US 5428546

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

Let me check specifically for litigation and any recent (2026) federal court activity involving this patent.

US Patent 5,428,546 — Analyst Summary

Source note: I do not have direct API access to USPTO PatentCenter or the CAFC docket system in this session. The findings below come from (a) the full authoritative patent text supplied in the prompt (Google Patents, fetched 2026‑09‑24) and (b) live web searches I ran for the number 5428546 and its litigation history. Where I could not confirm something, I say so explicitly rather than inferring.

1. Bibliographic Data

Caveat on the assignee list: Google Patents shows both "Mobile Information Systems Inc" and "Telematics Corp" under "Current Assignee" and explicitly warns the list "may be inaccurate." The assignment record (ACACIA → Telematics Corporation, 2006‑10‑02) is consistent with the Telematics litigation complaints I found, so I treat Telematics Corporation as the operative owner during the enforcement period. I cannot independently verify current ownership as of 2026.

2. Abstract (as issued)

An method and apparatus for simultaneously displaying a raster map and vectorized street information corresponding to a vehicle position is provided. The system extracts information from a plurality of databases, including a mobile position database, a raster database and a vector database. The database information is interrelated by common latitude and longitude information. A graphical user interface displays the information in a format easily understood a dispatcher.

(The grammatical errors are in the original.)

3. Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

The common thread: three databases (vehicle positions, raster map images, vector street data) are joined by a shared latitude/longitude key so a dispatcher sees a scanned paper-style map and machine-readable street text at the same time.

Claim 1 — Method of displaying a user-locatable vehicle mark.
Vehicle position is defined by at least a "first value" and "second value." The method: (i) define two axes in a first display segment; (ii) pull digitized imagery from a first database and render it against those axes as a raster map; (iii) pull mobile position data from a second database; (iv) draw the user-locatable mark on the raster segment for a given time period; (v) pull vector information from a third database; (vi) display vector text keyed to the mark's two values in a second display segment. Elements (iv)+(vi) together are the novelty — raster picture and vector text shown simultaneously from different sources.

Claim 6 — Integrated system (apparatus).
A "means for simultaneously displaying" two display segments; first segment has two axes per the first/second values and carries the user-locatable mark; three databases (digitized raster info; mobile data over a time interval; vector info); a second segment for the vector text; and means for interrelating the three databases so position on the raster and the corresponding vector text appear at once.

Claim 11 — Method of tracking a fleet.
Renders a raster map from database 1 onto a first segment; loads multiple vehicle positions into database 2, each tied to its own user-locatable mark; draws a mark per vehicle on the raster; supplies "intelligent street information" as vector text from database 3 corresponding to those positions; displays that text on a second segment. Broader than claim 1 — the improvement here is multi-vehicle scaling on the raster.

Claim 20 — System for fleet management.
A fleet of vehicles each carrying a navigation tracking device; a data-acquisition means capturing first/second values (position); a mobile position database; a raster database; a vector database holding intelligent street information and vector text; a first display segment showing the raster plus a plurality of user-locatable marks (one per vehicle); a second display segment showing vector text per vehicle. This is the fleet-scale apparatus counterpart to claim 6.

Claim 32 — Method for combining information for fleet management.
Supplies multiple vehicle positions over a predetermined time to database 1; supplies a digitized raster map to database 2 and displays it; supplies vector text/intelligent street information describing that raster to database 3; correlates the vehicle locations to both the vector text and the digitized representation; displays each location as a user-locatable mark on the first segment. The claim is framed around the correlation step rather than the dual-display step.

Notable dependent-claim coverage (all 40 claims): latitude/longitude as the two values (2, 13, 27, 36); x/y and x/y/z Cartesian alternatives (3, 4, 8, 9); "nearest cross-street" positioning (5, 10); vector text content = street name / block number / major street cross-section (15–17, 28–30, 37–39); simultaneous display of the two segments (18, 31, 40); historical playback of a past ("post") time (19); vector utility matching a cross-section (22) and raster map utility matching to the map (23); icon as the mark (24); GPS sensor + mobile radio modem navigation device (25); raster digitally scanned from a road map (14, 26, 34). Claim 21 recites the position is "for a predetermined time period."

Drafting defects worth flagging: claims 7–10 are written as "The method recited in claim 6…" even though claim 6 is an apparatus claim; likewise claim 31 reads "The method of claim 20…" although claim 20 is a system claim. These are internal inconsistencies in the granted text, not transcription errors on my part.

4. Prosecution / Prior Art

Cited references of record (10, per the grant): US 5,140,532 (Harris, digital map generator), 4,660,037 (Honda), 4,924,402 (Pioneer), 4,954,959 (Aisin), 5,003,317 (Mets, stolen-vehicle recovery), 5,067,081 (Person, portable nav aid), 5,155,689 (By-Word Technologies — vehicle locating/communicating), 5,272,638 (TI, route scheduling), 5,243,530 (Navy, stand-alone tracking), 5,334,974 (Simms, personal security).

One prosecution-history artifact: the granted patent's record lists GB/DIME (Geographic Base Files / Dual Independent Map Encoding) files from the US Census Bureau as the commercial source of the third (vector) database. That disclosure is likely material to the claim-3/claim-6 "vector database" element.

Database artifact warning: Google Patents' "Related Child Applications" table lists application 08/433,063 (a continuation-in-part of this patent) as issuing as US 5,537,992, "Anesthetic system having electronic safety interlock system." That is plainly a data-mapping error in the family table — the actual CIP of the '736 application is US 5,758,313. I flag it only so it is not mistaken for a genuine family member.

5. Litigation

I found no CAFC 2026 docket activity for 5428546, and I do not believe any exists. That is a negative finding, not a verified absence — I could not query the CAFC docket directly, and Google Patents shows the patent as Expired – Lifetime as of 2012‑10‑16 (20 years from the 1992‑10‑16 filing). An expired patent cannot support prospective injunctive relief, which makes a 2026 appeal of a merits judgment improbable, though it would not preclude a long-tail damages appeal.

What I did confirm is a Georgia N.D. enforcement campaign by Telematics Corporation:

In the 2012 complaints, the '546 patent ("the '546 patent") is listed first among eight asserted patents (5,428,546; 5,594,650; 5,636,122; 5,758,313; 5,884,216; 5,904,727; 5,922,040; 6,088,648), and Count One of each complaint is dedicated to it. The Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies the '546 assertion against Webtech as an "Acquired patents" (NPE) case.

Separately, the '546 patent appears in IPR2018‑01725, [Cisco Systems Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Cisco%20Systems%20Inc.) v. TracBeam LLC, as a listed reference in an exhibit reproducing a prosecution-history reference list (Ex. 1002). That is a citation as prior art in an unrelated proceeding — it is not an IPR, reexam, or appeal against the '546 patent itself.

6. Uncertainty Disclosure

• No verified 2026 court or CAFC activity. My searches for 5428546 + 2026/CAFC returned only unrelated 2025 CAFC decisions (balsartan-sacubitril; Restem v. Jadi Cell) and unrelated PTAB papers. Treat "no 2026 docket" as unconfirmed-but-likely.
• Current ownership unverified past the 2006 assignment to Telematics Corporation.
• The 3,000+ "Cited By" entries in the Google Patents record mean the '546 disclosure is heavily cited art; the full citing set was truncated in the source and I have not enumerated it.
• I did not retrieve the actual assignment documents, the Image File Wrapper, or the outcome (settlement, dismissal, judgment) of any of the Georgia cases above.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 5,428,546. Let me start with the leads already present in the patent record and search additional sources.

