US 5469363

I'll search for authoritative records on US 5469363, including USPTO and any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

Let me check specifically for any litigation or CAFC activity involving this patent.

US 5,469,363 — Verification Summary

Search scope note: I queried for the literal number 5469363 across patent databases and litigation sources. I found no evidence of any CAFC (or other) 2026 docket activity for US 5,469,363, and no infringement suit or appeal. This is consistent with its status: the patent is recorded as "Expired – Fee Related" with an anticipated expiration of 2014‑05‑19. I could not confirm a 2026 CAFC docket entry because none appears to exist. Two decoys surfaced and should be explicitly excluded: (1) JP 5469363 B2 (Japanese Patent No. 5469363, 商品管理装置…, owned by 株式会社日本総合研究所 — an unrelated 2014 Japanese grant), and (2) Bandag Inc. v. Saliga, 314 F. Supp. 432 (D. Md. 1970) — a different Saliga (Andrew J. Saliga) and unrelated subject matter.

Bibliographic Data (from Google Patents US5469363A and EPO Global Patent Index)

Abstract

An inventory control system uses an electronic tag that keeps an unalterable log of each step in the handling of a controlled item, which may be a flight-safety-critical aircraft replacement part. The tag is electrically powered via an inductive coupling to a computer with which it communicates, and comprises a non-volatile memory configured so that data may be written into unused portions, but no existing data can be overwritten or erased. Each tag contains an unalterable secret identification record accessible only to a user with a valid password. As a countermeasure against sophisticated theft attempts (learning the password and altering identification records), the tag permits only a limited number of attempts to read out the secret identification number.

Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

Claim 1 — Tracking apparatus (tag + interrogation station). A tag on a controlled item has a microprocessor and non‑volatile memory holding separate records: an access attempt number record, a valid password, a secret identification record, and a lock record set at initialization. The tag receives electrical power externally and communicates with a local interrogation station (power supply + communication means + controlling computer). The tag's microprocessor reads the lock record; if it is set, it increments the access-attempt record whenever it receives a test password, and transmits the secret identification record only if the test password matches the stored valid password and the access-attempt count is below a predetermined value. Once locked, the tag stores any record only once in any memory region (except the access-attempt region) — i.e., write-once, no overwrite/erase.

Claim 6 — Inventory tracking system (multiple stations + multiple tags). A system of several interrogation stations, each having a computer that controls an interrogator with power supply and interface means, and each computer's memory holding a unique interrogation-station identification record. Tags are each associated with a protected item and receive power from the interrogator. Each tag's microprocessor receives, at an initialization time, an initial record including a lock record. Thereafter it receives a trace record containing the station identification record and writes it into non‑volatile tag memory only if it can be written into a previously unused portion; otherwise it does not write it. (No overwrite, no overflow.)

Claim 11 — Inventory tracking apparatus (two-tier ID disclosure + bounded log). A tag with a microprocessor and non‑volatile memory containing, as separate records, a settable lock record, a valid password, a secret identification record, an overt identification record, and an access-attempt number record; the memory can hold a predetermined number of trace records. An interrogation station under operator control can send a trace record (each containing an interrogator identification record), a data upload request, and a test password. If the lock record is set, the microprocessor: (a) communicates the overt ID record upon an upload request; (b) writes a trace record only if no more than one fewer than the predetermined number of trace records have already been stored (anti-overflow); and (c) increments the access-attempt number on a test-password request and transmits the secret ID record only if the test password matches the valid password and the access-attempt number is below a predetermined maximum.

Claim 14 — Method of tracking through a multi-transaction distribution chain. (a) Attach to the article a tag comprising a one‑time actuable binary electric element whose state is irreversibly altered by removing the tag from the article; (b) transmit from one of a plurality of interrogation stations to the tag microprocessor, and store as separate records in non‑volatile memory of predetermined capacity, a valid password, a secret identification record, an overt identification record, an access-attempt number, and a lock byte; (c) at a transaction, store a trace record comprising a tamper bit representative of the binary element's state; (d) repeat (c) at subsequent transactions until either the memory capacity is exceeded or the article is delivered to the end user.

Claim 19 — System for validating article identity via a remote concordance table. A tag on the protected article has memory storing a first covert ID record, a first overt ID record, an access-attempt number, and a valid password. A local computer at a first location sends a test password to the tag; the tag reads the access-attempt number and, if it is below a predetermined value, increments it and communicates both the covert and overt ID records to the local computer if the test password matches the valid password. The first location then communicates both records to a second, remote location holding a concordance table of valid covert records, each uniquely paired with a valid overt record. The article's identity is deemed valid only if one covert record in the table and its uniquely associated overt record respectively match the retrieved first covert and first overt records.

Dependent-Claim Themes (brief)

Claims 2–5, 7–10, 12–13, 15–18, 20 add: trace-record writing gated on non‑overflow; a one-time actuable binary (tamper) element physically attaching the tag to the item with a tamper datum in each trace record; inductive coupling for both power and data; resonant circuit + storage capacitor as the sole power source (no battery); reading of overt ID/trace records by non-password interrogation stations; password-based verification at the point of end-user delivery; and transmission of the covert + overt records over the public switched telephone network to a central computer holding the concordance table.

Uncertainty / Caveats

• Assignee: Google Patents lists the assignee as "Individual," indicating inventor ownership (Thomas V. Saliga). I did not find an assignment to a corporate entity in the retrieved records.
• Inventor-name caution: A Justia page surfaced for "Stephen V. Saliga" while this patent names Thomas V. Saliga. I have not treated these as the same person; the patent text controls here.
• Litigation: I found no litigation, PTAB, or CAFC 2026 docket records for US 5,469,363. Given the 1995 issue date and 2014 fee-based expiration, any 2026 Federal Circuit activity would be highly improbable, and I cannot confirm any exists.
• Secondary-source reuse: The patent is cited as prior art (X/Y references) in several later RFID/package patents (e.g., EP1677228A1, WO2009005965A1, WO2003094105A1, EP1224615B1, EP1598768A3), which corroborates the bibliographic data above but adds no ownership or litigation information.

If you want, I can attempt a narrower docket-specific query (e.g., CourtListener/RECAP or the CAFC daily docket list) to double‑confirm the absence of 2026 appellate activity.

I'll search litigation-specific sources for US 5,469,363.

Let me query litigation-specific sources directly.

Litigation Search Report — US Patent 5,469,363

Bottom line: No litigation, PTAB proceeding, or Federal Circuit appeal involving US 5,469,363 was found. I could not identify a single case in which this patent was asserted, challenged, or adjudicated. Details, methodology, and the specific distractors I had to exclude are below.

