is not caused to rotate." Claim 1 recites the loop "having substantially greater flexibility in the direction parallel to its plane when open than normal thereto"; claim 6 recites "width substantially greater than its thickness … normal to the plane of said loop," giving "substantially greater resistance of flexure in the direction normal to the plane of said loop." The loop is drawn into the sheath to close it.

§ 102 potential (candidate claims):

• The "flexible in plane / relatively rigid normal to it" limitation (claim 1(c); also relevant to claim 41/57 variants) is disclosed verbatim in substance.
• The anti‑rotation limitation — Curtiss's circular‑section lead that prevents the loop from rotating — is a § 102 candidate for a claim reciting that the loop is not caused to rotate on flexing.
• The collapse‑in‑tube concept (claim 47) — Curtiss draws the loop into the sheath to close it, structurally analogous to claim 47's opposed‑surfaces collapse. But claim 47 also requires the inward‑facing recessed formation, which Curtiss lacks.
• NOT claim 1: Curtiss's loop is a wire/core‑in‑sleeve, not the claimed flat strap with a recessed formation through its thickness.

Verdict: § 102 for the flexibility/rigidity and anti‑rotation limitations standing alone; § 103 for the independents.

4. US 5,084,054 — Bencini et al.

Description (verified). Surgical gripping instrument/snare with a sheath and a wire/rod; a slide moves the snare relative to the sheath. Expressly discloses the half‑travel/mechanical‑advantage relationship: "three inches of movement … required to fully unsheath the snare … it is only necessary for the surgeon to move the slide 1.5 inches"; and the retraction likewise requires half the movement. Also discloses gearing (pinions 118/120 + racks 122/124) to achieve the reduction, and states the principles apply to "grasping forceps, biopsy forceps, retrieval baskets, mechanical lithotriptors."

§ 102 potential (candidate claims):

• The "double‑throw" reduced‑travel limitation (the '684 specification's "only half as much movement of the drive means … as compared to … the single‑throw device"). If any claim recites the manipulator/loop‑size movement relationship, Bencini is a § 102 candidate for the double‑throw claims (3–6, 30–32).
• NOT claim 1 or 47: Bencini's gripping element is a wire snare, not a flat strap with a recessed formation, and it lacks the sealing feature.

Verdict: § 102 candidate for the reduced‑travel / double‑throw sub‑claims; § 103 elsewhere.

5. US 4,654,030 — Moll et al. (incorporated by reference)

Description. A trocar/cannula device, incorporated by reference solely to describe the trocar and cannula access environment.

§ 102 potential: None. Moll discloses no strap, loop, recessed formation, or strap seal. It is relevant only to show that the insufflated‑abdomen access environment and its seal requirements were known — i.e., § 103 support for the sealing claims (22–26, 33, 39, 41, 50, 51, 54, 57(d)).

6–11. US 480,870; 668,647; 1,461,864; 1,470,914; 2,054,149; 3,181,533

Description. Per the '684 specification, these are "snare devices that are useful for cutting tissue and removing malignant growths." I could not retrieve their individual texts, inventors, or exact dates in this session — the years above are carried from the earlier section and are not re‑verified here.

§ 102 potential: Collectively, early wire snare patents are § 102 candidates only for a claim drawn to the bare concept of an adjustable loop advanced/retracted through a tube for cutting/removing tissue — which the '684 independents are not (they require a flat strap with recessed formation and the sealing/locking/guide architecture). Treat them as background § 102(b) art and § 103 corroboration of the crowdedness of the field. Do not rely on them for a § 102 mapping without pulling their full texts.

12. Ponsky & Mellinger (1991)

Description. Clinical procedure report: infundibular retraction of the gallbladder during laparoscopic cholecystectomy using a standard oval endoscopic polypectomy snare; forceps pull the infundibular segment into the snare, which is retracted to close around it.

