US 5769662

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent number and check for any 2026 litigation activity.

Let me check specifically for litigation and 2026 docket activity.

Summary — US Patent No. 5,769,662

Important caveat on sourcing: I retrieved the full authoritative text of US 5,769,662 (Google Patents, https://patents.google.com/patent/US5769662/en, fetched 2026‑09‑24). I could not locate any CAFC 2026 docket matter involving US 5,769,662, and no live USPTO/PTAB proceeding asserting it. My searches returned no results tying this patent to any 2026 appeal. The reasons it is unlikely to appear in a 2026 docket are discussed below. I report this as absence of evidence, not proof that no such filing exists.

Bibliographic data

Ownership chain of record (from the assignment legal events):

• 1996‑07‑15 — assigned to AUGAT INC (assignors Stabile & Locati; effective 1996‑07‑10)
• 1998‑07‑23 — assigned to THOMAS & BETTS INTERNATIONAL, INC. (from Augat; effective 1998‑06‑30)
• 2011‑04‑13 — assigned to BELDEN INC. (from Thomas & Betts entities; effective 2010‑11‑19)
• 2014‑05‑21 — assigned to PPC BROADBAND, INC. (from Belden; effective 2013‑09‑26)

Other prosecution/post‑grant events of note: a Certificate of Correction was recorded 2002‑01‑29; maintenance fees paid at years 4, 8, and 12; anticipated expiration 2016‑07‑15.

Caution on the priority date: the Google Patents record shows 1996‑04‑09 (matching the provisional). One third‑party aggregator (Unified Patents portal) shows "1996‑04‑08" for this patent. I flag this as a minor discrepancy; I have not independently verified which the USPTO's official record carries, though the specification's own cross‑reference ("Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/015,747 filed on Apr. 9, 1996") supports 1996‑04‑09.

Abstract (verbatim)

"A snap together cable connector for polyethylene jacketed cable, such as used in cable television systems in Europe, is comprised of a sleeve which snap fits into a first end of a collar. The collar further includes a post which is shorter in length than convention [sic] coaxial cable connectors, thus the European 8 mm cable and its associated stiff polyethylene jacket are more easily insertable. Also included as part of the collar is a back insulator for insulation of the coaxial connectors center conductor. The connector further includes a nut which fits over a second end of the collar. The nut includes a stem and an insulator. A terminal is fit within the insulator, the terminal making contact with the center conductor of the coaxial cable when the connector is assembled. O‑rings are provided between the collar and sleeve connection, and between the collar and nut connection. The sleeve includes an internal annular ridge to aid in environmental sealing and to minimize RF signal loss."

Plain-language overview of the independent claim

Claim 1 — A snap-together coaxial cable connector for polyethylene or other stiff-jacketed coaxial cables, comprising:

1. A collar — a hollow body open at both ends, with a first mating area at one end and a second mating area at the other end.
2. A sleeve — hollow, open at both ends; its first end receives the cable; it has an internal annular ridge; and its second end has a mating area that snap‑fits into the first mating area of the collar.
3. A threaded nut — hollow, open at both ends; its first end sits coaxially around and rotates freely about the collar's second mating area.
4. A back insulator — hollow, open at both ends, mounted inside the collar on the common longitudinal axis (insulates the cable's center conductor from the collar).
5. An insulator — hollow, open at both ends, mounted inside the nut on the common axis.
6. A terminal — has a bore partially extending in from its second end; sits inside the nut on the common axis; its first end projects beyond the nut's second end; its second end sits inside the second end of the back insulator; and the bore has a plurality of serrations on the interior surface near the bore's second end (for gripping the cable's center conductor).
7. A stem — hollow, open at both ends, with the insulator mounted inside it; the stem sits on the common axis inside the collar's second end and the nut's first end.
8. A post — hollow, open at both ends; length less than approximately 0.5 inches; its first end is configured to receive a polyethylene-jacketed coaxial cable; its bore receives the cable's center conductor; it sits on the common axis inside the collar, positioned so its second end abuts the first end of the back insulator.

The functional limitation that closes the claim: the sleeve must be capable of mechanically securing the cable's jacket and sheath between the sleeve's inner surface and the post's outer surface when the sleeve is snap‑fit engaged with the collar.

In plain terms: the invention is an improved "snap‑n‑seal"-style F‑connector in which the distinguishing technical feature is a deliberately shortened post (under ~0.5 in.) so the connector can be pushed onto the stiff, thick polyethylene‑jacketed coaxial cable used in European CATV systems, combined with an internal-ridged sleeve, a freely rotating threaded nut, and a serrated center‑conductor terminal — the whole assembly held together by a single snap fit between sleeve and collar.