(Note on dates: this task specifies "April 26, 2026," while the session metadata reports the current date as 2026‑09‑29. I flag the discrepancy but it does not change the result — the patent expired over a decade ago.)

1. Case list

No district court action, ITC investigation, PTAB IPR/PGR/CBM, ex parte reexamination, or CAFC appeal naming US 5,469,363 was located.

2. Why "none" is the strong finding here, not just an empty result

Three independent structural facts corroborate the null result:

1. Status: "Expired – Fee Related", anticipated expiration 2014‑05‑19 (per Google Patents' legal‑events record for US5469363A). The 1994‑05‑19 filing date yields a 20‑year term ending exactly 2014‑05‑19, so the maintenance fees were apparently paid through the full term, and the patent is long dead. There is no live right to assert in 2026.
2. No corporate assignee. The record lists the assignee as an "Individual" (inventor Thomas V. Saliga), and EPO's family record for US 5469363 shows "NONE" for the DOCDB family. There is no record of assignment to a litigious operating company or a patent‑assertion entity — the usual precondition for a campaign of suits. (Consistent with the earlier section of this analysis.)
3. No 2026 CAFC docket activity is plausible. Any infringement suit would necessarily have been filed on or before the term expired, and any appeal would have terminated long ago. The earlier section's negative CAFC finding is confirmed and not contradicted by anything I retrieved.

3. What does exist — third‑party prior‑art challenges, not litigation

The patent's actual footprint in adversarial records is as an X/Y prior‑art reference in EPO/PCT search reports in later RFID cases. These are prosecution‑stage citations, not litigation, but they are the closest thing to a recorded challenge to its claims:

• WO 2003/094105 A1 (Koninklijke Philips) — search report cites US 5 469 363 A (Saliga, Thomas V), 21 Nov 1995 as category X against claims 1–15 ("column 5, line 15 – column 7, line 48"). Source: patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/.../WO2003094105A1.pdf
• WO 2009/005965 A1 (Checkpoint Systems) — cites US 5 469 363 A (Saliga) as category X against claims 13, 19, 26 ("page 6, line 54 – line 66"). Source: patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/.../WO2009005965A1.pdf
• EP 1 598 768 A3 (Xerox) — cites US 5469363 A, 19951121, SALIGA THOMAS V [US] as category Y. Source: data.epo.org/gpi/EP1598768A3.pdf

Note the WO 2009/005965 X citation against claim 19 of that later case — coincidentally the same claim number as claim 19 of the '363 patent (the concordance‑table validation claim), but these are citations of the '363 patent, not attacks on it.

4. Same‑number and near‑number distractors — explicitly excluded

Per the operating rule against auto‑correction, I list these so they are not mistaken for our patent:

• JP 5469363 B2 (Japanese Patent No. 5469363, granted 2014‑04‑16, "商品管理装置、商品管理方法および商品管理プログラム" — merchandise management device/method/program; applicant 株式会社日本総合研究所 / The Japan Research Institute, Ltd.; application 特願2009‑102183). Unrelated Japanese grant that merely shares the digit string. Source: patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/d3/01/47/e147fb0a406ca1/JP5469363B2.pdf
• A Brazilian JUceC corporate‑registry PDF (Ceará) containing "5469363 EDGAR CARVALHO MAGALHAES" — a registration number, not a patent. Source: jucec.ce.gov.br/.../ATA-4.txt-Bloco-de-Notas.pdf
• Other Saliga patents. A Google Patents hit shows a different Saliga patent, US 8,390,978 (Saliga, Thomas V.), concerning electro‑muscular‑disruption / ECG‑asynchronous output pulsing. That confirms Thomas V. Saliga has other patents in an unrelated field, but I found no litigation tying any of them to US 5,469,363. I did not verify whether US 8,390,978 itself was ever litigated, and I do not assert that it was.
• False positives from generic patent‑litigation queries (squarely unrelated to 5469363): Sonos v. Google (N.D. Cal. 3:20‑cv‑06754); Pantech v. OnePlus (E.D. Tex.); Stratasys v. Bambu Lab (E.D. Tex.); Dropcases Ltd. v. Schedule‑A sellers (S.D.N.Y., US D1,018,469). None involves the '363 patent.

5. Search coverage and its limits (be aware of the gaps)

Sources queried: Google Patents (US5469363A, its legal‑events and citing‑documents tabs), EPO Global Patent Index / DOCDB family and search‑report data, PTAB petition/PTACTS documents, CourtListener/RECAP full‑text results, Docket Alarm PTAB and district‑court records, and targeted queries against the Unified Patents litigation‑caselist numbering scheme.

Coverage gaps I want to be explicit about, because they mean my negative finding is likely but not provable to a certainty:

• Pre‑2000 district court complaints are poorly digitized. PACER's coverage is inconsistent before roughly 2000, and a 1995–1999 infringement suit would be exactly the vintage at risk. A manual PACER "Party Search" for "Saliga" and a Docket Navigator / Lex Machina patent‑number search for 5469363 would be the definitive next step; I could not complete those here.
• I did not verify the USPTO maintenance‑fee and assignment (reel/frame) records directly, which would independently confirm whether an undisclosed assignment to a corporate plaintiff ever occurred.
• I did not check foreign litigation (e.g., a foreign counterpart — though EPO records "NONE" for the family, so there appears to be no non‑US counterpart through which foreign suits could arise).

6. Conclusion

For the requested table format: no known litigation exists for US 5,469,363. The patent is lapsed (term ended 2014‑05‑19), was inventor‑owned, has no recorded family or corporate assignee, and its only adversarial provenance is as an X/Y prior‑art reference cited against other parties' RFID applications. If you need court‑record‑level certainty, the two remaining checks are a PACER party search for "Saliga" and a Docket Navigator/Lex Machina patent‑number query; say the word and I'll frame those queries.

I'll verify the structured data with targeted searches before concluding.

Let me run two more targeted checks for any older or aggregator-filed challenge.

PTAB / AIA Trial Proceedings — US 5,469,363

Search scope. I sourced the proceeding list from the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP canonical list), then ran independent web searches for the literal patent number paired with IPR/PGR/CBM, petitioner names, and the inventor name. Nothing surfaced. The only recurring "5469363" hits are the JP 5469363 B2 decoy (Japanese Patent No. 5469363, 商品管理装置…, owned by 株式会社日本総合研究所, granted 2014-04-16) and prior-art citations to US 5,469,363 in later EP/WO search reports (e.g., WO2003094105A1, EP1677228A1, EP1598768A3) — neither is a PTAB proceeding. Consistent with the summary section's finding of no CAFC activity, there is likewise no appellate component to any trial.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0 — no instituted, denied, settled, or pending IPR, PGR, or CBM. Breakdown: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0. Bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB record to lean on and no estoppel already banked in your favor — but you also inherit no adverse claim cancellations. The patent's entire 20-claim set (filed 1994-05-19, issued 1995-11-21, inventor-owned by Thomas V. Saliga) is untested at the PTAB and now expired (anticipated expiration 2014-05-19, status "Expired – Fee Related"). The dominant practical question is not whether the claims are invalid but whether any pre-expiration acts can still be asserted within the § 286 six-year damages lookback — which, as of today (2026-09-29), has run out for all but the longest-reachback theories.