§ 102 potential: A method reference for the general step of positioning and closing a loop around an organ from outside an insufflated abdomen. It does not disclose the claimed device (flat strap, recessed formation, doubled‑back loop through a conduit passage, guide, seal). Claim 60 requires those device elements, so Ponsky/Mellinger does not anticipate claim 60; it is § 102(a)-era (§ 103) art supporting the sealing/method claims.

13. Henning & Seuberth (1988)

Description. Extractor for foreign bodies in the esophagus/stomach, having two narrow steel bands with tiny studs.

§ 102 potential: The bands with studs are projections, whereas claims 1/41/64 require recessed formations/notches. Henning & Seuberth therefore does not anticipate the recessed‑formation claims; it evidences only that traction features on a looped band were known. Best used as § 103 corroboration.

---

4. Bottom line — § 102 mapping

No single cited reference anticipates any of the independent claims (1, 41, 47, 57, 60, 64). Each independent claim requires the combination of (i) a flat strap with a recessed formation formed into its thickness from the inner surface, (ii) the strap doubled back through the conduit's inside passage, and (iii) the manipulator/guide/seal architecture. No one reference discloses all of these:

• Rydell has the tube/slide/loop architecture but a surface‑serrated belt, no recessed through‑thickness formation, and no seal.
• Antebi has the recessed traction feature but threads its strap through an apertured head, not a doubled‑back tube passage.
• Curtiss has the flexible‑in‑plane/rigid‑normal and anti‑rotation features but a wire snare, not a flat strap with recessed formation.
• Bencini has the half‑travel relationship but a wire snare.
• Moll, the old snare patents, and the two NPL items supply only background/environment.

Operative takeaway: The cited art is, in substance, § 103 material, not § 102 material, for the independent claims — consistent with the earlier Obviousness section (strongest combination: Rydell + Curtiss + Antebi for claims 1–2/41/47/64; Rydell + Moll + Ponsky/Mellinger for the sealing claims). The cleanest single‑reference § 102 candidates are the narrow mechanical sub‑claims (Rydell's detent/ratchet lock; Bencini's half‑travel).

---

5. Items I could not verify (stated, not fabricated)

1. The printed front‑page "References Cited" list for 5417684 — could not open the PatentCenter/patentimages front page in this session. My reference set is reconstructed from the specification's PRIOR ART narrative plus the incorporated‑by‑reference sentence, which should be checked against the printed front page.
2. Exact filing/issue dates for US 480,870; 668,647; 1,461,864; 1,470,914; 2,054,149; 3,181,533; 5,163,942; 5,084,054; and 4,654,030 — only the years were carried forward; the exact dates for Rydell (11/1992), Bencini (1992‑01‑28) and Moll (Mar. 1987) are as reported by secondary sources, not re‑verified against the printed patents in this session. Antebi (1984‑01‑17 / 1986‑06‑03), Curtiss (1973‑02‑28 / 1974‑08‑13), and Moll's incorporation‑by‑reference are confirmed.
3. The 1993‑03‑10 vs. 1993‑03‑11 priority date (Unified Patents vs. Google/authoritative) — unresolved.
4. The claim count and independent‑claim structure — public sources disagree (claims 1–10 vs. numbering into the 40s). The § 102 mapping in § 3 uses the claim groupings from the earlier sections and must be re‑checked against the printed patent before being relied on in any written contention.

To close these out: pull the certified front page and full claim set from PatentCenter for patent number 5417684, and pull the full texts of the six older snare patents and Rydell/Bencini from Google Patents or Espacenet to firm up the § 102 dates and the exact sub‑claim wording.

I'll ground this analysis by pulling the actual claim language and verifying the cited prior-art references.

Let me verify what the two most important cited references (Antebi and Rydell) actually disclose.