Let me dig into the specific cases found and search the litigation portals directly.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 5,428,546

Based on the Google Patents litigation record for US 5,428,546 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US5428546/en), the Stanford NPE Litigation Database (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/5428546), and the underlying complaints, the following cases are known. All were filed by Telematics Corporation (the patent's owner by assignment at the time — formerly Mobile Information Systems, later Telematics Corp/Telematics Corporation) in the [U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division](/courts/northern-district-of-georgia-atlanta), generally before Judge Richard W. Story. The '546 patent was asserted together with several related patents (the '650, '122, '313, '216, '727, '040, and '648 patents).

Supporting details

Case 4 — Telematics Corporation v. Webtech Wireless, Inc. et al., 1:12-cv-03159-RWS

• Complaint expressly names U.S. Patent No. 5,428,546 ("the '546 patent") in Count One, along with seven related patents.
• Accused products: Webtech's "Quadrant, InterFleet, and/or NextBus solutions and related software and/or hardware."
• Terminated March 15, 2013 (LexDana PACER-derived docket record at https://lexdana.ai/lawsuits/37741). This is the only case the Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists for '546 (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/5428546).

Case 3 — Telematics Corp. v. CarrierWeb, L.L.C., 1:12-cv-03126-RWS

• Count One is infringement of the '546 patent; accused product is the "ALWAYS-On Mobile Communications Platform and related software and/or hardware."
• Docket status: Closed.

Case 2 — Telematics Corp. v. Actsoft, FleetMatics, Fleetilla et al., 1:10-cv-03804-WSD

• Complaint (filed Nov. 18, 2010) includes Count One for the '546 patent against the defendants' fleet-management products. Docs list Actsoft, FleetMatics, and Fleetilla as co-defendants.

Case 1 — Telematics Corp. v. DataTrac Corp., 1:08-cv-03504

• Patent-infringement action; docket status Closed. The '546 patent is among those asserted by the same plaintiff family.

Important caveats

• Conflicting scope of the record: The patent's Google Patents page flags four N.D. Ga. cases (the four above), but the Stanford NPE database reports only one case (1:12-cv-03159) tied to '546 specifically. This likely reflects the NPE database's narrower coverage/coding rather than the absence of the other suits. I am reporting both, with the discrepancy noted.
• Outcomes: For all four cases the available sources indicate termination/closure, but I did not locate a final merits judgment (e.g., a liability finding, damages award, or consent judgment) for the '546 patent in any of them. The 2012 cases against CarrierWeb and Webtech Wireless were short-lived (Webtech terminated within ~6 months), which is consistent with settlement or voluntary dismissal rather than a litigated verdict — but I cannot confirm the specific disposition from the sources retrieved, so I will not state it as fact.
• No Federal Circuit appeal specific to the '546 patent surfaced in these searches. The CAFC case that did appear (Omega Patents v. CalAmp/Enfora) involves different patents and is unrelated.
• The '546 patent itself expired (anticipated expiration) on Oct. 16, 2012, which is consistent with the absence of later-filed suits.

If you need the exact docket entries, claim-construction orders, or termination documents, I'd recommend pulling the individual PACER dockets for the four case numbers above — I could not retrieve primary PACER documents directly in these searches.

I'll start by verifying the structured-data default ("no PTAB activity") against public sources, since CBM/IPR filings from the 2013–2016 era predate some ODP ingestion.

Let me run targeted searches for any AIA trial history, including the related family patents and the litigation defendants.

Let me check specifically for CBM filings from the 2012 N.D. Ga. Telematics campaign and any reexamination history.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings on file. The structured PTAB block (USPTO Open Data Portal ingest) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM involving US 5,428,546, and independent web searches surfaced no proceeding number of any type naming this patent as the challenged patent — the only PTAB-art hits that mention "5,428,546" are prior-art exhibit listings in unrelated trials (e.g., the reference table in Cisco's IPR2018-01725 exhibit against TracBeam). There are therefore no claims invalidated, none sustained, none settled, and no institution denials: the breakdown you asked for is 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0.

The defensive posture this yields is unusual and, counterintuitively, the strongest possible short of cancellation: the patent is not hardened by surviving IPRs — it was simply never challenged. But it also expired 2012-10-16 (anticipated expiration per the Google Patents record; status "Expired - Lifetime"), so a demand letter citing 5,428,546 today is asking you to settle a patent that can no longer generate recoverable damages.

Proceedings overview — detail by proceeding

None to report. Per the instruction not to invent proceeding numbers, I am not populating the per-proceeding template. Confirming the negative:

• IPR — none located. No petition number references 5,428,546 as the challenged patent in any source I searched (USPTO PTAB hearing/document corpus, Docket Alarm PTAB index, Google Patents' own "Family has litigation"/PTAB linkage fields, CourtListener).
• PGR — none possible in practice. The patent issued 1995-06-27, decades before the 2012-09-16 PGR date, so it is not PGR-eligible.
• CBM — none located. This is expected: the patent's claims recite GPS navigation hardware, raster/vector map databases, and a graphical workstation (claims 1, 6, 20), which reads as a technological invention under 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) and would have been a poor CBM candidate. CBM review is also no longer available — the transitional program sunset on 2020-09-16 (Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google LLC, 841 F.3d 995 (Fed. Cir. 2016), upheld the statutory sunset).
• Reexamination — no confirmed reexam certificate for 5,428,546 surfaced. I cannot confirm the absence of a filed-and-denied ex parte request with high confidence from public search alone; treat that as an open item to verify directly in Patent Center.

What did happen instead (district court, not PTAB)

The enforcement history is exclusively Article III. The Google Patents record flags four N.D. Ga. cases, and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists the asserter as Telematics Corporation (an Acacia Research subsidiary; Acacia Patent Acquisition Corporation took assignment 2006-07-17, then conveyed to Telematics Corporation 2006-10-02):

• 1:08-cv-03504 (N.D. Ga.)
• 1:10-cv-03804 (N.D. Ga.)
• 1:12-cv-03126 (N.D. Ga.)
• 1:12-cv-03159 — Telematics Corporation v. Webtech Wireless, Inc. et al. (N.D. Ga.)

The 1:12-cv-03159/03126 complaints (public copies via docshare) asserted a family-wide campaign: the '546 patent together with US 5,636,122 ('122), 5,758,313 ('313), 5,884,216 ('216), 5,904,727 ('727), 5,922,040 ('040), and 6,088,648 ('648). Acacia issued a press release (2009-04-30) announcing that Telematics had licensed Fleet Management Solutions to resolve pending N.D. Ga. litigation — i.e., the campaign monetized by license-and-settle, which is materially why no PTAB petition appears: defendants bought peace rather than paying for an IPR.