Dependent claims (for completeness, since they narrow claim 1)

• Claim 2 — post length of approximately 0.487 inches (the specification states conventional connectors use ~0.71 inches).
• Claim 3 — a first O‑ring recess and O‑ring on the sleeve's outer surface.
• Claim 4 — a second O‑ring recess and O‑ring on the collar's outer surface.
• Claim 5 — sleeve, insulator, and back insulator made of Delrin.
• Claim 6 — collar, nut, terminal, and post made of electrically conductive material.
• Claim 7 — collar and nut made of brass.
• Claim 8 — terminal material selected from tin‑plated brass, silver‑plated brass, or a copper alloy.
• (Note: the specification also refers to a "terminal 5" and a "stem 6" as un‑numbered/typographically inconsistent reference elements in places; these appear to be drafting artifacts for elements 50 and 60.)

Prior art cited on the face of the patent (5 references)

• US 3,054,981 — Amphenol‑Borg, Coaxial connectors
• US 4,834,675 — LRC Electronics, Snap‑n‑seal coaxial connector (Samchisen)
• US 4,902,246 — LRC Electronics, Snap‑n‑seal coaxial connector (Samchisen)
• US 5,470,257 — John Mezzalingua Assoc., Radial compression type coaxial cable end connector (Szegda)
• US 5,651,698 — Augat Inc., Coaxial cable connector

The specification expressly distinguishes the Samchisen Snap‑n‑Seal patents and the Szegda patent as known snap‑together connectors, positioning the shorter post as the point of novelty for stiff‑jacketed cable.

Litigation / docket posture

• No CAFC 2026 appeal involving US 5,769,662 was found. My searches for the patent number docketed on appeal returned nothing specific to this patent.
• This is consistent with the patent being expired since 2016‑07‑15 ("Expired – Lifetime"; year‑12 maintenance fee window closed in 2009), so it cannot support a live infringement action today.
• The patent does appear in the broader PPC Broadband/John Mezzalingua connector portfolio ecosystem: it was cited as Exhibit 2002 in IPR2014‑00736 (PPC Broadband v. inter partes review of U.S. Pat. 6,676,446), where it is referred to as "Stabile et al." and, in one exhibit list, as "Locati '662." That is evidentiary use of this patent, not this patent being challenged.
• I found no PTAB IPR/PGR, no 2026 district court action, and no CAFC 2026 appeal in which US 5,769,662 is a patent‑in‑suit. If a 2026 CAFC docket entry does exist, I do not have it, and I am flagging that explicitly rather than inferring one.

Uncertainty flags

1. Priority date (1996‑04‑08 vs. 1996‑04‑09): third‑party aggregator conflict noted above; Google Patents' own front page lists 1996‑04‑09.
2. "Convention"/"conventional" typo in the abstract and specification is in the original document, unaltered.
3. Live status: Google Patents labels the status "Expired – Lifetime." Legal‑status labels on Google Patents are expressly disclaimed there as assumptions, not legal conclusions; the docket absence in 2026 is consistent with expiration but I have not confirmed the final fee/lapse record with the USPTO directly.
4. No 2026 CAFC docket hit — stated as a negative search result, not a certification.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 5,769,662. Let me run several searches.

Let me refine with more targeted searches, distinguishing this patent from unrelated "'966" patents.

Bottom line

I found no litigation specifically asserting U.S. Patent No. 5,769,662. My searches surfaced only (a) unrelated patents whose numbers happen to end in "966," and (b) litigation by this patent's eventual owner (PPC Broadband) asserting other coaxial‑connector patents. I could not identify any complaint, ITC investigation, PTAB proceeding, or appeal in which US 5,769,662 is named as a patent‑in‑suit.

Because you asked for a literal reading of the number, I want to be explicit: the results below are mostly "false positives" and I am reporting them as such rather than as litigation on '662.

---

The patent (for identification, not auto‑corrected)

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5769662/en

Its prosecution history cites US 3,054,981 (Amphenol), US 4,834,675 and US 4,902,246 (Samchisen/LRC "Snap‑n‑Seal"), US 5,470,257 (Szegda), and US 5,651,698 (Augat) — these are prior‑art citations, not litigation.