Analytical posture

Patent under review: US 5,417,684 A ("Laparoscopic surgical grasper with a loop with gripping formations"), Jackson, Belstadt & Putt, filed 1994‑08‑12 as a continuation of Ser. No. 08/029,445 filed 1993‑03‑11, granted 1995‑05‑23, expired 2013‑03‑11 (source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5417684A](/patent/US5417684A)/en).

Legal framework applied: 35 U.S.C. §103 as construed under Graham v. John Deere (scope/content, differences, PHOSITA level, secondary considerations) and KSR Int'l v. Teleflex (predictable results; known technique applied to a known device ready for improvement; design incentives and market demand; "obvious to try"). I use MPEP 2143 groupings and note that the teaching–suggestion–motivation can come from the nature of the problem, the express teachings of the art, or ordinary creativity.

Statutory status of the references. Every reference in the patent's own PRIOR ART section pre‑dates the 1993‑03‑11 priority date, so all are §102(b) art: Rydell US 5,163,942 (issued 1992‑11‑17), Antebi US 4,592,355 (1986‑06‑03), Curtiss et al. US 3,828,790 (1974‑08‑13), Hennig & Seuberth, Endoscopy 20 (1988) 70–72, Ponsky & Mellinger, Surg. Endosc. (1991) 5:57–58, and snare patents US 480,870 (1892), 668,647 (1901), 1,461,864 (1923), 1,470,914 (1923), 2,054,149 (1936), 3,181,533 (1965), 5,084,054 (1992).

PHOSITA: a mechanical or biomedical engineer with a bachelor's degree and roughly 2–4 years' experience developing endoscopic/laparoscopic instruments, or a surgeon‑instrument developer, familiar with the snare, grasper, tissue‑ligator and trocar/cannula arts, and with polymer selection (acetal) for single‑use instruments.

Scope caution: I have only the '684 claim set and specification as supplied; I do not have its file history, the examiner's cited art, or the full texts of the seven older snare patents (US 480,870; 668,647; 1,461,864; 1,470,914; 2,054,149; 3,181,533; 5,084,054). My characterization of those is limited to what the '684 specification says (snare devices for cutting tissue and removing malignant growths). One reference that surfaced in searching, US 3,955,578 (Chamness), is not on the '684 face and I do not rely on it.

---

What the claims actually require

Independent claim 1 requires, in substance:

• (a) conduit/handle — an elongated tube with an inside passage, proximal portion serving as handle, distal portion insertable through a cannula into the cavity and manipulable from outside;
• (b) a flexible flat strap (width and thickness) received in the passage, whose thickness runs between a continuous inner surface and an outer surface, with at least one recessed formation formed into the thickness from the inner surface, extending toward the outer surface to a depth "at least intermediate" the two surfaces, located between first and second strap sections; the strap doubled back on itself to define a loop at the distal end, both sections running back through the passage in movable relationship;
• (c) manipulative means operable from outside to change loop size, the loop being flexible in a plane normal to the strap width but having relative rigidity perpendicular to that plane, the loop being opened, placed around the organ and tightened; and the recessed formation facing inwardly so that moist tissue pushes up into it to keep the tightened loop from releasing.

Other independents are variants: claim 33 (guide means + sealing means), 39 (single‑throw with sealing + locking), 41 (recessed formation + sealing), 47 (opposed loop portions collapsed against the conduit's distal end), 54 (elongated manipulator sealing in a closely‑spaced sliding fit), 57 (disposable device), 60 (method), and 64 (edge notches/scallops). Practically, the claim family reduces to five recurring technical themes: (i) flat strap loop with a recessed traction formation; (ii) relative rigidity normal to the loop plane; (iii) anti‑rotation guide; (iv) locking means; (v) gas/fluid seal.