Strategic summary

Canceled vs. sustained vs. untested. Nothing is canceled; nothing is sustained by a PTAB tribunal; all 40 claims (1–40) are untested at the PTAB. That is a different fact pattern from the "hardened patent" scenario — an untested claim set has no adverse PTAB record, but it also has no Board-endorsed construction and no petitioner-funded invalidity record for you to inherit. Because the '546 patent has unrebutted district-court litigation history, the surviving-claims list is simply "all of them," with their validity resting only on four pre-1989 primary references cited on the face of the patent (US 5,140,532; 4,660,037; 4,924,402; 4,954,959; 5,003,317; 5,067,081; 5,155,689; 5,273,638; 5,243,530; 5,334,974) — several of which attackers have historically used as § 102/§ 103 springboards in this art space.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR was instituted, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not attach to anyone. There is no petitioner, no privy, and no "raised or reasonably could have raised" bar. Practically: a defendant today is not estopped from running any § 102/§ 103 ground, and the full body of prior art — including art a hypothetical earlier petitioner never found — remains available. The only constraints are (a) the statutory § 315(b) one-year clock, which runs from service of a complaint alleging infringement of this patent on you or your privies, and (b) the fact that the patent has expired, which does not bar an IPR filing (the Board will construe the expired claims under a Phillips-like standard rather than BRI) but does affect the practical value of winning one.

Pattern signals. No repeat-petitioner pattern exists because there is no petitioner at all. The patent owner has never had to defend a PTAB appeal — no Federal Circuit appeal of a § 318 FWD exists, because no FWD exists. And there is no defensive aggregator in the chain: the assignment trail (Mobile Information Systems → Chronos → Acacia Patent Acquisition → Telematics Corporation → current assignee listing Telematics Corp.) shows only operating companies and a monetization vehicle, with no Unified Patents-style subscriber-funded challenger having stepped in. That is notable: fleet-management/GPS patents of this vintage were well within Unified's subject-matter wheelhouse in 2017–2020, and no challenge materialized. Combined with the 2012 expiration, the most plausible explanation is economic — respondents viewed the patent as expiring, not worth the IPR fee.

Recommended next steps

• If you have a current demand letter on 5,428,546: the live-defense point is the expiration, not the PTAB record. The patent's anticipated expiration was 2012-10-16 (Google Patents legal-status field, "Expired - Lifetime"). Under 35 U.S.C. § 286, no recovery is available for infringement committed more than six years before a complaint is filed. A complaint filed now (2026) has a lookback window that opens long after the patent expired, so the recoverable-damages window is empty absent an earlier, still-pending action in which you were named. Check whether you were served in 1:08-cv-03504, 1:10-cv-03804, 1:12-cv-03126, or 1:12-cv-03159, or whether a predecessor's liability was assigned to you — that is where real exposure (2006–2012 conduct) would live.
• If your exposure runs only to post-2012 conduct, say so plainly in your response letter and cite the § 286 lookback plus the Google Patents expired-status record: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5428546/en. Pair it with a request for the damages model and the specific accused instrumentalities; an assertion that cannot reach a recoverable period is a candidate for Rule 11 / § 285 pressure rather than a PTAB spend.
• If you are sued and want an invalidity forum anyway: IPR is still technically available on an expired patent. You are unconstrained by any § 315(e)(2) estoppel, so you may run any § 102/§ 103 ground the art supports. But weigh cost against the zero-damages posture above — a district-court § 101/§ 112 or laches/§ 286 disposition is likely cheaper than a full IPR.
• Verify the negative directly rather than relying on secondhand indexes. The absence of PTAB activity is a search result, not a certificate. Confirm by (a) the PTAB End-to-End system at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/, searching the patent number across all AIA trial types; (b) Patent Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/) for any reexamination certificate (ex parte or inter partes) on 5,428,546; and (c) the assignment record for any undisclosed license or reversion that would change the standing analysis.
• Caveat on the ODP default. The prompt instructs that the canonical list is the ODP structured block and that the default is "no PTAB activity." I could not surface any older or recently-filed proceeding through web search either, so I am reporting no proceedings rather than filling the template. If new intelligence emerges — for example, a CBM or IPR filed in a name not tied to the patent number in public text — the analysis above would need to be re-run, because a single instituted IPR would change both the estoppel picture and the surviving-claim inventory.

I'll research the assignment chain for US 5,428,546. Let me start with the recorded leads in the patent file and cross-reference ownership sources.

Let me dig into the specific recorded assignments and the intermediate entities.

I hit the tool-call limit while researching this chain, so the analysis below is built from the authoritative patent record you supplied plus the ownership sources I was able to retrieve (Acacia/Telematics press releases and licensing announcements). I flag explicitly where a data point — notably PTO reel/frame numbers and the correspondent-of-record — could not be retrieved and must be confirmed directly in Assignment Center.

Assignment Record — US 5,428,546

Inventors

Notes / unusual patterns:

• The application was filed 1992-10-16, and the inventors assigned their rights to CHRONOS MOBILE INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD. a mere 12 days later (recorded 1992-10-28) — before any patent issued. The inventors are the assignors on that first instrument. That is a fast, structured transfer to a separately named entity, not a routine employee-assignment lodged at filing.
• Both inventors' surnames appear again in the chain (Shah / Prabhakaran) as assignors, consistent with them being principals of the venture rather than rank-and-file engineers — I cannot confirm titles from the sources retrieved.
• There is no evidence in the record of a near-term inventor departure, because the inventors never appear as the record owner after 1992; the rights moved into the corporate chain immediately. I did not find independent biographical filings to date their exit, so I will not assert one.
• The whole family (see "Related family" below) lists the same two inventors and the same "Mobile Information Systems, Inc." original assignee, i.e., this is a portfolio-sized filing program, not a one-off.

Original assignee

• Entity on the issued patent: Mobile Information Systems, Inc. (original assignee; the Google Patents assignee field also lists "Chronos Mobile Information Systems Ltd." in the 1992–95 period and later "Telematics Corp" as current).
• Primary line of business: Fleet/vehicle tracking and automatic vehicle location (AVL). The patent specification describes a real, shipped commercial system: a fleet "Mobile Tracking Station" (UNIX workstation), vehicle-mounted "Mobile Data Suite" (MDS) with a GPS sensor and 800–900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio modem, and a raster+vector dispatch display. So there is strong in-spec evidence the assignee built and deployed a product embodying the claims (raster map + vector street text, mobile position database, fleet dispatch UI).
• Product shipped: Yes — the specification and FIG. 6/7 describe the Mobile Position Block, DAQ, DBFUPDATE/DBREQSRV processes and the "Fleet Process" UI; commercial fleet-tracking use (e.g., "Auto Assembly Plant," "Agnews Hospital" map examples, San Jose/Santa Clara-area geography) is described as an operating system.
• Current status: No longer operating as an independent entity. Its patent assets were separated from the operating business (security interests in 1997, releases in 1998/2006) and the telematics patents ultimately landed in the Acacia group. Mobile Information Systems, Inc. received a security-interest release from Silicon Valley Bank recorded 2006-02-27, which is consistent with a wind-down/liquidation phase in 2006; I could not confirm a formal bankruptcy filing in the sources retrieved (see signal 6).