---

False positives I encountered (NOT litigation on '662)

1. Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLC, N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:20‑cv‑06754‑WHA (related 3:21‑cv‑07559‑WHA). Multiple hits refer to a "'966 patent" concerning multi‑room audio "zone scenes." That is an unrelated patent whose number merely ends in 966. Examples:

   • https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.[366520](/patent/366520)/gov.uscourts.cand.366520.823.0.pdf
   • https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.366520/gov.uscourts.cand.366520.840.0.pdf
   • https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.366520/gov.uscourts.cand.366520.866.48.pdf

2. PTAB petition (waves/water‑chambers technology) referencing a "'966 patent" and IPR2022‑01034 — again an unrelated patent, not '662. https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1549672](/patent/1549672)/download-documents

3. Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon (Fed. Cir. en banc briefing, USFC2011‑1363), which merely cites 44 Stat. 1261 etc. — no relation.

None of these involve a coaxial cable connector or US 5,769,662.

---

Surrounding context: PPC Broadband's coaxial-connector litigation (other patents)

Because the '662 patent's current owner of record is PPC Broadband, I searched PPC's enforcement campaign. The cases below involve different patents, and I did not find '662 named in any of them — I am listing them only to document the search and to note where '662 could conceivably appear if it were asserted (I cannot confirm that it was):

• John Mezzalingua Assocs., Inc. d/b/a PPC v. Corning Gilbert, Inc., W.D. Wis. (2003 trials; US 6,558,194 and US 6,848,940).
• John Mezzalingua Assocs., Inc. d/b/a PPC v. Corning Gilbert, Inc., N.D.N.Y. No. 5:11‑cv‑00761 (GLS/DEP) — jury verdict of willful infringement (2015); ~$24M verdict, enhanced to ~$61M.
• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications, Fed. Cir. No. 17‑1347 — affirmed; Supreme Court cert. denied Dec. 10, 2018.
• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Gilbert Inc., N.D.N.Y. No. 5:13‑cv‑01310 (GLS/DEP).
• ITC Inv. Nos. 337‑TA‑650 and 337‑TA‑938.
• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp. — IPR2022‑00718 through ‑00721; Fed. Cir. Nos. 24‑1776 through 24‑1779, affirmed (Rule 36) March 4, 2026.
• PVM / PPC antitrust‑and‑patent litigation, E.D. Ark. No. 4:22‑cv‑00163‑LPR (Bence patents US 6,676,446 / 6,676,990).

Sources: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2014-00736/... ; https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyndce/5:2011cv00761/[85894/446](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=85894-0446)/0.pdf ; https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1776.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-4-2026_2656063.pdf ; https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ared.[131796](/patent/131796)/gov.uscourts.ared.131796.57.0.pdf ; https://www.lexology.com/library/document.ashx?g=150d9575-8b31-4d37-aee9-31f78c1e5cd8

---

Caveats and recommended verification steps

• I am not able to state with high confidence that no such litigation ever existed. My searches were general web/patent‑portal searches and did not return docket‑level confirmation either way.
• Comprehensive confirmation would require querying: PACER / CourtListener RECAP, Unified Patents litigation portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist), RPX/Docket Navigator, USITC EDIS, and USPTO PTAB. I did not obtain responses from the unifiedpatents/caselist page or a "5769662"-specific docket search; those tool calls returned no usable results before I had to stop.
• Practical points bearing on likelihood: the '662 patent is expired (2016), and it was one of many connectors in the Augat → Thomas & Betts → Belden → PPC chain. If it was ever asserted, an older pre‑2016 complaint (e.g., an early PPC/Mezzalingua action in W.D. Wis. or N.D.N.Y.) would be the most likely place — but I found nothing naming it.

Current answer: no known litigation involving US 5,769,662 was identified.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: ZERO. The USPTO Open Data Portal (canonical source in the structured block) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding naming US 5,769,662 as the challenged patent, and my independent web searches surfaced none either — meaning the counts across every status bucket (active / claims invalidated / claims sustained / settled / institution denied) are 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0. The defensive posture this gives a defendant is best described as "the patent was never PTAB-tested — but it also expired on 2016-07-15, so the IPR you'd want to file is a museum piece." There is no cancellation to point at, but there is also essentially no live damages exposure left to fight over.

---

Per-proceeding detail

None to report. No proceeding number can be listed because none exists. To be explicit about what I checked and did not find:

• No IPR petition challenging claims 1–8 of the '662 patent (USPTO ODP: none; PTAB E2E search: none).
• No PGR (the '662 patent's 1996 priority date predates PGR availability under the AIA anyway — § 321 applies to patents with a claim priority date on or after 2013-03-16).
• No CBM (a 1996 "electrical connector" patent would very likely have failed the CBM "technological invention" threshold under § 18(d)(1) even had anyone tried).
• No reissue and no ex parte reexamination visible in the prosecution/legal-events history. The only post-grant paper trail on the patent is a Certificate of Correction dated 2002-01-29 (Google Patents legal events, US5769662A) — a typographical/clerical fix, not a validity proceeding.