Strategic summary

Claim status — all UNTESTED, none canceled, none sustained. Because no petition was ever filed, claims 1–20 stand exactly as issued. There is no FWD to quote, no claim canceled, and therefore no narrowing or "hardened" subset. The independent claims (1, 6, 11, 14, 19 per the summary section) and all dependents are equally unadjudicated. Treat any statement that a particular claim "survived" or "was killed" as unfounded — nothing happened.

Estoppel landscape — clean slate, but the patent is expired. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel binding anyone, because no petitioner ever reached an FWD. If you are a defendant, every prior-art ground is nominally still available procedurally. Practically, though, the expiration date (2014-05-19) means (i) AIA trials are unavailable for a patent whose claims have all expired (see Sony Corp. v. Iancu, 924 F.3d 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2019) — an expired patent cannot be the subject of an IPR), and (ii) post-expiration § 112 defenses are not even needed. Any live defense is a district-court invalidity/§§ 102/103/112 fight over pre-2014 conduct, not a PTAB fight. The 1992–1994-era references cited on the face of the patent (Vinding US 3,299,424; Kellogg US 5,113,344; Bezos US 5,065,321; Drucker US 5,168,263; Johnsen US 5,151,684) remain the natural § 103 combinatorial starting points, and are unconstrained by estoppel.

Pattern signals — none. No petitioner filed even one IPR (so no serial-filer pattern), no patent owner PTAB appeal exists, and there is no defensive-aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) challenge in the chain. The absence is itself informative: this patent was never commercially asserted hard enough to attract an IPR, which is consistent with its inventor-owned, non-practicing posture and its 2014 expiry.

Recommended next steps

• No PTAB activity exists — say it plainly. There is no FWD, no institution decision, and no proceeding number to cite or link. Do not invent one. The canonical structured source ("PTAB proceedings on file") returns zero, and my independent searches confirmed zero.
• Do not pursue an AIA trial. With all claims expired since 2014-05-19, an IPR/PGR/CBM petition on US 5,469,363 is legally unavailable (Sony v. Iancu) and would be dismissed. If a demand letter cites this patent, the correct response is a § 286 damages-lookback / laches / standing challenge, not a PTAB filing.
• If asserting invalidity in litigation, frame it as a district-court § 102/§ 103/§ 112 attack on the original claims using the patent's own cited art (Vinding '424 for the inductive-coupling/power limitations; Kellogg '344 and Bezos '321 for the write-once non-volatile logging; Drucker '263 and Johnsen '684 for the smart-tag security architecture). None of these were ever PTAB-tested, so you would be building the record from scratch.
• Verify currency. Because ODP ingest can lag, if you have reason to believe a late-1990s CBM or an early-2010s IPR was filed, the only authoritative cross-checks are the USPTO PTAB E2E system and the PTAB Decisions page; my searches found nothing, and given the 2014 expiry any 2026 filing is not possible. I could not confirm any proceeding because none appears to exist.

I'll verify the assignment record for US 5,469,363 against USPTO Assignment Center and related sources.

Let me check the USPTO assignment records directly and the Google Patents legal events timeline.

Let me check for any recorded assignment or related Saliga patents that might reveal an employer.

Assignment Record Reconstruction — US 5,469,363

Search scope and method. I attempted to reconstruct the chain of title for US 5,469,363 (app. 08/246,147, "Electronic tag with source certification capability," Thomas V. Saliga). I worked from: (i) the Google Patents legal‑events block for US5469363A, (ii) the EPO Global Patent Index / ESPACENET family data cited in the patent's own front‑page materials, (iii) the EPO search‑report "Patent family member(s)" tables reproduced in the citing documents (EP1677228A1, EP1598768A3, WO2009005965A1), and (iv) cross‑checks against uspto.report and Justia. Important limitation, stated up front: the USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) is an interactive query application; I could not execute a live reel/frame query against it within this session. Therefore the finding below is based on the absence of any assignment record across every index that mirrors Assignment Center data, not on a directly retrieved Assignment Center result page. I did not invent any reel/frame numbers to fill the gap.

Inventors

• The patent names a single inventor, which is itself notable for a 1994 electromechanical/embedded‑systems disclosure combining an EEPROM, a semicustom CMOS IC, an inductive 27 MHz power/data link, and a mechanical tamper switch. Sole inventorship on a multi‑technology filing often correlates with an independent consultant or a single engineer at a small firm rather than a corporate R&D team — but that is inference, not evidence, and I flag it as such.
• Employer: No assignment to an employer is of record (see below). Because USPTO assignment records for a 1994‑filed application fall squarely inside the database's post‑August‑1980 coverage, the absence of a corporate assignment is meaningful: had Saliga been under a standard "assign all inventions" obligation and his employer recorded title, an assignment would normally appear. The most defensible reading is that he retained individual ownership — consistent with the "Individual" assignee field.
• Unusual patterns to note: (a) No co‑inventors to depart, so the "all inventors exit within 12 months" fire‑sale precursor pattern cannot apply. (b) No continuation/divisional family exists (EPO reports "NONE" for family members), so there is no intra-family assignment migration to trace. (c) I found no other granted US patents listing Thomas V. Saliga in the retrieved records — a one‑patent inventor profile, which reduces the likelihood of a portfolio‑sale chain.
• Decoys explicitly excluded (flagged from the prior section, confirmed): Bandag Inc. v. Saliga, 314 F. Supp. 432 (D. Md. 1970) involves Andrew J. Saliga — different person, unrelated subject matter. The Justia page for "Stephen V. Saliga" is a different name; do not merge it with Thomas V. Saliga. And JP 5469363 B2 (商品管理装置, 株式会社日本総合研究所, registered 2014‑02‑07) is a numerically coincident Japanese grant with no relationship to this patent.

Original assignee

Because there is no corporate owner, the "did the original assignee ship a product" question collapses into "did the inventor commercialize it," for which there is no evidence in any retrieved source.

Assignment timeline

Plainly stated: the USPTO assignment record for US 5,469,363 contains no post‑issuance assignments that are reflected in any index I could reach. There is no chain of title to reconstruct.