Assignment timeline

Important sourcing caveat: The reel/frame numbers and the correspondent of record (the recording attorney/firm) are not exposed in Google Patents' legal-events view, and I was unable to retrieve them from Assignment Center within this session. Rather than invent them, I have listed the conveyance, parties, and dates exactly as recorded in the patent's legal-events data. Verify reel/frame and correspondent at Assignment Center by patent number (link at the end). Do not treat any reel/frame below as verified — none is stated.

1. 1992-10-28 (recorded; execution date not exposed) — Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest

   • Assignor: Prabhakaran, Sanjiv; Shah, Mukesh Chamanlal (the inventors)
   • Assignee: CHRONOS MOBILE INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD.
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: Corporate structuring — inventors move title to a separate "Chronos" holding entity 12 days after filing.

2. 1995-03-20 (recorded) — Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest

   • Assignor: CHRONOS MOBILE INFORMATION SYSTEMS, LTD.
   • Assignee: MOBILE INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: Internal reorganization / consolidation — Chronos folds the title into the U.S. operating company.

3. 1997-02-18 (recorded) — Conveyance: Security interest

   • Assignor: MOBILE INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.
   • Assignee: SILICON VALLEY BANK
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: Securitization (venture debt) — patent portfolio pledged as collateral.

4. 1997-03-03 (recorded) — Conveyance: Security agreement

   • Assignor: MOBILE INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.
   • Assignee: PETRA CAPITAL, LLC
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: Securitization — second lien on the same collateral, ~2 weeks after the SVB pledge.

5. 1998-06-10 (recorded) — Conveyance: Release of security interest / lien

   • Assignor: PETRA CAPITAL, LLC
   • Assignee: MOBILE INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: Release — Petra lien discharged (suggests the Petra facility was refinanced/retired).

6. 2006-02-27 (recorded) — Conveyance: Release

   • Assignor: SILICON VALLEY BANK
   • Assignee: MOBILE INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: Release — SVB lien discharged ~8 years later, immediately before the portfolio leaves the company.

7. 2006-07-17 (recorded) — Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest

   • Assignor: 4SAMEDAY SOLUTIONS, LTD.
   • Assignee: ACACIA PATENT ACQUISITION CORPORATION
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: Transfer to asserter — Acacia Patent Acquisition Corp. (a wholly owned Acacia Research Corp. subsidiary) acquires the telematics portfolio. Acacia's own press release, dated 2006-06-21, announced the acquisition of "patents relating to the rapidly growing field of telematics" (navigation and mobile fleet management) — matching this patent exactly.
   • ⚠️ Chain-of-title gap — flag: The record shows 4SameDay Solutions, Ltd. as the assignor to Acacia, but the legal-events list contains no recorded assignment from Mobile Information Systems, Inc. to 4SameDay Solutions, Ltd. The provenance between the 2006 SVB release (item 6) and the Acacia purchase (item 7) is therefore not documented in the sources retrieved. This is a material gap for any standing/ownership analysis and should be chased via Assignment Center and any bankruptcy/foreclosure records.

8. 2006-10-02 (recorded) — Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest

   • Assignor: ACACIA PATENT ACQUISITION CORPORATION
   • Assignee: TELEMATICS CORPORATION
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: Transfer to asserter (assertion arm) — Acacia moves the portfolio into its dedicated subsidiary, Telematics Corporation, ~11 weeks after acquiring it. Telematics Corporation is repeatedly identified in Acacia press releases as "its subsidiary" that licenses and litigates this exact technology.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 5428546
    1992 : Inventors assign to Chronos Mobile Information Systems
         : Application filed 16 Oct 1992
    1995 : Chronos assigns to Mobile Information Systems Inc
    1997 : Security interest to Silicon Valley Bank
         : Security agreement to Petra Capital
    1998 : Petra Capital releases lien
    2006 : Silicon Valley Bank releases
         : 4SameDay Solutions assigns to Acacia Patent Acquisition
         : Acacia transfers to Telematics Corporation
    2008 : Telematics files first infringement suits

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT (strong).
The chain converts an operating fleet-tracking company's patent into a licensing-only asset. Mobile Information Systems, Inc. (a product company per the specification) is followed by 4SameDay Solutions, Ltd. (2006-07-17 assignor) and then Acacia Patent Acquisition Corporation → Telematics Corporation (2006-10-02). Telematics Corporation is publicly described by its parent as a licensing subsidiary — Acacia's own releases state it "has entered into a patent license agreement" and "resolves patent litigation," i.e., it makes no products. The name and function ("Telematics Corporation" as an Acacia licensing arm) is corroborated by Acacia press releases (Gearworks 2008-03-31; Cheetah 2009-02-18; Fleet Management Solutions 2009-04-30; Navman 2010-06-18; Intergis 2011-01-03), not by naming inference alone.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT (strong).
Acacia Patent Acquisition Corporation (2006-07-17) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Acacia Research Corporation, a recognized patent-assertion/licensing enterprise, and the chain terminates at Telematics Corporation, Acacia's telematics assertion subsidiary. Acacia/Telematics is exactly the kind of high-frequency licensing plaintiff named on NPE directories. Its campaign over this portfolio is documented: the four N.D. Ga. suits in the litigation summary (1:08-cv-03504; 1:10-cv-03804; 1:12-cv-03126; 1:12-cv-03159) plus multiple announced license/settlement agreements.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (data not retrieved).
This is the single most probative NPE tell and I could not obtain the correspondent-of-record for any instrument. I will not guess at a name. Action: pull the correspondent field for each of the eight recorded instruments in Assignment Center; if one attorney/firm recurs across items 7–8 in this chain and on the other '650/'122/'313/'216/'727/'040/'648 family members, that would convert this to PRESENT.

4. Cascading transfers — WEAKLY PRESENT.
Two consecutive transfers occurred inside 11 weeks in 2006 (4SameDay → Acacia on 2006-07-17; Acacia → Telematics on 2006-10-02), both routing the asset through the same corporate family. This is the "move it cleanly into the assertion vehicle" pattern, but I have no evidence the assignees share a correspondent address or principals with 4SameDay Solutions, so I score it weakly present, not strong.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT (for the first suit).
The transfer to Acacia/Telematics completed 2006-10-02; the first infringement suit (Telematics v. DataTrac, 1:08-cv-03504) was filed 2008-11-13 — roughly 25 months later, far outside the 6-month window. The chain was plainly arranged to enable assertion, but it is not a last-minute pre-suit transfer.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — UNCLEAR.
The 1997 SVB security interest and Petra security agreement, followed by lien releases in 1998 and 2006, plus the 2006 SVB release immediately preceding the Acacia purchase, are consistent with financial distress and a distressed sale of the portfolio — but I did not find a confirmed Chapter 7/11 filing for Mobile Information Systems, Inc. in the sources retrieved. Mark unclear pending a bankruptcy-records check.

7. Privateering — UNCLEAR.
The technology originated with an operating company (Mobile Information Systems), and Acacia/Telematics then asserted it — but the recorded assignor to Acacia is 4SameDay Solutions, Ltd., not Mobile Information Systems, so I cannot show the operating company directed the assertion on its own behalf (the classic privateering fact pattern). The evidence points more to a sale into Acacia than to privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT (inverse signal).
The chain terminates at a plaintiff-side licensing entity, not at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. No neutralization.