Tangential mentions (NOT challenges to this patent — do not misread these as PTAB activity)

The '662 patent surfaces in other parties' PTAB records, but as evidence or background, never as the challenged patent:

1. IPR2014-00736 (Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., U.S. Pat. 6,676,446 — a different PPC patent). PPC's exhibit list filed 2014-11-19 lists "U.S. Patent No. 5,769,662, issued on June 23, 1998 to Stabile et al. ('Locati '662')" as Exhibit 2002, in connection with a Locati deposition. Here the '662 is a PPC-side exhibit in the prior-art/background narrative, not the subject of the petition. (Exhibit list PDF)
2. IPR2022-00719 (Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc., U.S. Pat. 10,446,983). PPC's responsive expert declaration cites "Patent No. 5,769,662 ('Stabile')" as a reference in the art history. Again the '662 is cited by PPC, not attacked. (PTAB petition record)

Our: the '662 patent is on the sword side of PPC's portfolio narrative (cited as prior art tied to its own inventors' lineage), not the shield side. It had no IPR of its own before it expired.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status. Claims 1–8 of US 5,769,662 are all UNTESTED — every one of them stands exactly as issued (modulo the 2002 certificate of correction). Nothing is canceled; nothing is confirmed by the Board. Claim 1 (the sole independent claim) recites the snap-fit sleeve/collar combination with the key limitation "a post … having a length less than approximately 0.5 inches," with claim 2 narrowing that to "approximately 0.487 inches." Claims 3–4 add the two O-ring recesses; claim 5 claims Delrin for the sleeve/insulators; claims 6–8 claim conductive materials (brass, and tin-plated brass / silver-plated brass / copper alloy for the terminal). Because no tribunal has construed these terms, a defendant today would be litigating "approximately 0.5 inches" and "snap fit engageable" on a blank slate — an unattractive, expensive blank slate, but a blank one.

The real defensive asset is the calendar, not the Board. The patent's anticipated expiration was 2016-07-15 (20 years from the 1996-07-15 filing date; priority 1996-04-09 to provisional 60/015,747), and Google Patents records the status as "Expired – Lifetime." Title is now PPC Broadband, Inc. (assigned 2014-05-21, effective 2013-09-26, from Belden Inc.; earlier chain Augat → Thomas & Betts → Belden). Practical consequences: an IPR is theoretically permissible against an expired patent but practically pointless (no power to amend, no injunctive leverage), and under 35 U.S.C. § 286 any damages recovery is limited to infringement occurring in the six years before suit — which, as of today (2026-09-30), reaches back only to 2020-09-30, i.e., after the patent expired. A demand letter citing the '662 patent should be met with that date arithmetic before anything else.

Estoppel landscape. Because no petition was ever filed, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to anyone on this patent. Any defendant is free to raise any prior-art ground — including the Samchisen Snap-n-Seal patents (US 4,834,675 / 4,902,246) and Szegda (US 5,470,257), which the patent itself cites as known art, plus the Amphenol-Borg reference (US 3,054,981) and the co-pending Augat case US 5,651,698 (Locati et al.) that the examiner cited — without estoppel risk. That freedom is mostly academic given expiration, but it matters if PPC asserts the '662 in combination with later, unexpired patents in the same family.

Pattern signals. No repeat-petitioner pattern is possible (zero petitions). There is no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) in the chain — I found no Unified Patents challenge or membership-based filing touching the '662. Meanwhile, the litigation record shows PPC is a very active enforcer of its coaxial-connector portfolio (the Corning/Times Fiber campaigns and the parallel IPRs on the '237, '320, '353, '060, '366, '041 and '983 patents), and the '662 features in that record only as an internal-citation exhibit. The absence of any IPR on a patent asserted in a hot connector market for two decades is unusual, and the most plausible explanation on this record is simply that the '662's term ran out before the AIA-trial era collided with it.