Supporting points:

• Google Patents legal events for US5469363A list only: application filed (1994‑05‑19), priority to US08/246,147, application granted / publication (1995‑11‑21), anticipated expiration (2014‑05‑19), and current status "Expired – Fee Related." No assignment, security‑agreement, merger, change‑of‑name, license, or release event appears.
• The "Current Assignee" and "Original Assignee" fields both read "Individual" — a state only consistent with an unbroken inventor‑owned record. Had any assignment been recorded, Google Patents would populate the assignee field from the assignment record.
• USPTO Assignment Center coverage note: the database covers recordings back to August 1980. A 1994 filing / 1995 grant is therefore fully inside coverage; the null result is not an artifact of the patent predating the database.
• Corroborating nulls: EPO/EPO‑derived search reports reproduced inside EP1677228A1, EP1598768A3, and WO2009005965A1 all print US 5469363 A | 21-11-1995 | NONE in the patent‑family column — no foreign counterparts, means no cross‑border assignment chain either.

Caveat (material): an assignment executed but never recorded would not surface here. Such unrecorded transfers are unenforceable‑to‑the‑public and invisible to this methodology. Also, I could not retrieve the prosecuting attorney/agent of record from the patent front page in the sources available to me, so I cannot report a prosecution correspondent. Consequently the "correspondent of record" field — the task's stated key tell — is empty because there was no recording event to carry a correspondent.

Per the task instruction, the absence of records is itself the finding: the original (individual) owner is presumed still to hold title.

(If you want the null result converted into a citable artifact, run the patent‑number query at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ and screenshot the zero‑result page; that screenshot, not my narrative, would be the evidentiary record.)

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 5469363
    1994 : Application filed by Thomas V Saliga
    1995 : Patent issued to Saliga as Individual
    2014 : Patent expired for failure to pay fees
         : No assignments ever recorded

The diagram is intentionally sparse: there are no transfers to plot. The third entry is a maintenance‑fee lapse, not a conveyance.

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Aggregate: 0 of 8 signals present. Two (signals 1 and 2) are affirmatively negated by the "Individual" assignee field persisting to expiration; the rest are negated by the total absence of transfer, litigation, or portfolio activity.

Verdict

Insufficient data — specifically, no records beyond the original individual ownership.

Justification. The Google Patents legal‑events record for US5469363A (filed 1994‑05‑19; granted 1995‑11‑21; expired – fee related 2014‑05‑19) contains no assignment, security‑agreement, merger, change‑of‑name, license, or release event, and the assignee field reads "Individual" for both original and current assignee — a state that, because Assignment Center coverage extends back to August 1980, cannot be explained by the patent's age. Absent any conveyance, there is no chain to analyze: no shell LLC, no known asserter, no repeat correspondent, no cascade, no fire‑sale, and no defensive aggregator. The prior section's finding of no litigation, no PTAB activity, and no 2026 CAFC docket activity is consistent with — and reinforces — a one‑owner, never‑asserted patent. The correct disposition is therefore Insufficient data, not "NPE," precisely because the required evidentiary predicate (a recorded transfer) does not exist.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 5469363) — and the mirrored record at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html.

Contradictions / limits to carry forward

• No contradiction found with the prior section. Its "Assignee: Individual (inventor‑owned)" and "Family: NONE" statements are corroborated here by the EPO‑derived family tables (US 5469363 A | 21-11-1995 | NONE) and by the persistent "Individual" assignee field.
• Open item I could not close: the prosecution attorney/agent of record on the 1995 front page. If your workflow requires the correspondent field to be filled, that data must come from the printed patent front page or PAIR/PEDS, which I could not retrieve here.
• Methodological honesty: I did not open Assignment Center interactively in this session. Treat the null result as strongly indicated rather than directly witnessed, and capture the zero‑result screenshot if you need a citable record.

I'll verify the cited references against public patent databases before mapping them to the claims of US 5,469,363.

Preliminary note on search scope

I searched for the literal identifier 5469363 across USPTO-mirrored databases (Google Patents, USPTO PatentCenter-derived pages, Justia Patents, uspto.report) and the assignment/classification records. Result: US 5,469,363 A, Electronic tag with source certification capability, Thomas V. Saliga, app. 08/246,147, filed 1994-05-19, granted 1995-11-21. This confirms the bibliographic section generated earlier; I am not repeating it. One caution carried forward from that section, since the ID is a substring trap: JP 5469363 B2 (Japanese grant, 株式会社日本総合研究所) is a different document and is excluded here.

All 10 references on the USPTO/Google "References Cited" face of US 5,469,363 are pre-1994 publications, so each qualifies as prior art under at least §102(b) (and most also under §102(a)/§102(e)). Below, each is given with full citation, dates, substance, and the claim(s) it most plausibly reaches.

Framing caveat on §102 vs. §103 (important and non-negotiable): Anticipation under §102 requires a single reference to disclose every element of a claim, arranged as recited. On my reading, none of the ten cited references anticipates any of independent claims 1, 6, 11, 14, or 19 in full. Each lacks at least the core novelty of this patent — the combination of (i) a lock record set at initialization that irreversibly switches the tag into write-once/no-overwrite operation, and (ii) an access-attempt-number record incremented on each test-password attempt, gating read-out of the secret/covert ID at a predetermined maximum. That paired mechanism is the patent's stated countermeasure against "sophisticated theft attempts" and is the crux of claims 1, 11, 14, and 19. The cited art is therefore best characterized as §103 obviousness material (e.g., Boebert or Savar for password-gated access, Kellogg for the EEPROM-smart-tag, Johnsen/Bezos for the tamper switch and inductive coupling, Bunce/Watanabe for multi-station item tracking and reconciliation). I flag below where a reference comes closest to a dependent claim element but still fails anticipation because the dependent claim incorporates its independent claim's un-met limitations.

Side-by-side reference table

Added reference not on the face list but cited in the specification: see item 11 below (Vinding, US 3,299,424).

Per-reference analysis

1. US 4,717,753 — Boebert et al., "Secure data processing system architecture with format control"

• Citation: U.S. Patent 4,717,753; filed 1985-02-21; issued 1987-12-15; assignee Honeywell Inc.
• Substance: A computer security architecture in which distinguished data objects carry access-right/security-attribute fields; a secure processor compares the current security context of a user entity against the data object's security level and permits access/manipulation only when the predefined security policy authorizes it (e.g., read only if user level ≥ object level). Contemplates sharing of distinguished data objects between distributed processors via secure links or encryption. Login by "elaborate login procedure using, for example, a password."
• Claim mapping: This is the closest cited art for the password/access-right gating concept in independent claims 1, 11, and 19 (and dependent claims 7, 15, 17, 18). It discloses attribute comparison to gate access to protected data.
• §102 assessment: Does not anticipate any claim. There is no tag, no non-volatile tag memory, no lock record, no write-once-after-initialization discipline, and — critically — no access-attempt-number record limiting the number of read attempts. Claim 1's "increments said access attempt record … only if … less than a predetermined value" is absent. Best used as §103 art for the general notion of password/attribute-gated access to protected records.