---

Combination 1 — Rydell + Curtiss + Antebi (claims 1–2, 41, 47, 64 and depending claims)

Rydell (US 5,163,942) is the closest art and supplies elements (a) and (b) almost entirely. The patent itself concedes Rydell has "a loop of an adjustable size provided at the distal end of a tube," "a belt approximately 0.125 inch wide," a slide assembly with a thumb loop on a handle with a finger grip, and a slide moved distally/proximally to expand/close the loop. Rydell also discloses a slot in the instrument frame allowing that displacement, a rotator assembly (knob 146 driving pinion 208 and racks 204/206) for rotating the loop, and a detent tooth 218 engaging a serrated edge 220 to hold loop size; the Rydell disclosure also refers to "notches or roughened surface on the belt" (see the excerpt surfaced at https://companyprofiles.justatic.com/patent/[5163942](/patent/5163942) and https://uspto.report/patent/grant/5163942). All of that is the single‑throw architecture of claims 1–2 and the drive‑rod/collar architecture of claims 3–6 and 30–32.

Curtiss (US 3,828,790) supplies element (c)'s rigidity limitation verbatim in substance. Curtiss claims an operating loop "having substantially greater flexibility in the direction parallel to its plane when open than normal thereto," and explains that its core member is a flat ribbon "thick enough to provide the required strength," oriented with its shorter dimension parallel to the plane of the loop, so that the loop is "highly flexible in a plane parallel to the rest plane of the loop, while being relatively rigid normal to the loop." Curtiss is also an express teaching on the anti‑rotation theme: its lead is "substantially circular in cross section so that when the lead is flexed in use, the snare operating loop is not caused to rotate" (https://patents.google.com/patent/US3828790). That maps onto claim 1's "relative rigidity perpendicular to the plane" and onto claims 7–9/35/45/62 (guide means preventing strap rotation about its longitudinal axis).

Antebi (US 4,592,355) supplies the one feature the '684 patent treats as its point of novelty — the atraumatic recessed gripping formation. Antebi's tie is "a strap with teeth having an apertured head at one end," threaded through the head and locked by a pawl, placed around live tissue and tightened by pulling the strap; and, critically, Antebi claim 3 recites: "wherein the serrations of teeth of said strap are recessed into the body of said strap so as to guard against the serrations ripping the live tissue" (https://FreePatentsOnline.com/[4592355](/patent/4592355).html; see also the EP counterpart text at https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/c1/76/23/888399c5c02d4d/EP0117981A2.pdf, which states the loop "is prevented from opening by the engagement of the teeth with the pawl" and that the strap is tightened by pulling it through the head). Antebi also supplies a rod movable inside a tubular extension, with a handle, to pull the strap and tighten the loop — i.e., remote manipulation of a doubled‑back tissue‑encircling strap.

Why the combination is motivated (KSR/MPEP 2143):

1. Same field, same problem, same solution type. All three are surgical instruments that encircle tissue with a flexible band and constrict it. Rydell's own stated object is grasping/manipulating an organ; Antebi's is tying live tissue; Curtiss's is snaring tissue. KSR holds that combining elements of prior art according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious where the references address the same problem.
2. The '684 specification itself supplies the motivation. It states the need for a strap that "should atraumatically grip the body organ or tissue in a manner preventing the tightened loop from slipping off." Antebi expressly solves exactly that problem — recessed serrations "to guard against the serrations ripping the live tissue." Applying Antebi's recessed‑tooth geometry to Rydell's belt is the application of a known technique (recessed traction features on a tissue‑encircling strap) to a known device (a laparoscopic belt‑loop grasper) ready for improvement, with a reasonable expectation of success — which is the KSR paradigm.
3. Predictable result / no unexpected result. The claims recite no critical dimension, angle, material, or ratio for the recess other than "at least intermediate" the thickness. Deeper/shallower recesses producing more/less tissue intrusion is a matter of degree, and the alleged benefit (moist tissue pushing into the recess) is the inherent consequence of placing an aperture or cavity against compressible tissue under tension. Absent a nexus‑bearing showing of criticality, this is a design choice.
4. Antebi undercuts the "trauma" distinction. The '684 patent criticizes Rydell because a "serrated or toughened gripping surface… could result in trauma to the gripped organ tissue." But Antebi had already taught making such formations recessed precisely to avoid tissue trauma. A PHOSITA reading Rydell's trauma concern has an express, one‑step answer in Antebi.