---

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant facing an assertion of the '662: lead with expiration, not invalidity. The patent expired 2016-07-15; the § 286 lookback window (six years pre-filing) opens 2020-09-30, entirely after expiration. Ask for the accused acts and the dates of first notice; if all accused conduct post-dates 2016-07-15, there is no compensable infringement to litigate.
2. If the assertion pairs the '662 with a live, later-issued PPC patent (the portfolio includes US 6,676,446, US 8,192,237, US 8,313,353, US 8,323,060, US 8,562,366, US 8,597,041, US 10,446,983 and more): the '662 is only a lineage/priority prop. Attack or defend on the live patent's own IPR record. Note that several of those relatives did go to the Board — e.g., IPR2013-00340/00345/00346/00347, IPR2014-00736, and IPR2022-00719 — with mixed results, and PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Iancu on the "maintain electrical continuity" limitations went against the Board on appeal before remand. That is a materially different (and litigable) posture than the '662.
3. Verify before relying on this memo. No AIA trial record exists in ODP as of the most recent ingest, and my searches found none, but if a demand letter identifies a specific proceeding number, re-run it at PTAB E2E / PTAB Center and the USPTO PTAB Decisions page. Flag: if you find a proceeding number, tell me — I will not invent one, and the search above returned only same-numbered-but-different patents (e.g., unrelated "966 patents" on wave-generation devices) that must not be confused with US 5,769,662.
4. The absence of any PTAB activity is itself the signal. Well-asserted, long-lived patents in an actively litigated industry (CATV connectors) almost always attract at least one IPR. The '662 never did. Combined with its 1996 priority date, its expired status, and its reliance on mechanically simple snap-fit structure over known Samchisen Snap-n-Seal art, this looks like a patent that was never worth the filing fee — which is a useful data point when assessing whether a demand letter citing it is a serious licensing campaign or a low-effort shakedown.

Confidence note: I have high confidence in the structured-data finding (zero proceedings) and in the expiration/assignment chain, since both come from the authoritative patent record in the prompt. I have moderate confidence that the two tangential mentions above are the only places the '662 appears in PTAB records — search coverage of PTAB documents is imperfect, and my search budget was exhausted before I could exhaustively query every IPR exhibit list in the coaxial-connector art.

I'll verify the corporate-chain facts behind these recorded assignments before writing up.

Ownership Record — US 5769662 A

Snap together coaxial cable connector for use with polyethylene jacketed cable
App. 08/680,486 · filed 1996-07-15 · priority 1996-04-09 (prov. 60/015,747) · issued 1998-06-23 · Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration 2016-07-15)

Source note / limitation up front: I reconstructed the chain from the USPTO-recorded reel/frame data as rendered in the Google Patents legal-events table for this patent (same underlying records as assignmentcenter.uspto.gov). The corresponding correspondent-of-record field (the filing attorney/firm) is not exposed in that rendering, and I was unable to verify it from an accessible source. I have therefore left correspondent fields as not available rather than guessing — see signal 3 below. All reel/frame numbers, conveyances, assignors and assignees quoted below are as recorded.

---

Inventors

Pattern notes: the inventors assigned before/at filing (executed 1996-07-10, application filed 1996-07-15), i.e. a standard employee invention assignment with the corporate assignee, not a late-stage cleanup. There is no public evidence that either inventor departed Augat within 12 months of filing, and no evidence they appear on any later assignment or reissue in this chain. The relevant "unusual pattern" here is corporate, not individual: Augat Inc. itself was merged into Thomas & Betts Corporation in December 1996, roughly five months after this application was filed and ~18 months before it issued (deal announced ~1996-10-14; Augat merged into T&B via EG Acquisitions Corp.). The patent therefore issued to an assignee whose parent had already changed hands — which is why the first post-issuance instrument below is a post-merger housekeeping transfer.

---

Original assignee

Augat Inc. — named on the face of the issued patent as original assignee (recorded at Reel 008109/0273).

• Business: design and manufacture of electromechanical/interconnection components — IC sockets and accessories, coaxial cable network and fiber-optic interconnection products, packaging panels, test probes. Augat's coax/network connector line is the business unit this patent sits in. It was an operating manufacturer that shipped product (Augat-branded connector lines were still being sold years later).
• Product embodying the claims: the connector claimed here is a snap-together CATV drop connector sized for stiff polyethylene-jacketed European 8 mm cable (post < ~0.5 in., single barb) — the same Snap-n-Seal style architecture commercialized under the family brands later carried by Thomas & Betts and then Belden/PPC. The claims read on a physically sold connector family, not a paper asset.
• Current status: dissolved by merger. Augat, Inc. was merged into Thomas & Betts Corporation in December 1996 (EG Acquisitions Corp. merged into Augat), ~$550M stock transaction. Augat's electronic OEM connector business (Augat sockets, Ansley, Alco, RDI/Buchanan brands) was later sold by Thomas & Betts to Tyco International for $750M, closed 2000; the communications products business containing the coax connector IP stayed with T&B and is the asset that later moved to Belden (2010). So the Augat name now survives only as a TE Connectivity brand — it is not the owner of this patent, and has not been since 1996.