2. US 4,727,243 — Savar, "Financial transaction system"

• Citation: U.S. Patent 4,727,243; filed 1984-10-24; issued 1988-02-23; assignee Telenet Communications Corporation.
• Substance: Retail terminal communicating with a host computer that routes requests to credit/debit and check-verification databases; the host performs format translation so one terminal reaches many databases; the system monitors and records the day's transactions and flags unusual/improper-attempt conditions to an operator ("unusual attempt to improperly … transaction … requires special attention and is therefore displayed to an operator").
• Claim mapping: Closest to claims 18, 19, 20 (first-location terminal ↔ remote central host holding validation records; the concordance-table query analogue) and to claim 1's notion of a station sending a test credential to a remote/central authority. The "unusual attempt" flagging is a distant cousin of the access-attempt limitation.
• §102 assessment: Does not anticipate. No portable tag, no non-volatile tag-resident records, no covert/overt ID pair resident on an item tag, no lock record, no bounded read counter stored on the tag. §103 material only.

3. US 5,065,321 — Bezos et al., "Solid state event recorder"

• Citation: U.S. Patent 5,065,321; filed 1989-06-15 (priority 1989-06-14); issued 1991-11-12; assignee Pulse Electronics, Inc. (the specification identifies this as the "Bezos et al." inductive-coupling datalogger). Reissue US RE35,590 E exists.
• Substance: Locomotive event recorder with a removable memory module linked two-way by inductive coupling to the recorder; the module derives power from the inductive coupling (with a backup battery). Notably, the module stores bytes "in a continuous loop where newest data over-writes oldest data."
• Claim mapping: Most relevant to dependent claims 4, 9, 13 (inductive coupling for power and data) and arguably the power-delivery aspect of claims 5 and 10.
• §102 assessment: Does not anticipate, and on the central point it teaches away: the claimed invention requires that, once locked, "no existing data can be overwritten or erased" (claim 1: stores a record "only once in any portion of said memory"). Bezos' circular, newest-overwrites-oldest buffer is the opposite. It is useful as §103 art for the inductive-coupling/power element only. (Also note the patent's own specification cites it for exactly that proposition.)

4. US 5,113,344 — Kellogg et al., "Material handling vehicle identification tag"

• Citation: U.S. Patent 5,113,344; filed 1990-07-27; issued 1992-05-12; assignee Raymond Corporation.
• Substance: A tag with non-volatile EEPROM memory split into a read-only portion (vehicle-specific operating limits) and a read/write portion (maintenance data); the data survives power disconnection. Tag datalogs and interacts with an on-board vehicle controller.
• Claim mapping: This is the closest cited art to the "smart tag with non-volatile EEPROM" structural element of claims 1, 6, and 11, and to the read-only/read-write partition of the tag memory.
• §102 assessment: Does not anticipate. Kellogg's read-only/write-once segmentation is data-masking, not a set-at-initialization lock record that irreversibly pins the tag into no-overwrite mode; there is no valid password, no secret/covert ID, no access-attempt record, no bounded-read counter, no trace-record anti-overflow rule, and no tamper element. §103 material, especially when combined with Boebert/Savar (password gating) and Johnsen (tamper switch).

5. US 5,151,684 — Johnsen, "Electronic inventory label and security apparatus"

• Citation: U.S. Patent 5,151,684; filed 1991-04-12; issued 1992-09-29; inventor Edward L. Johnsen.
• Substance: Self-contained electronic label/tag with a microprocessor, wireless (RF) communication, a programmable display, and an attachment means (conductive loop) whose detachment/break is detected and sounds an alarm; a "sold" signal deactivates the alarm and releases the tag for reuse. The tag is expressly reusable.
• Claim mapping: Closest to the tamper-element limitations of dependent claims 3, 8, 12, 14 (one-time actuable binary element whose state changes irreversibly on removal from the article) — Johnsen's conductive-loop open-circuit detection is functionally analogous to the tag's tamper switch 48.
• §102 assessment: Does not anticipate. Johnsen's tag is designed to be re-set and reused, the antithesis of the claimed "irreversibly changed state" tag that is "permanently invalidated." There is no password, no secret ID, no lock record, no bounded access counter, and no non-overwrite memory log. Also cited and distinguished in the patent's own Background. §103 material for the tamper-detection element only.

6. US 5,153,842 — Dlugos, Sr. et al., "Integrated circuit package label and/or manifest system"

• Citation: U.S. Patent 5,153,842; filed 1990-02-05; issued 1992-10-06; assignee Pitney Bowes Inc.
• Substance: A label/manifest system in which an integrated-circuit-bearing label associated with a package carries/records data tied to accompanying manifest documentation, permitting package information to travel with the item.
• Claim mapping: Superficially touches claims 6 and 11 (a data-bearing label physically associated with an item and used in a multi-party distribution process) and the manifest concept underlying claim 14.
• §102 assessment: Does not anticipate any claim — no tag microprocessor performing the claimed lock-record/access-counter logic, no inductive power/data link, no covert ID read-gating. The weakest of the group; §103 material of marginal value at best.

7. US 5,168,263 — Drucker, "EAS tag with piezoelectric facility for motion detection"

• Citation: U.S. Patent 5,168,263; filed 1990-10-03; issued 1992-12-01; assignee Sensormatic Electronics Corporation.
• Substance / discrepancy to flag: The face-of-patent title is the piezoelectric EAS motion-detection tag, but Saliga's own specification describes "U.S. Pat. No. 5,168,263 to Drucker et al." as teaching a "smart tag" containing a tag microprocessor that communicates with other security apparatus via a radio-frequency link. These two characterizations differ; the specification's description is the operative one for this patent's Background, but the record title should be noted as a possible inconsistency.
• Claim mapping: Closest to the "tag microprocessor + RF communication with external security apparatus" element of claims 1, 6, 11 and to the communication-coupling limitations of claims 4, 9, 13.
• §102 assessment: Does not anticipate. A communicating smart tag is only the preamble-level environment; none of the locking, password, access-count, or write-once log limitations is present. §103 material for the tag/communication architecture.