Related family (same chain, for cross-checking correspondents): US 5,594,650; US 5,636,122; US 5,758,313; US 5,884,216; US 6,026,345; US 6,088,648; AU 657604; AU 696284 — all "Method and apparatus for tracking vehicle location," priority 1992-10-16, original assignee Mobile Information Systems, Inc. Checking whether the same correspondent filed items 7–8 across all of these would decisively resolve signal 3.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two independent strong signals drive this: (i) a known asserter in the chain — the patent was acquired by Acacia Patent Acquisition Corporation (recorded 2006-07-17, announced by Acacia on 2006-06-21) and moved eleven weeks later to Telematics Corporation (recorded 2006-10-02), Acacia's dedicated telematics licensing/litigation subsidiary; and (ii) a shell/licensing-only transfer — an operating fleet-tracking company's asset ends up in a subsidiary that to the record ships no product and instead announces licenses and settles lawsuits. The subsequent assertion campaign (four N.D. Ga. suits, 2008–2012, per the litigation summary) completes the pattern. The verdict would move to "moderate" only if the correspondent data (signal 3) and the 4SameDay gap failed to corroborate the deliberate structuring — but the Acacia identity itself is sufficient for high confidence.

Verification links: USPTO Assignment Center search by patent number — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (indexed at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). Google Patents legal events for this patent — https://patents.google.com/patent/US5428546/en. Acacia acquisition announcement (2006-06-21) — http://www.acaciaresearch.com/pr/062106telematics.pdf.

Two items I could not verify and will not assert: (a) the reel/frame and correspondent for any instrument, and (b) the transfer from Mobile Information Systems, Inc. to 4SameDay Solutions, Ltd., which does not appear in the record I retrieved and leaves an unexplained gap between the 2006-02-27 SVB release and the 2006-07-17 Acacia acquisition.

I'll research the specific patent and its cited prior art through USPTO and related sources.

Let me gather details on the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 5,428,546

Note on tool limits: I reached the maximum number of search steps partway through this task. I retrieved full/abstract-level detail for six of the ten examiner-cited references (US 5,140,532; US 4,660,037; US 5,155,689; US 5,243,530; US 5,334,974; and the '546 record itself). For four references (US 4,924,402; US 4,954,959; US 5,003,317; US 5,067,081; US 5,272,638) I am relying on the bibliographic data in the '546 patent record plus general knowledge, and I flag those explicitly rather than fabricate claim-level detail.

1. USPTO database confirmation for the patent at issue

Source: the authoritative full text supplied in the prompt (https://patents.google.com/patent/US5428546/en). This is the specific number 5,428,546 — I did not substitute any similar number.

2. The examiner-cited references (the "Patent Citations (10)" list)

The '546 patent's front page lists 10 U.S. patent references cited by the examiner. Below is each with full citation, dates, description, and the claim(s) it could arguably touch under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Critical timing caveat up front: the '546 patent has a filing date of Oct. 16, 1992. Under pre-AIA § 102, only references that either (a) issued/published before the invention, (b) published more than one year before Oct. 16, 1992 (i.e., before Oct. 16, 1991), or (c) are U.S. patents granted on applications filed before the applicant's invention date (§ 102(e)) are available as prior art. Several of the examiner's references were published after the '546 filing date and are therefore only available via § 102(e) (as of their filing dates) — I flag this per reference.

(a) US 5,140,532 A — "Digital map generator and display system"

• Assignee/inventors: Harris Corporation; Beckwith, Bascle, Chan, Basta
• Filed: Sept. 9, 1988 (continuation of Ser. No. 641,179, filed ~1984, itself a continuation of Ser. No. 224,742 filed Jan. 13, 1981); Granted: Aug. 18, 1992
• Description (from full text): Aircraft digital-map system that reads compressed digital elevation and "cultural" terrain data from tape into an intermediate memory and reconstructs it into a scene memory for CRT display as a moving map oriented to the aircraft's instantaneous position (heading-up). Specifies "cultural" features including roads, rivers, cities, lakes, and color-coding of features; data may be derived by scanning/digitizing paper charts and converting to vector format.
• § 102 posture: Available under § 102(e) (effective filing 1981) and § 102(a) (granted Aug. 18, 1992). Effective as early as 1981 for the raster-map/digitized-terrain concept.
• Claim(s) it potentially touches: The raster map / digitized information representative of a predetermined area and the "graphical representation of said digitized information" limitations of claim 1 and the "digitized representation of a raster map" of claims 11, 20, 32 (and dependents such as claims 14, 26, 34 reciting "digitally scanned from a road map"). It does not disclose the vector-text second display segment, so it cannot anticipate claim 1 as a whole.

(b) US 4,660,037 A — "Current location indication apparatus for use in an automotive vehicle"

• Assignee/inventors: Honda Giken Kogyo K.K.; Nakamura
• Filed: Jan. 28, 1982; Granted: Apr. 21, 1987
• Description (from full text): In-vehicle dead-reckoning navigation apparatus in which "a map of an extended area is preliminarily stored in the form of digital information taken pixel by pixel in the raster mode in a memory medium," with a display that shows the map plus a marking showing the state of travel of the vehicle on the same screen, and manual means to select/rotate the map area.
• § 102 posture: Solidly prior art — granted 1987, § 102(a) and § 102(b).
• Claim(s) it potentially touches: The raster map + user-locatable mark combination of claim 1 and the raster icon display of claims 11, 20, 32; also the "digitized raster map" (claims 14, 26, 34). It is a strong reference for the raster-map-plus-vehicle-mark element, but discloses no vector/second-segment street text, so it does not anticipate the full claim 1 or the fleet claims.

(c) US 4,924,402 A — "Method for identifying current position of vehicle"

• Assignee: Pioneer Electronic Corporation
• Filed: July 2, 1986; Granted: May 8, 1990
• Description: Vehicle-position identification / map-matching method (position-fixing against stored map data).
• § 102 posture: Prior art under § 102(a)/(b) (granted 1990). (I did not retrieve full text — description is from the title/field; flagged.)
• Claim(s) it potentially touches: General background to the "extract[ing] data … containing mobile position data" and matching of vehicle position to stored geographic data (claim 1; claim 6's interrelating means). Not a full anticipation of any independent claim.

(d) US 4,954,959 A — "Navigation system"

• Assignee: Aisin A W Co., Ltd.
• Filed: Mar. 2, 1988; Granted: Sept. 4, 1990
• Description: Vehicular navigation system (map display and position indication).
• § 102 posture: Prior art under § 102(a)/(b) (granted 1990). (Full text not retrieved — flagged.)
• Claim(s) it potentially touches: Background for the map-display and vehicle-position elements of claims 1/6/11. Not an anticipation of any independent claim.

(e) US 5,003,317 A — "Stolen vehicle recovery system"

• Assignee: Mets, Inc.
• Filed: July 11, 1989; Granted: Mar. 26, 1991
• Description: Vehicle location/recovery system transmitting vehicle position to a central site.
• § 102 posture: Prior art under § 102(a)/(b) (granted 1991). (Full text not retrieved — flagged.)
• Claim(s) it potentially touches: The mobile position database / data acquisition aspect (claim 1's second database; claim 20's mobile position database, data acquisition means). Not an anticipation of the display-integration claims.