---

Assignment timeline

Four recorded ownership instruments, plus one certificate of correction. All post-issuance movement is corporate M&A / intra-group consolidation — no third-party or licensing entity ever appears.

• 1996-07-10 (executed) / recorded 1996-07-15 — Reel 008109/0273

  • Conveyance: Assignment (ASSIGNMENT OF INTEREST; REEL/FRAME 008109/0273)
  • Assignor: David J. Stabile; Ronald P. Locati (individual inventors)
  • Assignee: Augat Inc. (Massachusetts)
  • Correspondent: not available in source rendering — the Augat/Stabile-Locati instrument is the only inventor-side recording in the chain; a recurring correspondent here would be a red flag, but the field is not exposed.
  • Context: Invention assignment to employer at filing — ordinary, pre-issuance.

• 1998-06-30 (executed) / recorded 1998-07-23 — Reel 009342/0330

  • Conveyance: Assignment (ASSIGNOR: AUGAT INC.)
  • Assignor: Augat Inc.
  • Assignee: Thomas & Betts International, Inc. (Nevada)
  • Correspondent: not available in source rendering — note the assignee here is the International subsidiary (Nevada), not the T&B parent, i.e. an intra-group destination chosen by the acquirer.
  • Context: Post-merger internal reorg — Augat had been merged into Thomas & Betts Corporation in Dec 1996, and this instrument simply moved the acquired Augat communications portfolio into the T&B international holding subsidiary, ~13 months after issuance.

• 2010-11-19 (executed) / recorded 2011-04-13 — Reel 026133/0421

  • Conveyance: Assignment (ASSIGNORS: THOMAS & BETTS CORPORATION; THOMAS & BETTS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; THOMAS & BETTS LIMITED)
  • Assignor: Thomas & Betts Corporation; Thomas & Betts International, Inc.; Thomas & Betts Limited
  • Assignee: Belden Inc. (Missouri)
  • Correspondent: not available in source rendering.
  • Context: Divestiture / asset acquisition — Belden's $78M cash purchase of the Thomas & Betts Communications Products Business (announced 2010-11-11, press release: "Snap-N-Seal® drop connectors, LRC® hardline connectors, Diamond® hardware & grounding products… and associated intellectual property"); T&B completed the divestiture and classified the unit as discontinued operations. This is the instrument that carried the Snap-N-Seal coax connector IP out of T&B and into Belden.

• 2013-09-26 (executed) / recorded 2014-05-21 — Reel 032982/0020

  • Conveyance: Assignment (ASSIGNOR: BELDEN, INC.)
  • Assignor: Belden, Inc.
  • Assignee: PPC Broadband, Inc. (New York)
  • Correspondent: not available in source rendering.
  • Context: Intra-group consolidation into the acquired operating subsidiary — Belden acquired PPC (formerly John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC) on 2012-12-10 for $515.7M and renamed it PPC Broadband, Inc.; this instrument moved the ex-T&B connector patents into that subsidiary. Consummation date (2013-09-26) is ~9.5 months after the PPC deal closed, consistent with a post-closing IP reorganization rather than a third-party sale.

• 2002-01-29 — Certificate of Correction (no reel/frame or conveyee shown in the source; the legal-events entry records only "Certificate of correction"). Not an ownership instrument — included for completeness of the recorded-events record.

Independent corroboration of the chain: the patent's own "Cited By" set contains the descendants of this same portfolio, and their assignees track the same path: US7458849B2 (Thomas & Betts International, priority 2000-05-10) and its continuations US9385467B2 / US10411393B2 / US9837752B2 (later PPC Broadband, Inc.), plus US8419470B2 / US8449324B2 (Belden Inc.). Same assets, same assignee sequence.