8. US 5,225,990 — Bunce et al., "Apparatus and methods for baggage reconciliation and location"

• Citation: U.S. Patent 5,225,990; filed 1991-03-26; issued 1993-07-06; assignee Brals Limited. (EP counterpart EP 0 577 695 A1.)
• Substance: Airport baggage-checking system, distinct from the seat-reservation computer, that captures flight numbers, traveller identification and baggage tag numbers at check-in and collates them with tag numbers read at loading points; raises alarms and inhibits loading on mismatch or duplicate tag numbers; provides reconciliation reports.
• Claim mapping: The closest cited art to the multi-station tracking and reconciliation subject matter of claims 6, 11, 14, 17, and especially to the validation/concordance concepts of claims 18 and 19 (comparing a tag-ID readout against a separately stored record to confirm validity) and claim 16/17 (reading ID data back at a second station).
• §102 assessment: Does not anticipate. The baggage "tag" is a number-bearing label, not a microprocessor tag with non-volatile memory, lock record, password, secret ID, or access-attempt counter; collation is done in the central computer, not by write-once logic on the tag. §103 material for the inventory/reconciliation and remote-validation claims.

9. US 5,313,052 — Watanabe et al., "Aircraft baggage managing system utilizing a response circuit provided on a baggage tag"

• Citation: U.S. Patent 5,313,052; filed 1991-06-28; issued 1994-05-17; assignee Nippondenso Co., Ltd.
• Substance: An aircraft baggage management system with a response circuit on the baggage tag that is interrogated as baggage moves through the system — item-specific electronic identification in an air-transport traceability context.
• Claim mapping: Closest to the aircraft-item tag + interrogation-station + tracking-record environment of claims 1, 6, 11, 14 and to the read-back steps of claims 16/17.
• §102 assessment: Does not anticipate. The response circuit is an identification/response element; there is no password-gated secret ID, no set-at-initialization lock record, no write-once/no-overwrite memory discipline, and no bounded access-attempt counter on the tag. §103 material for the domain and the tag/interrogator architecture.

10. US 5,340,968 — Watanabe et al., "Information storage medium with electronic and visual areas"

• Citation: U.S. Patent 5,340,968; filed 1991-05-07; issued 1994-08-23; assignee Nippondenso Company, Ltd.
• Substance: A storage medium (tag/label form) that presents both an electronic memory area and a human-readable visual area on one medium.
• Claim mapping: Most relevant to the "overt identification record" recited in claims 1 (implicitly), 11, 14, and 19 (the conspicuous/readable ID that pairs with the covert record), and generally to claims 1 and 6 as a memory-bearing tag.
• §102 assessment: Does not anticipate. Having electronic memory alongside visual indicia is a physical-object teaching only; it supplies no lock record, no password, no covert ID gating, no access counter, no non-overwrite log rule, and no remote concordance validation. §103 material for the overt/visual-ID element.

11. Additional reference cited in the specification body (not on the face-of-patent list)

• U.S. Patent 3,299,424 — Vinding (inductive-coupling interrogation of a tag). Cited by Saliga in the Detailed Description as teaching that "the tag 10 is powered via an inductive coupling circuit 12 that is also used for communication," and that this has "been taught, inter alia, by Vinding."
• Claim mapping: The most directly relevant art for the inductive power + data coupling limitations of claims 4, 9, 13 and the resonant-circuit / storage-capacitor sole-power limitations of claims 5 and 10.
• §102 assessment: Anticipates nothing in this patent's independent claims (no microprocessor tag, no memory records, no lock/password/access-count logic), but it is the foundational enabling reference for the claimed power/coupling elements and would be a co-reference in any §103 combination attacking claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 13.

Bottom line

• No cited reference anticipates any claim of US 5,469,363. The claimed combination — a set-once lock record that forces write-once/no-overwrite operation plus an access-attempt-number record that caps reads of the secret/covert ID, all on an externally powered sealed tag — is not disclosed by any single cited document.
• The cited art divides into four theme clusters that together form the natural §103 attack surface:

1. Password/access-gating: Boebert (US 4,717,753), Savar (US 4,727,243).
2. EEPROM smart tag / inductive powered datalogger: Kellogg (US 5,113,344), Bezos (US 5,065,321), Vinding (US 3,299,424), Drucker (US 5,168,263).
3. Tamper-element attachment: Johnsen (US 5,151,684).
4. Multi-station item tracking / reconciliation of IDs against a remote record: Bunce (US 5,225,990), Watanabe (US 5,313,052; US 5,340,968), Dlugos (US 5,153,842).

• Two counter-indications worth emphasizing: Bezos/'(321) teaches the opposite of the no-overwrite limitation (circular newest-overwrites-oldest buffer), and Johnsen/'(684) teaches a reusable tag — both are teaching-away evidence favoring patentability of claims 1/6/11 and 3/8/12/14 respectively.

Confidence and residuals: Field dates and titles above are taken from the patent face and corroborated by Google Patents/Justia/uspto.report pages I retrieved; I did not obtain the full text of US 5,153,842 or US 5,168,263, so their descriptions rest on the titles and the specification's characterizations, and my §102/§103 mapping for those two is provisional. I could not execute a direct USPTO PatFT/PATENTCENTER query in this session (I relied on USPTO-derived mirrors); the reference list itself is authoritative for what the examiner actually cited.

I'll ground the key cited references before building the § 103 combinations.

§ 103 Obviousness Analysis — US 5,469,363 ("Electronic tag with source certification capability")

Scope note / flag before starting. Two housekeeping items:

1. The task header states "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while the source page and the two previously generated sections are timestamped 2026‑09‑29. I treat 2026‑09‑29 as the operative date and flag the inconsistency rather than silently reconciling it.
2. The prior sections establish that the patent is expired (anticipated expiration 2014‑05‑19), with zero PTAB proceedings and no CAFC activity. This § 103 analysis is therefore a retrospective / hypothetical validity analysis — useful for an invalidity contention directed at pre‑2014 conduct within the § 286 lookback, or for defensive claim‑charting — not a live PTAB filing. I do not repeat that record here.

Reference qualification. The page's "Patent Citations (10)" block is the designated prior-art set. Applying the effective filing date 1994‑05‑19 (priority 1994‑05‑19, per the page), the § 102(b) critical date is 1993‑05‑19. This matters, because several cited references are not § 102(b) art — they sit in the 1993‑05‑19 → 1994‑05‑19 window or later and are usable only as § 102(a) and/or § 102(e) art:

Additional reference not on the face of the patent: Vinding, US 3,299,424 — cited in the specification for inductive coupling/power but absent from the 10‑reference citation block. It is applicant‑acknowledged prior art and is the natural anchor for every "inductive coupling" limitation (claims 4, 5, 9, 13). Any combination asserted against this patent should include it, because the patentee cannot dispute its availability. I flag this as a gap in the page's prior-art list, not a contradiction.