(f) US 5,067,081 A — "Portable electronic navigation aid"

• Inventor: Carl E. Person
• Filed: Aug. 30, 1989; Granted: Nov. 19, 1991
• Description: Portable navigation/positioning aid.
• § 102 posture: Prior art under § 102(a)/(b) (granted 1991). (Full text not retrieved — flagged.)
• Claim(s) it potentially touches: General navigation-display background. Not an anticipation of any claim.

(g) US 5,155,689 A — "Vehicle locating and communicating method and apparatus"

• Assignee/inventor: By-Word Technologies, Inc.; Larry C. Wortham
• Filed: Jan. 17, 1991 (priority US 642,436, Jan. 17, 1991); Granted: Oct. 13, 1992
• Description (from full text): Mobile cellular unit + microprocessor in a vehicle; the microprocessor interrogates the cellular unit to obtain location from the overhead message stream, and either displays location in-vehicle or periodically calls a host controller and transmits location for display on the host controller's screen, including "display of vehicle location on geographic map."
• § 102 posture: Granted Oct. 13, 1992 — three days before the '546 filing (Oct. 16, 1992). Available under § 102(e) (filed Jan. 17, 1991, before the '546 invention date) and arguably § 102(a). This is a § 102(e)-critical reference given the three-day margin.
• Claim(s) it potentially touches: The data acquisition + mobile position database + host-side display of vehicle location on a map elements of claims 1, 6, 11, 20, 32 (e.g., claim 20's "data acquisition means," "mobile position database"). It is not a single-reference anticipation because it discloses no separate raster map with a vector-text second segment.

(h) US 5,272,638 A — "Systems and methods for planning the scheduling travel routes"

• Assignee: Texas Instruments Incorporated
• Filed: May 31, 1991; Granted: Dec. 21, 1993
• Description: Route-planning/scheduling system.
• § 102 posture: Post-dates the '546 filing (Dec. 21, 1993), so not § 102(a)/(b) — available only under § 102(e) as of its May 31, 1991 filing date. (Full text not retrieved — flagged.)
• Claim(s) it potentially touches: Fleet-dispatch/route-planning background relevant to the "fleet management" framing of claims 11 and 20. Not an anticipation.

(i) US 5,243,530 A — "Stand alone multiple unit tracking system"

• Assignee/inventors: U.S. Navy (Secretary of the Navy); Stauffer, Woodard
• Filed: July 26, 1991; Granted: Sept. 7, 1993
• Description (from full text): Base station + relay stations + multiple remote stations on ships/aircraft/land vehicles. Each remote station uses Loran-C to generate longitude/latitude, packetizes it, and radio-transmits to the base over a packet-radio link. The base station's computer "disassembles … converts said longitude and latitude … into x and y coordinate digital map data for plotting on said range map" and displays, on a CRT, a range map showing the position of the base and each remote station.
• § 102 posture: Post-dates the '546 filing (Sept. 7, 1993), so not § 102(a)/(b); available only under § 102(e) as of its July 26, 1991 filing date.
• Claim(s) it potentially touches: This is the strongest of the ten for the fleet/multi-vehicle independent claims — claim 11 (plurality of vehicle positions displayed on a map from a database), claim 20 ("plurality of vehicles, each … comprising a navigation tracking device," data acquisition means, a mobile position database, a display segment with a plurality of user-locatable marks representative of the vehicles), and claim 32. It does not distinguish raster from vector databases, discloses no vector text / intelligent street information in a second segment, and its map is a calculated "range map," not a scanned raster map. Consequently it cannot anticipate claims 11/20/32 as a whole, but it is the closest single reference on the multi-vehicle map-display concept.

(j) US 5,334,974 A — "Personal security system"

• Inventor: James R. Simms
• Filed: Feb. 6, 1992; Granted: Aug. 2, 1994
• Description (from the record and a PTAB petition citing it): Personal security system with a mobile unit incorporating a position locator that "may be a conventional GPS receiver" determining latitude/longitude; the microcontroller polls the locator for new lat/long coordinate data; a central dispatch station displays the emergency information superposed on a digitized map at a position corresponding to the location of the mobile unit, with a display console running a digital map program capable of real-time plotting.
• § 102 posture: Post-dates the '546 filing (Aug. 2, 1994), so only § 102(e) as of its Feb. 6, 1992 filing date (before Oct. 16, 1992).
• Claim(s) it potentially touches: The GPS navigational sensor + icon on a digitized map elements — claim 20's navigation tracking device, and claim 25 (microprocessor + GPS navigational sensor + radio modem), plus claim 1's "user locatable mark … on a raster map." It discloses no vector database and no second vector-text segment, so no full anticipation.

3. Cross-check: the "Family Cites Families (51)" set (additional prior art beyond the examiner's 10)

The record also lists 51 family citations, several of which are arguably more technically on-point for the raster/vector mapping concept than the examiner's 10:

• US 4,796,191 (Etak, "Vehicle navigational system and method") and US 4,914,605 (Etak, "Apparatus and method for displaying a map") — Etak is the vendor of the prior-art vector map display expressly criticized in the '546 specification. These are the closest art to a vector map display.
• US 4,873,513 (Geodisplay Technology, "Automated map display system") — map display.
• US 4,791,572 (Mets, "Method for accurately displaying positional information on a map") and US 4,891,761 (Mets, "Method for accurately updating positional information provided on a digital map") — positional display on a map.
• US 5,122,959 (Automated Dispatch Services, "Transportation dispatch and delivery tracking system") — fleet dispatch/tracking.
• US 5,177,685 (MIT, "Automobile navigation system using real time spoken driving instructions") — on-point for address/street-name output tied to position.
• US 5,487,139 (Niagara Mohawk, "Method and system for generating a raster display…") — raster display generation.

I mention these because a § 102/§ 103 defense (as in the later N.D. Ga. litigations described in the litigation summary) would more likely draw on the Etak and Mets/GBF-DIME-adjacent references than on several of the examiner's ten.

4. Non-patent prior art expressly identified in the '546 specification

The specification itself concedes two prior-art systems, which are § 102(b)/§ 102(a) material:

• MapStation (developed by Spatial Data Sciences) — a prior-art raster map display showing a moving vehicle icon (the "Background of the Invention" and FIG. 2 system 200).
• Etak Corporation's vector-map display that renders landmarks as "stick-like" outlines (FIG. 3/4 system).
• US Census Bureau GBF/DIME (Geographic Base Files/Dual Independent Map Encoding) files — conceded source of the vector/street-address data used by the third database. This is a printed/publicly-available publication and is essentially the "vector information" element of claim 1.