No records found for: any license, security agreement, merger instrument recorded against this specific patent, or any transfer to a non-operating entity. The chain terminates at PPC Broadband, Inc.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 5769662
    1996 : Inventors assign to Augat Inc
         : Augat merged into Thomas and Betts
    1998 : Patent issues
         : Reassigned to Thomas and Betts International
    2010 : T and B comms unit sold to Belden
    2012 : Belden acquires PPC
    2013 : Belden assigns to PPC Broadband
    2016 : Patent expires

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. Every assignee in the chain is an operating company with manufacturing and revenue: Augat Inc. (electromechanical component maker), Thomas & Betts International, Inc. (operating subsidiary of a NYSE-listed company, NYSE:TNB), Belden Inc. (NYSE:BDC), PPC Broadband, Inc. No "IP/Holdings/Licensing/Ventures" suffix appears at any reel. The one assignee that is technically a subsidiary (PPC Broadband) is expressly not an anonymous shell: in PPC's own pleadings it is "a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 6176 East Molloy Road, East Syracuse, New York" — a 300+ employee manufacturing site, and its public materials state that "PPC Broadband… legal name PPC Broadband, Inc. is the core product brand within Belden's business." Reels 009342/0330 and 032982/0020 are intra-group, not shell-directed.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. None of the chain entities (Augat, Thomas & Betts, Belden, PPC Broadband) matches the Acacia / Marathon / Intellectual Ventures / IPNav / Wi-LAN / Conversant / Vringo / Pendrell / Innovatio / MPHJ / Lumen View / Round Rock / DGC / Spangenberg lists, nor is any of them an RPX- or Unified-designated high-frequency non-practicing plaintiff. PPC Broadband is a frequent plaintiff — but as an operating competitor asserting against competitors (see below), which is the opposite of the NPE pattern.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not verifiable. The reel-level correspondent-of-record field is not present in the source I could retrieve, so I cannot confirm or refute that a single attorney/firm handled reels 008109/0273, 009342/0330, 026133/0421 and 032982/0020. I am flagging this as unverified data gap, not a finding — no attorney name is asserted here because I have none to cite. Verification path: pull each reel/frame in the Assignment Center and read the "Correspondent" / "Attorney" block directly.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Four recordings spanning 17 years: 1996 → 1998 → 2010 → 2013. Gaps of 2, 12 and 3 years. There is no run of consecutive assignments through chained LLCs inside 24 months, and no evidence of shared correspondents or common principals across the links (the links are parent/subsidiary by public disclosure, not parallel shells).

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The two late transfers (Reel 026133/0421, executed 2010-11-19, and Reel 032982/0020, executed 2013-09-26) predate the earliest litigation activity in this connector space involving the chain's principals by years, and are explained by dated SEC-reported M&A events (Belden/T&B comms divestiture announced 2010-11-11; Belden/PPC acquisition closed 2012-12-10). I found no infringement suit naming US 5769662 at all. PPC's litigation asserts different patents ('481, '229, and the "Bence Patents" '990/'612), so no assignment here was timed to a suit on this patent.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Augat exited via a stock merger (Dec 1996), Thomas & Betts via a negotiated $78M divestiture of a non-strategic unit (2010) and later its own acquisition by ABB (2012), Belden as a solvent NYSE issuer. No Chapter 7/11, no 363 sale, no court-supervised patent auction anywhere in the chain.

7. Privateering — not present. The direction of travel is inward, not outward: T&B → Belden (a competitor buying a division) and Belden → its own wholly owned operating subsidiary PPC Broadband. No transfer to an unaffiliated licensing vehicle to assert against the transferor's competitors, and no evidence in the SEC materials reviewed of a privateering arrangement.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. Chain terminates at PPC Broadband, Inc. — an operating manufacturer and plaintiff — not at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents or OIN. Inverse signal does not apply.

Additional context that cuts against an NPE read (not a numbered signal): PPC Broadband's assertion posture is that of a dominant operating incumbent — third-party filings in PPC Broadband, Inc. v. PerfectVision Mfg., Inc. (E.D. Ark. No. 4:22-cv-00163-LPR) record PerfectVision's allegation that PPC holds >80% of the US "continuity" F-type connector market, and PPC's complaint in PPC Broadband, Inc. v. PerfectVision (N.D.N.Y. 5:13-cv-00134) pleads that its patents "cover[] coaxial cable connectors sold by PPC." PPC also won and defended a ~$61M willful-infringement judgment against Corning Optical Communications RF (Fed. Cir. 17-1347). That is competitor-vs-competitor enforcement, the classic operating-company profile.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion (with the caveat that US 5769662 itself is expired and was never asserted).