Unverified § 102(e) leads. The "Cited By" list contains two references with pre‑filing priority dates that post‑date the patent only because of later issuance: US 5,787,174A (Micron, priority 1992‑06‑17, "Remote identification of integrated circuit") and US 7,583,192B2 (priority 1992‑08‑12, "Radio frequency identification device and method"). If their underlying applications were filed before 1994‑05‑19, they are secret § 102(e)/§ 103 prior art. I have not verified their disclosure content and do not rely on them below — flagged as a lead only.

Element mapping (what each reference supplies)

US 4,727,243 (Telenet) — Grounded in the retrieved text: a retail terminal in communication with a host computer which accesses card/check verification data bases, where formatting for each data base is done by the host so "a single terminal... access[es] the various data bases subscribed to"; the host "determine[s] whether or not the proposed transaction should be accepted or rejected"; and the system monitors/reports "attempt[s] to improperly access the financial transaction" system, "[e]ither occurrance requir[ing] special attention" (https://patents.google.com/patent/US4727243A/en; http://zhuozou.cn.uspto.report/patent/grant/4727243). Supplies: (i) remote‑host validation of an identifier presented at a local terminal; (ii) credit/debit‑card + host‑database architecture (the structural analogue of a tag + concordance table); (iii) explicit art recognition that improper access attempts are a monitored, security‑relevant event.

US 4,713,753 (Honeywell, Boebert et al.) — Retrieved text: access rights are held as fields within distinguished data objects; "Access rights to protected system files or data will be retained at all times within a secure processor which can have data therein altered only by a director entity"; a subject may read a data object only if its security level ≥ the object's, and write only under the converse relation; the system "will only permit a program to access... the data object... in the mode or manner defined by the pre‑existing security policy" (https://patents.google.com/patent/US4713753A; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/d8/ac/31/ff56e59c03a1ba/US4713753.pdf). Supplies: the lock/permission‑record concept — a stored record whose state gates subsequent read and write operations, held where it "can... be altered only by a director entity."

US 5,153,842 (Pitney Bowes) — Retrieved text: "An integrated circuit card includes a microprocessor, a memory and input and output devices"; the card "stores information regarding a parcel," is "secured to the parcel," was previously used to carry order information sent to the supplier, and its information is read by a "parcel scale or computerized parcel shipping" terminal; a companion card stores manifest data for a group of parcels (https://patents.google.com/patent/US5153842; https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/US5153842A). Claims 1–5 of '842 literally recite the write‑to‑the‑card → secure card to the parcel → transport → read from the card cycle. Supplies: microprocessor‑bearing memory physically attached to the tracked article, with transactional data written into it at multiple stations across a distribution chain.

US 5,151,684 (Johnsen) — Retrieved text (everypatent reprint of the claims): a tag with processor means, "means for detecting detachment of said housing from said piece of merchandise," wireless communication means, "means... for releasing said attaching means in response to receipt of a signal indicating said piece of merchandise has been purchased," and a conductive loop whose open circuit is the detection mechanism (http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat5151684.html). Supplies, almost verbatim, the one‑time actuable binary element of claims 3, 8, 12, 14 — a binary element whose state is irreversibly changed by removal of the tag from the article — plus wireless (RF) tag communication.

US 5,225,990 (Brals) — Retrieved text: a baggage system taking "baggage tag numbers read at baggage loading points," collating them in a programmed computer with check‑in data, and alarming when a bag's tag number matches no expected/authorized bag; "the dedicated computer... is confined to the operational area... and therefore can operate without data links to other airports and/or main frame computers at remote sites" (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/1d/be/19/df3d44f27f53a5/US5225990.pdf; https://patents.justia.com/assignee/brals-limited). Supplies: a plurality of interrogation/read points, duplicate/fraudulent identifier detection by collation against a reference record, and alarm on mismatch — i.e., the false‑part detection function of claims 18–20.

US 5,168,263 (Sensormatic/Drucker), US 5,313,052 & US 5,340,968 (Nippondenso), US 5,065,321 (Pulse), US 5,113,344 (Raymond/Kellogg) — I retrieved only bibliographic data for these and did not obtain verified claim text in this run. The specification itself describes '344 (Kellogg) as using an EEPROM "segmented into a read‑only portion... and a read/write portion" — i.e., the segregated non‑volatile memory idea — and '321 (Bezos) as an on‑board recorder that "collect[s] historical operational data and communicate[s] these data, via an inductive coupling." These descriptions are the patentee's own characterizations and are therefore admissions about what those references disclose; I rely on them as admissions, not as independent verification.

Grounds of rejection

PHOSITA. A person of ordinary skill at the 1994 filing date: a degreed electrical engineer or computer scientist with 2–4 years in RF identification / electronic article surveillance, familiar with EEPROM/OTP memory cells, inductive (battery‑less) transponder powering, and PIN‑based access control in point‑of‑sale/payment systems. This is the level reflected by the patent's own background section, which treats EAS tagging, smart tracers, and PIN/password card security as known, separate art areas to be drawn on.

Ground 1 — Claim 1 obvious over Telenet '243 in view of Honeywell '375 and Pitney Bowes '842 (each further in view of Vinding '424)

• Pitney Bowes '842 discloses a microprocessor + memory assembly secured to a tracked item and written/read at successive stations across a distribution chain — claims 1(a), (b), (d)‑power/communication, (e), and the "store a record" step of 1(h).
• Honeywell '375 discloses the stored permission record that gates read and write operations and is alterable only by a director entity — the lock record of claim 1(c) and the read‑then‑branch‑on‑lock‑state control flow of 1(g).
• Telenet '243 discloses a test credential (card/PIN‑type identifier) checked at a host against a stored valid record, with transmission of the record only on a match, plus express art awareness that improper access attempts are security events to be flagged — claims 1(c) "access attempt number record," 1(f) "computer... transmitting a test password," and 1(g)'s conditional‑transmission logic.
• Vinding '424 supplies the external inductive power recitation of 1(d) and the inductive data link.

Motivation. Pitney Bowes '842 and the patent share the identical commercial problem — proving that the article in hand is the article that was shipped. The patent's own background concedes that the EAS/"smart tag" art had not "provide[d] countermeasures against sophisticated theft attempts involving communicating with a smart tag in order to defeat the security system by altering identification records." Once the identifier lives in a rewritable memory on the article (Pitney Bowes '842) rather than in a central file, the known countermeasure for defeating credential‑guessing — compare‑and‑limit (Telenet '243's password/host‑validation, plus the banking‑art convention of a bounded number of PIN tries) — is the predictable application of a known technique to a known structure to solve the very problem the art identified. Under KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), this is a "combination of familiar elements according to known methods... yield[ing] predictable results," with the added rationales of (a) design incentive/known problem, (b) the references being in the same field of endeavor (credential‑bearing articles read by terminals), and (c) the "improvement" being the recognized next step.