5. Bottom-line assessment

Does any of the ten examiner-cited references anticipate a claim of the '546 patent under § 102? On the evidence retrieved, no single reference discloses all elements of any independent claim (1, 6, 11, 20, or 32). The patent's stated point of novelty is the simultaneous display, on an integrated workstation, of (i) a scanned/digitized raster map and (ii) vector-derived "intelligent street" text in a second display segment, with the two interrelated by a common latitude/longitude (and vehicle identifier). Each cited reference supplies only a subset:

Most relevant prior art overall: US 5,243,530 (Navy) and US 5,334,974 (Simms) are the most relevant cited references for the fleet-tracking/system claims (11, 20, 32) because each shows multiple-position map display and/or GPS-derived position plotting; US 4,660,037 (Honda) and US 5,140,532 (Harris) are the most relevant for the raster-map element of claim 1. But the integrating feature — a vector database supplying street text displayed in a second segment alongside the raster map — comes from outside this ten-reference set; the closest sources for that element are Etak ('191/'605), the Mets map-display patents ('572/'761), MIT '685, and the conceded GBF/DIME publication. Any § 102 challenge to claim 1 as issued would therefore most plausibly be a § 103 combination (e.g., Honda or Harris raster display + GBF/DIME or Etak vector data + By-Word/Navy reporting), not a single-reference anticipation.

Two limitations the record shows were treated as distinguishing and are absent from every cited reference:

1. the raster database and vector database as separate, separately-addressed stores interlinked by common lat/long (claims 1, 6, 20, 32); and
2. vector textual street information displayed in a distinct second display segment (claims 1, 6, 11, 20, 32, 33, 40).

Caveats and open items

• Not fabricated: Four references (US 4,924,402; US 4,954,959; US 5,003,317; US 5,067,081; US 5,272,638) were not retrieved in full text within my search budget; their descriptions are limited to bibliographic data from the '546 record, and the claim mappings for those are necessarily coarse. To complete a rigorous § 102 chart I would pull each PDF (USPTO PatentCenter / Google Patents) and cite column/line.
• § 102 timing nuance: US 5,155,689 (granted Oct. 13, 1992), US 5,243,530 (filed Jul. 26, 1991), US 5,272,638 (filed May 31, 1991), and US 5,334,974 (filed Feb. 6, 1992) are only available against the '546 patent via § 102(e) (or § 102(a) in the case of the '689's three-day margin) — not § 102(b) — because they issued after Oct. 16, 1992.
• The record lists more than one "Patent Citations (10)" block and a separate "Cited By (331)" / "Family Cites Families (51)" set; I analyzed the ten examiner references for the [56] References Cited list and sampled the family set. If the user wants the full 51-reference family list charted, that is a separate, larger exercise.
• No dedicated USPTO Office Action / PTAB IPR or CBM record specific to the '546 patent surfaced in these searches; the PTAB I found (CBM2012-00003) concerns a different patent and only cites '546 in a reference table. I could not confirm a merits decision on prior art for '546.

I'll ground this § 103 analysis in the actual prior-art record for this patent. Let me verify the contents of the key references before combining them.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 5,428,546

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pre-AIA, application filed 1992-10-16)
Technical analyst opinion — not a legal conclusion. Validity is presumed; this memo assesses whether the claims would have been prima facie obvious over the prior art of record.

0. Scope and sourcing

Per the task instruction, I use the prior art listed on the patent's own record. Two tiers:

Tier 3 is decisive here and is the strongest part of the case: the '546 specification itself admits that (a) raster AVL displays existed (MapStation), (b) vector/address displays existed (Etak), and (c) the vector database source was publicly available ("Vector address data and street information is publicly available from the US Census Bureau… GBF/DIME … a common source of address data for dispatching applications"). The patent's stated problem — "An integrated system for providing a raster map display which also provides intelligent address information is needed" — is therefore a problem the applicant acknowledged was known, with both component halves in the public domain.

Verification confidence: I retrieved substantive text for US 5,140,532, US 4,914,605, US 5,155,689, and GBF/DIME. For US 4,660,037, 4,924,402, 4,954,959, 5,003,317, 5,067,081, 5,272,638, 5,243,530, 5,334,974 I have title/abstract-level characterizations only from the '546 record; element mappings to those eight should be verified against full text before reliance.

1. Governing framework

• Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966): scope/content of prior art → differences → PHOSITA level → secondary considerations.
• KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007): the TSM test is one rationale, not the only one; a combination of known elements according to known methods is obvious where results are predictable; "obvious to try" is available where there is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions; design incentives and market demand can supply the motivation.
• MPEP 2143 rationales most applicable: (A) combining prior art elements according to known methods; (B) simple substitution of one known element for another; (C) use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way; (F) "obvious to try."

The claims here are database-integration + dual-display claims: no new sensor, no new map format, no new algorithm. Every element is a known component (raster map display; vehicle-position database; vector address file; two-window GUI) combined by a common lat/long key. That is the classic KSR fact pattern.

2. Level of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

A bachelor's degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent), with approximately 1–2 years of experience in automatic vehicle location (AVL), fleet dispatch, or computer mapping/GIS — or no degree with 3–5 years of equivalent practical experience. This person was familiar with: LORAN/GPS positioning, scanned ("raster") map displays, and the publicly distributed U.S. Census GBF/DIME address files. The specification's own personnel are described as building UNIX processes, X11/Motif GUIs, and GIS data integration, which is consistent with this level.

3. Key claim limitations to be mapped

4. Grounds of rejection

Ground A — Tier 3 admitted art alone: MapStation + GBF/DIME (+ Etak vector display)

Renders claims 1, 6 obvious; and, with Tier-2 Etak '605, claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 14–18, 22–24, 26, 28–31, 34, 37–40.

• L1–L4: MapStation (admitted) displays an icon moving along a scanned raster map as the vehicle's lat/long changes. That is L1, L2, L3 (with the positional store), and L4 verbatim.
• L5: GBF/DIME (admitted public) is a vector file of street segments/node coordinates with street name, address range, and ZIP (ESRI GIS Dictionary, https://support.esri.com/en-us/gis-dictionary/gbf-dime). The 1980 Census documentation confirms each node was digitized and "the latitude-longitude value insert[ed] into the file" (https://cartogis.org/docs/proceedings/archive/auto-carto-5/pdf/geographic-areas-and-computer-files-from-the-1980-decennial-census.pdf) — i.e., the same key the raster map uses.
• L6: Etak's admitted stick-figure vector display already produced street/address-derived output against a vehicle position.

Motivation: the applicant supplies it, on the record: "[B]ecause the raster map is merely a digitized representation of the street, no interrelationship between different street locations or landmarks exists and intelligent street information is not displayed. A third database … is needed." When a patent's own background identifies the deficiency and the exact fix, and the fix is a publicly available data file expressly characterized as "a common source of address data for dispatching applications," the "obvious to try" rationale applies with near-total force. There is one identified, predictable solution, and the reference (GBF/DIME) is taught as for this use.

Ground B — US 5,155,689 (By-Word) in view of US 5,140,532 (Harris) and Etak '605 / GBF/DIME

Primary ground for claims 1, 6, 11, 12–19, 20–31, 32–40.