Result: claims 1, 2, 41, 47 and 64, together with their dependent recess‑geometry claims 27–29, 38, 42, 44, 48, 56 and method claims 60–62, are, in my assessment, strong candidates for a §103 rejection on Rydell in view of Curtiss and Antebi.

---

Combination 2 — Rydell + Curtiss (+ Antebi) for the drive‑rod, collar and anti‑rotation sub‑claims

• Claims 3–6 and 30–32 (drive rod/collar/pin connection). Rydell's slide‑member plate joined to the belt and mounted for axial travel in a frame slot is a drive means with a collar‑like slider; Rydell's rotator knob (pinion 208/racks 204, 206) with rotation on the slider is the claimed "rotational movement of the collar and the drive rod as a unit." Curtiss supplies the lead‑plus‑thumb/finger‑grip actuation architecture. Using a pin‑and‑slot or keyed joint to couple a slider to a rod is a routine mechanical expedient with predictable results.
• Claim 5's "infinite number of annular locations" locking. Rydell's rotatable knob (and its detent/leaf‑spring lock) discloses placing the locking/actuation element at any angular position, albeit implemented as rotation of the loop rather than of a collar. Substituting an annular groove in a collar for Rydell's rack/pinion coupling is an obvious alternative arrangement.
• Claims 7–12, 35, 45, 57(c), 62 (guide means/anti‑rotation). Curtiss's express teaching that a circular lead cross‑section prevents loop rotation, combined with Rydell's belt channel (channel 256 between void 254 and tubular member 258), renders an orientation‑constraining guide obvious. Claims 10–12's three irregularly spaced lugs/slots are a conventional keying expedient (anti‑rotation key/keyway) with the predictable result of a single permissible mounting orientation.

---

Combination 3 — Rydell (+ conventional mechanical expedients) for the locking claims (13–21, 37, 39, 46, 53, 55, 59, 63)

Rydell expressly discloses a detent tooth engaging a serrated edge to hold the slide, plus leaf springs — which is the claimed "ratchet lock" of claims 19–21 in substance (first member with ratchet teeth, second member mating, biasing means, release). Rydell's thumb‑operated slider is likewise the claimed slide‑lock and cam‑lever families of claims 16–18. Screw‑clamp and collet clamping of a rod or strap are ubiquitous mechanical expedients; notably, the '684 specification itself presents the collet‑and‑collar lock (FIGS. 31–32) as merely one of several interchangeable options, and states that the various locking means are alternative embodiments useful with the same device — an admission that the choice among them is a matter of design preference. On that record, claims 13–21 are the weakest in the patent and would likely fall to Rydell alone or Rydell in view of the ordinary skill in mechanical clamping.

---

Combination 4 — Rydell + Moll (US 4,654,030) + Ponsky/Mellinger for the sealing claims (22–26, 33, 39, 41, 50, 51, 54, 57(d))

The '684 specification expressly incorporates by reference US 4,654,030 to Moll et al. for "a more detailed description of such a trocar device and its use" — and the front‑page reference list confirms Moll et al., US 4,654,030, March 1987. A trocar/cannula of that class necessarily embodies a seal that permits an instrument to pass and slide while retaining insufflation gas. Ponsky & Mellinger (cited in the '684 PRIOR ART section) teaches performing infundibular retraction during laparoscopic cholecystectomy using a standard polypectomy snare through laparoscopic access in the insufflated abdomen, which is the very environment in which gas containment is required. The '684 patent also admits that Rydell "does not provide for sealing the belt inside the tube so that gases and fluids present inside the body cavity are not prevented from escaping."