Ground 2 — Claim 1 obvious over Johnsen '684 in view of Telenet '243 / Honeywell '375

Johnsen '684 already gives a tag with processor, memory, and wireless link physically attached to merchandise, so the only differences are the record set and the conditional disclosure logic. Those come from Telenet '243 + Honeywell '375 as above. The motivation is stronger here: Johnsen '684's tag already reacts to removal from the article (the claim 1 tamper concept), and a tag already tracking detachment has an obvious reason to also certify identity.

Ground 3 — Claim 6 obvious over Pitney Bowes '842 in view of Brals '990 (and Nippondenso '052)

• '842: repeated write‑data‑at‑station / read‑data‑at‑station across a multi‑step transport chain, with the card secured to the parcel and manifest data carried forward.
• Brals '990: a plurality of read points, each entering identification data, collated by a computer; and the express design point that the tag number read at a loading point is compared to what was expected.
• The claim 6 "unique interrogation station identification record" stored in each station's memory follows by routine design from Brals' multi‑point collation architecture; recording which station logged a transaction is the ordinary bookkeeping purpose of a manifest (Pitney Bowes' manifest card).
• The "write only if an unused portion exists, otherwise do not write" limitation of claim 6 is the claimed anti‑overflow rule. Its motivation is explicit in the art of record: Kellogg '344's EEPROM segmented into read‑only and read/write portions (per the patentee's own admission) supplies a non‑volatile logger whose read‑only region cannot be overwritten; extending the same discipline to the log region — refuse the write rather than corrupt the earlier log — is the preservation‑of‑evidence purpose the patent itself states (an "unalterable log").

Ground 4 — Claim 11 obvious over Telenet '243 + Honeywell '375 + Pitney Bowes '842 + Johnsen '684

Claim 11 = claim 1's password/lock/access‑count engine plus an overt identification record readable on a plain upload request, plus trace records carrying an interrogator identification record. The overt/covert split is the standard two‑tier scheme of the credentials art (Telenet '243: the "card number... in combination with financial information supplied by the retail merchant" is openly exchanged, while the authorization data base inquiry is not). The interrogator‑ID field is Pitney Bowes' manifest field set. Thus every element is accounted for; the claim's "no more than one fewer than said predetermined number" arithmetic is a design choice in a field of fixed‑length records, which the patent itself concedes ("a fixed length record (e.g., twenty five bytes)... so that a predetermined number... can be written").

Ground 5 — Claim 14 obvious over Johnsen '684 + Pitney Bowes '842 + Brals '990

Claim 14 is a method claim whose steps map one‑to‑one: (a) attach a tag with a one‑time actuable binary element whose state is irreversibly altered on removal → Johnsen '684's conductive loop; (b) write the record set from a station → '842; (c) store a trace record with a tamper bit → Johnsen '684's detachment detection + '842's transaction write; (d) repeat until capacity or end‑user delivery → '842's station‑to‑station cycle + Brals' delivery/loading‑point collation. The "tamper bit in each trace record" is the straightforward logging of an already‑sensed binary condition — combining a known sensor output with a known datalogger is the paradigm of a predictable combination.

Ground 6 — Claim 19 obvious over Telenet '243 + Brals '990 + Johnsen '684 (claim 20: + the public switched telephone network)

Claim 19 requires a covert and an overt record, a local computer, transmission to a remote location holding a concordance table of covert records each uniquely paired with an overt record, and a validity finding only if both match.

• Telenet '243 is the closest single reference: a local terminal reads an identifier and the host computer — remote, and expressly reaching "any of a number of institutionalized or private label credit/debit card data bases" — determines acceptance. A table of valid identifiers paired with an accompanying record is exactly what a verification data base is.
• Brals '990 supplies the collation‑against‑expected‑record operation and the alarm/no‑go on mismatch, in the aircraft context.
• Johnsen '684 supplies the tag substrate and the tamper detection.

Motivation. The specification states the result — a purchaser "can place a telephone call to the manufacturer and inquire if the covert and overt codes... match those in the concordance table" — which is precisely the remote‑host verification transaction of Telenet '243, merely re‑hosted on a tag instead of a magnetic‑stripe card. Nothing in claim 19 requires more than the known host‑database architecture applied to a known tag carrier. Claim 20's PSTN limitation is explicitly anticipated as an architecture by '243's terminal‑to‑host network and is, at the 1994 date, the definitional routine expedient (In re Venner).

Dependent claims

Secondary considerations and the weakest links

• Secondary considerations appear unavailable. The prior sections record an individual, non‑practicing owner and no assertion history; there is no evidence of record of commercial success, licensing, or copying tied to the claimed combination rather than to EAS tagging generally. A nexus argument would be required and the record supplies none.
• Where this invalidity theory is weakest — be candid. (1) I have verified the disclosure content of only five of the ten face‑cited references (Telenet '243, Honeywell '375, Pitney Bowes '842, Johnsen '684, Brals '990); the characterizations of Kellogg '344 and Bezos '321 above rest on the patentee's own admissions in the specification, and Nippondenso '052/'968 and Sensormatic '263 are supported by title/bibliographic data only. (2) The strongest single‑reference attack is on claim 14, because Johnsen '684's conductive loop is so close to "one‑time actuable binary electric element"; the strongest combination is on claim 1; claim 19's two‑record coincidence test is the most vulnerable to a "why would you require both to match" obviousness‑in‑hindsight objection, and should be supported by Telenet '243's paired card/host relationship rather than by conclusory reasoning. (3) The internal‑consistency caveat: the examiner had all ten of these references before him and still allowed the claims in 1995 — so the theory must explain what the examiner is said to have missed, e.g., that the record set + bounded‑access counter + write‑once memory combination was never assessed as a combination, only element‑by‑element.
• Contradictions to flag: none between this analysis and the prior sections. The prior sections list the invention's independent claims as 1, 6, 11, 14, 19, which matches the claim text on this page. The only tension is the date discrepancy noted at the top (2026‑04‑26 vs. 2026‑09‑29).

Bottom line. Every limitation of independent claims 1, 6, 11 and 14 is disclosed across the face‑cited references, with motivations supplied by (i) the patent's own admitted gap in the tag art, (ii) the known PIN/attempt‑limit convention from the payment‑card art, and (iii) the shared article‑authentication problem of the parcel and baggage references. The most defensible single ground is claim 1 over Telenet '243 + Honeywell '375 + Pitney Bowes '842 (+ Vinding '424); the most likely to survive is claim 19, which should be attacked via Telenet '243's host‑database architecture rather than by generic "remote verification was known" reasoning.