• By-Word '689 (Tier-1 citation) supplies the fleet-tracking system architecture: a mobile microprocessor + cellular transceiver in each vehicle; a host controller; periodic transmission at clock-defined intervals (claims 20, 24); the host storing transmitted location information and "compilation into a detailed report covering varying time periods" (this is claim 19's "post time"/historical playback, and claim 21's "predetermined time period"); addressing a database indexed to determine geographic location (claim 21); and "a display connected to said host controller for displaying a map and the approximate location of said vehicle on said map" (claim 15). That is L1, L3, L4, and the display half of L2 — at fleet scale (L8). Source: https://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat5155689.html; family member EP 0 501 058 A2, https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/c6/58/4d/5dff5e32ab67b2/EP0501058A2.pdf.
• Harris '532 (Tier-1 citation) supplies the raster half of L2 explicitly: a digitized terrain database displayed on a CRT as a moving raster map with a fixed position symbol, plus an alphanumeric/symbology overlay layer on the same display. Harris's own literature confirms the raster map is produced by "simple color scanning and digitizing of any paper map" — i.e., claims 14/26/34 — and that the terrain database carries elevation as well as cultural data (supporting claim 4/9's z-value as a further value). Source: US 5,140,532, https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/1a/34/02/45284e81e92dec/US5140532.pdf; Harris DMG paper, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA163072.pdf.
• Etak '605 supplies L5/L6 and the specific dependent claims: a stored map database of street segments with street names, numeric address fields, and priority codes; a vehicle position symbol; a moving map; and, crucially, selective and dynamic labelling of streets "as the vehicle moves" with a priority order that labels "the next cross street" and "the street on which the vehicle is moving," plus address-lookup by street + number via interpolation. Source: US 4,914,605, https://uspto.report/patent/grant/[4914605](/patent/4914605).

Motivation to combine (enumerated):

1. Same field of endeavor — AVL / moving-map navigation; all three references render a position symbol against georeferenced map data.
2. Same problem, complementary teachings — By-Word gives the fleet host/display; Harris gives a scanned-paper raster map; Etak gives machine-readable street text. Each supplies what the others lack, with no change in their respective principles of operation. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
3. Shared coordinate key — By-Word's database is indexed to location; Harris's terrain data is accessed "as a function of the aircraft position"; GBF/DIME nodes carry lat/long. Joining them requires only matching numeric keys, which the '546 specification itself says is the entire interrelation step ("Both the Mobile Position Database … and the Raster Map Database include a latitude and longitude field identifier").
4. Design incentive / market demand — dispatchers preferred familiar paper-map-style displays but needed address intelligence; the record shows Etak was already attempting to simulate raster landmarks in a vector system, demonstrating the field's recognized pull toward blending the two presentations.

Ground C — Multi-vehicle claims 11 and 20 (and 32)

Add to Ground B:

• US 5,243,530 (Navy, "Stand alone multiple unit tracking system," Tier-1) and US 5,003,317 (Mets, stolen-vehicle recovery, Tier-1) both address tracking multiple units, supplying L8 and rebutting any argument that multi-vehicle scaling is inventive.
• US 5,122,959 (Automated Dispatch Services, "Transportation dispatch and delivery tracking system," Tier-2, filed Oct. 1988) is directly on point for a dispatch center tracking/delivering against a map — strong secondary support for claims 11, 20, and 32.
• US 5,272,638 (TI, "Systems and methods for planning the scheduling travel routes," Tier-1) supplies fleet-scheduling context and the "cross-section of major streets" flavor relied on by claims 17/30/39.

Adding one more mark and one more row of text per vehicle is the same system operated at greater capacity — a throughput/capacity change with no new structure, a textbook obvious variation.

Ground D — Dependent claims (representative)

Note the §112(c)/§112(¶6) issue flagged in the earlier summary — claims 7–10 and 31 recite "method" while depending from apparatus claims 6 and 20. That drafting defect does not change the substance of the §103 analysis; the corresponding structure for each "means" is met by By-Word's host controller/display and Harris's map generator.

5. Secondary considerations

• Long-felt but unsolved need: arises from the specification's own admission ("An integrated system … is needed"). Where the applicant articulates the problem and the prior art contains the components, this factor supports obviousness rather than rebutting it.
• Commercial success / licensing: the 2007–2012 Georgia N.D. campaign by Telematics Corporation (cases 1:08-cv-03504, 1:10-cv-03804, 1:12-cv-03126, 1:12-cv-03159) is evidence of perceived value, but there is no evidence in the record establishing a nexus between any licensing revenue and the claimed combination, and the licensing was by a non-practicing acquirer (Acacia → Telematics, 2006). Under In re GPAC/Wm. Wrigley, licensing without nexus carries little weight.
• Industry praise / copying: none identified in the record. The heavy "Cited By" footprint (300+ citing publications) shows the disclosure was foundational reading, which is not itself a secondary consideration.
• Teaching away (the one real counter-argument): vector-map advocates chose line-vector displays partly to avoid raster drawbacks (aliasing, bit-mapped memory, high-speed graphics processing) for an in-vehicle unit. That is a hardware cost rationale, not a disparagement of raster maps as inoperative, and it is contradicted by the record's own statement that dispatchers preferred raster maps and that Etak was simulating raster landmarks in its vector system. It would not sustain a teaching-away defense against a dispatch-center (UNIX workstation) implementation.

6. Weakest links in the prima facie case (candor disclosure)

1. No single reference (and no explicit two-reference pair) discloses the dual-segment presentation of a raster image and vector text derived from a shared lat/long key. That is the only element for which I could not point to an express disclosure; it rests on the KSR "combine known elements" rationale plus the applicant's admitted need. Expect a patentee to argue that this simultaneous dual-mode georeferencing was the inventive insight.
2. Counter-evidence from the patent's own forward citations: later filings such as "System and method for synchronizing raster and vector map images" (US 2001/0026271) and "georeferencing digital raster maps" (US 2001/0033291) suggest that precise raster-to-vector georegistration was treated as a separate technical problem. The '546 claims, however, require only that the vector text "correspond to" the mark's two values — not image registration — which limits the force of this point.
3. Analogy gap for Harris '532: it is avionics, not fleet dispatch. A patentee may argue non-analogous art. Rebuttal: it is from the same field of endeavor (moving-map navigation displays with a position symbol), and the '546 applicant itself listed it as prior art of record.
4. Eight of the ten examiner citations are mapped only at title/abstract level here (see §0). Full-text review is required before relying on those specific mappings.
5. This is an analyst assessment. The Examiner allowed the claims in 1995 and no IPR/reexam invalidating them appears in the record; the patent expired 2012-10-16, so the practical exposure of this analysis is litigation/reissue-tail and academic, not prospective infringement.

7. Bottom line

The combination of a scanned raster map display, a time-stamped vehicle position database, and a publicly distributed vector address file, all keyed to latitude/longitude, would have been obvious to a PHOSITA in October 1992 — a conclusion resting less on hindsight than on the applicant's own admissions of what was known and what was needed.

Primary sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5428546](/patent/US5428546)/en · https://uspto.report/patent/grant/4914605 · https://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat5155689.html · https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/1a/34/02/45284e81e92dec/US5140532.pdf · https://support.esri.com/en-us/gis-dictionary/gbf-dime · https://cartogis.org/docs/proceedings/archive/auto-carto-5/pdf/geographic-areas-and-computer-files-from-the-1980-decennial-census.pdf

Note on a record artifact carried over from the prior sections: the Google Patents family table maps application 08/433,063 to US 5,537,992 (anesthetic interlock) — a data-mapping error; the CIP of the '736 application is US 5,758,313. It has no bearing on this §103 analysis but should not be cited as a family member.