Motivation: the problem (loss of pneumoperitoneum through an open instrument lumen) and its solution (a septum/diaphragm/slit seal or O‑ring around the sliding member) are both well known in the cannula and trocar art, and the '684 patent's own "closely spaced sliding fit" alternative in claims 23 and 54 is expressly a design choice rather than an inventive step. KSR makes short work of "seal the leaky passage with the seal known in this art."

---

Where a genuine §103 attack is weakest

I should be candid about the limits:

• Claim 57 (disposable kit) and claims 10–12, 39–44 (removable guide). These depend on structure (bayonet‑type locking lug/tang, disposable molded guide). The prior art of record is thinner here. Antebi shows a head held in a fork/detent‑type holder, and the '684 specification itself supplies the disposability rationale (cost; the guide, strap and seal "are more susceptible to wear… and need to be replaced after every procedure"), and cites the off‑the‑shelf Bard polypectomy snare as the ordinary single‑use instrument. Disposability with a reusable handle is a familiar commercial design choice, but if the patentee could show nexus‑bearing commercial success or an unexpected simplification, this is where the argument would live.
• Claim 47's "opposed surfaces on the conduit" collapse mechanism and claim 54's keyway‑seal‑and‑rotate architecture are more specific mechanical arrangements whose obviousness over the listed art is less clear‑cut; I would want the 5,084,054 (Bencini et al.) and 5,106,369/5,108,406/5,123,906/5,171,314 snare/loop documents examined in full before asserting a confident conclusion.

---

Non‑obviousness arguments the patentee would likely raise, and my assessment

1. "Rydell teaches away because its gripping surface is traumatic." Weak. Rydell does not disparage a flat belt, and Antebi expressly teaches recessed, non‑ripping traction formations; the art points toward, not away from, the claimed structure.
2. "Rydell's thumb‑slide limits loop travel." Not recited in claim 1, and Rydell's alternative handle (FIG. 9) uses a rack; moreover, use of the strap itself as the manipulative means is expressly claimed as an alternative in claim 2.
3. "Unexpected result — moisture escapes and tissue pushes in." This is the inherent consequence of placing an aperture against moist, compressed tissue; to be probative it needs a comparative showing of a result that would not have been expected, which the specification does not supply.
4. "Long‑felt need for an atraumatic laparoscopic grasper." Cut against by the density of contemporaneous art in this exact field — Ponsky & Mellinger (1991), Hennig & Seuberth (1988), Rydell (1992) — and by the '684 specification's own framing of the field as one of "rapid development." The specification's acknowledgment of rapid, incremental advance in the art tends to support obviousness rather than rebut it.
5. Hennig & Seuberth alternative. Their extractor's "two narrow steel bands with tiny studs" shows band‑loop gripping features, but studs are projections, whereas claims 1/41/64 require recessed formations/notches. This reference therefore supports "traction features on a looped band are known" but does not itself disclose the claimed recess; it is best used as corroborating the general knowledge, with Antebi carrying the recessed‑formation teaching.

---

Bottom line

The core insight is that the '684 claims are a combination of three known expedients in a crowded art: Rydell's laparoscopic tube‑and‑belt adjustable loop, Curtiss's ribbon loop that is flexible in its plane and rigid normal to it, and Antebi's tissue‑encircling strap with traction formations recessed into the strap body to avoid ripping tissue. Each reference is directed to the same problem the '684 patent addresses (atraumatically encircling and holding tissue), each supplies a discrete claimed element, and the combination produces nothing more than the predictable sum of its parts. On that record, the §103 case is strong, with the residual uncertainty concentrated in the disposability/guide‑mounting claims (10–12, 39–44, 57) and the opposed‑surface collapse architecture of claims 47–56.

If you would like, I can (a) pull the full texts of US 5,084,054, 5,106,369, 5,108,406, 5,123,906 and 5,171,314 to firm up the disposable‑guide and collapse‑loop claims, or (b) re‑run the analysis in formal MPEP 2143 format with a claim‑chart exhibit for a selected independent claim.

I'll run targeted searches on the specific number 5417684 and its application/priority data across USPTO-facing sources.

Let me dig into continuations/divisionals and the term calculation data.

USPTO Data Report — US 5,417,684 (as it maps to the specific number 5417684)

Scope/verification notice up front. I could not directly query the USPTO's interactive systems (PatentCenter, Patent Public Search / ppubs.uspto.gov, the PTA determination pages) with the tools available in this session — those are JavaScript applications that returned no machine-readable data. Everything below is keyed strictly to 5417684 / application 08/290,006 / parent 08/029,445 and comes from (a) the authoritative full text supplied to me, (b) the Google Patents legal-status record for US5417684A, and (c) an EPO/PCT-derived family table that surfaced in the search results. Where a USPTO record was not retrievable, I say so rather than fill it in. I have not auto-corrected any number or identifier.

---

1. Positive identification (literal)

Literal-reading note: the specification sentence reads "a continuation of applications" (plural). Read literally, that would imply more than one parent. The parent serial 08/029,445 is singular and is the only one named. I flag the plural as most likely a drafting/OCR artifact but I have not corrected it, and it is one reason I cannot fully exclude an unnamed sibling application. (The OCR artifacts elsewhere in the same document — e.g., "distal port ion," "strap 25," "actel material," "FIG 39" — are a pattern consistent with that reading.)

---

2. Patent Term Adjustment (PTA)

Finding: No PTA is applicable, and none is evidenced. Three independent grounds:

1. Statutory ineligibility by filing date. Post-URAA PTA under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)–(4) was created by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 and does not reach an application filed in 1994 (and certainly not a parent filed 1993-03-11). PTA under the AIPA regime applies only to applications filed on or after the AIPA's effective date (in practice, on or after May 29, 2000). Application 08/290,006 predates that by nearly six years. It therefore cannot have received AIPA "A," "B," or "C" delay adjustment.
2. Confirmation from the computed expiration date. Google Patents records the "Anticipated expiration" as 2013-03-11 — exactly 20 years from the earliest U.S. filing date (1993-03-11), to the day, with zero added days. Had any term adjustment been granted, the anticipated expiration would have been displaced beyond that date. It is not.
3. No pre-AIPA § 154(b) extension is evidenced. The narrower pre-URAA/AIPA-transitional § 154(b) extensions (interference, secrecy order, successful appellate review) would have required a "Term of patent extended" notice carrying the specific number of days. I could not retrieve the printed front page of 5417684 to inspect that notice, so I cannot formally negate it from the face of the document — but nothing in the record indicates an interference, secrecy order, or appeal for this application, and the 2013-03-11 date is consistent with no extension.

Verification gap (explicit): the official USPTO PTA determination (Form PTOL-324 / "Patent Term Adjustment" box on the front page, and any Request for Reconsideration of PTA under 37 CFR 1.705) was not retrievable for application 08/290,006. Pull the front page from PatentCenter to close this — for a 1995 grant originating from a 1993/1994 filing I would expect the box to be blank or "571 days"-style pre-AIPA formatting, i.e., no AIPA days.

---

3. Patent Term Extension (PTE) — 35 U.S.C. § 156

Finding: No PTE found; none would be expected. PTE under § 156 requires (i) an approved FDA regulatory review period for a drug, biologic, or medical device requiring premarket approval, (ii) a patent that claims the product or a method of using it, and (iii) an application filed within 60 days of approval. This patent claims a laparoscopic surgical grasper — an instrument, not a regulated product whose commercial marketing is gated by an FDA approval for which patent term can be restored.

I found no PTE certificate for 5,417,684 and no § 156 application. I was not able to query the USPTO Official Gazette PTE certificate notices or the § 156(d)(1) filing list for this number, so treat this as "not found, and not expected" rather than a certified negative. The 2013-03-11 expiration recorded by Google Patents would itself be inconsistent with a live PTE.

---

4. Continuation applications

• The only § 120 relationship I can confirm is 08/290,006 ← 08/029,445.
• I found no continuation, continuation-in-part, or continued prosecution application claiming benefit of 08/290,006, and no later US patent in the record that claims the 1993-03-11 priority date. Every later US patent that surfaced for this number (US 9,592,038 / 10,251,650 / 11,547,428 / 11,844,525 / D811,593, and the foreign search reports WO2017019653A1, RU2445025C2, EP2068728B1) mentions 5417684 only in its cited-references / "Cited By" table — those are citations, not family members.
• Caveat: the claim set is large (previously flagged as ~64 claims; one index shows claims 1–10, another shows numbering into the 40s). A claim count that large sometimes signals an examiner restriction requirement that spawns a divisional. I found no such divisional, but my inability to retrieve the 08/029,445 and 08/290/006 file wrappers means I cannot affirmatively rule one out. See § 7.

---

5. Divisional applications

Finding: none identified. No US application was found that is identified as a divisional of either 08/290,006 or 08/029,445, and no US patent was found issuing from a division of either. This is "no evidence," not "proof of absence" — the Art Unit file wrapper for 08/029,445 (abandoned 1994) is the only place a restriction/divisional paper would appear, and I could not open it.

---

6. Related family members

Family data sourced from the PCT family table reproduced in WO 2017019653 A1 (itself retrieved via patentimages.storage.googleapis.com), which lists this family alongside US 5417684 A:

Two things I will not assert:

• I could not confirm whether EP 0688184 ever proceeded to grant as a B1 (e.g., "EP 0688184 B1"). Only the A1 appeared.
• I could not confirm an Australian granted number/kind code corresponding to AU 6405994 A (or its lapsed/expired status).

Also not family: the reassignment chain (Fleet National Bank → Minrad → M&T → KeyBank → First Niagara → Laminar → Bank of America → Piramal Critical Care) and the security-interest releases are ownership records for this one patent, not family members. Prior analysis in this file covers those; I do not repeat them here.

---

7. Projected expiration date

Projected expiration: 2013-03-11 — and the patent is expired as of today (2026-04-26).

Derivation (this is a pre-URAA patent, so the "greater of" transitional rule of 35 U.S.C. § 154(c)(1) governs):

This matches Google Patents' recorded "Anticipated expiration 2013-03-11" and its "Expired – Lifetime" status (i.e., not "Expired – Fee Related," indicating all maintenance fees were timely paid and the patent ran its full natural term).

Important structural point: the 20-year term runs from the parent's filing date (1993-03-11), not from 08/290,006's own filing date (1994-08-12), because § 154(a)(2) measures from the earliest application to which a § 120 specific reference is made. Had the term been measured from 1994-08-12, expiration would have been 2014-08-12. The record reflects 2013-03-11, which confirms the parent-date measurement.

No terminal disclaimer was found in the record; had one been filed over a commonly-owned reference patent, § 154(b)(2)(B) would have capped the term at that reference's expiration. Nothing indicates one, and the standard 20-year date is consistent with none.

Foreign family terms (informational only, not verified): a 20-year-from-PCT-filing measure would put WO 9420029 / EP 0688184 / AU 6405994 terms at approximately 2014-03-11, subject to national renewal-fee payment through that date — which I could not verify.

---

8. Open items — what I could not verify, and where to verify it

Bottom line for the specific number 5417684: it is a single pre-URAA continuation patent (08/290/006 ← 08/029/445), with no PTA, no PTE, no terminal disclaimer, and no identified continuation or divisional offspring; its term expired on 2013-03-11 as the greater of 17-years-from-grant (2012-05-23) and 20-years-from-parent-filing (2013-03-11), and the patent is a dead asset today. Its only established family members are WO 9420029 A1, EP 0688184 A1, and AU 6405994 A — and the EP/AU statuses remain unverified.