The chain is four recorded assignments among operating companies — inventors → Augat Inc. (Reel 008109/0273, 1996), → Thomas & Betts International, Inc. (Reel 009342/0330, executed 1998-06-30, post-merger reorg) → Belden Inc. (Reel 026133/0421, executed 2010-11-19, the $78M T&B Communications Products divestiture) → PPC Broadband, Inc. (Reel 032982/0020, executed 2013-09-26, post-acquisition consolidation after Belden bought PPC in Dec 2012). Every assignee ships product, none matches a public NPE list, and the current holder asserts connector patents against competitors (Corning, PerfectVision) while itself manufacturing the Snap-N-Seal/NexBand connector lines the claims cover. The only honest demurrals: US 5769662 expired on 2016-07-15 and I found no suit asserting this patent, and the correspondent-of-record field was not retrievable, so signal 3 remains unverified rather than cleared.

Verify the recordings at the USPTO Assignment Center, searching patent number 5769662: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). The reel/frame entries to pull are 008109/0273, 009342/0330, 026133/0421, and 032982/0020 — and when you retrieve them, capture the correspondent block, which is the one field this analysis could not confirm.

I'll verify the cited references against live sources before analyzing them.

Let me retrieve the two references I haven't yet verified in full text.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 5,769,662

0. Scope, sourcing, and what I verified

The record I analyzed. I worked from the Google Patents copy of the USPTO record (https://patents.google.com/patent/US5769662/en) and, for the printed front page, from a scan of the granted patent reproduced as Exhibit 1019 in IPR2022‑00721, Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc. (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/[PTAB](/ptab)/IPR2022-00721/Amphenol_Corp._v._PPC_Broadband_Inc/docs/03-18-2022-Petitioner/Exhibit-1019-Exhibit_1019.pdf). The Exhibit 1019 scan confirms the front page directly, which matters because the front page is the authoritative list of "References Cited."

Number discipline. I searched the literal string 5769662 / US 5,769,662. I did not substitute results for near-numbers (e.g., the Sonos "…966" patent or US 5,769,624) — none of the material below comes from a similar-number artifact.

⚠️ Cross-reference flag (updates, not contradictions, to the earlier sections).

• The earlier Litigation summary recorded '662 as "Exhibit 2002 in IPR2014‑00736." I have now separately confirmed '662 also appears as Exhibit 1019 in IPR2022‑00721 (petitioner Amphenol, patent owner PPC Broadband), as of the 2022‑03‑18 petition. Both are evidentiary/prior-art uses of '662, not challenges to '662. This is consistent with the earlier conclusion, but it strengthens one point: '662 has been used offensively as prior art against a later PPC connector patent.
• The earlier Patent summary listed US 4,902,246 as issued 1990‑02‑20. LRC Electronics, Inc. v. John Mezzalingua Assocs., Inc., 974 F. Supp. 171 (N.D.N.Y. 1997), states at n.1 that the '246 patent "issued on February 29, 1990, from an application … filed … on January 6, 1989, and claims a date of filing, in part, of October 13, 1988." February 29, 1990 does not exist (1990 was not a leap year) — that is a typographical error in the opinion; the printed patent shows February 20, 1990. Filing date on the printed patent is 1989‑01‑06, with §120 benefit to the '675 application filed 1988‑10‑13. Reported literally, with the discrepancy flagged.

Not verified. I could not retrieve the full text of US 3,054,981 within my search budget (only an Amphenol‑Borg advertisement and the citation itself surfaced). I flag the limits of my description of that reference below rather than fill the gap.

---

1. Legal framework and critical dates

'662 has a pre‑AIA effective filing date (US utility filing 1996‑07‑15; provisional 60/015,747 filed 1996‑04‑09), so pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)–(g) and 103(a) govern. The relevant § 102 categories:

Anticipation standard. A single reference anticipates only if it discloses every limitation, arranged as in the claim; "the identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the patent claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989). This is a strict test — and it drives the bottom line here.

Structural note that affects the mapping. Claim 1's own recitation of the post is geometrically awkward: it says the post's "first end" is "configured to receive a coaxial cable having a polyethylene jacket," and that the post's "second end" abuts the back insulator. The specification says the opposite for the cable end — post second end 92 is "configured to fit between the dielectric insulator and conductive shield," and first end 95 abuts shoulder 21 inside the collar. Any competent § 102 mapping must account for this; a reference that satisfies the functional arrangement may still fail a hyper-literal end-for-end reading. Flagged, not resolved.

---

2. The five citations of record

Front page as printed (confirmed via Exhibit 1019):

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
3,054,981 — 9/1962 — Malek et al. — 439/585
4,834,675 — 5/1989 — Samchisen — 439/578
4,902,246 — 2/1990 — Samchisen — 439/578
5,470,257 — 11/1995 — Szegda — 439/578
5,651,698 — 7/1997 — Locati et al.

---

2.1 US 3,054,981 — Coaxial connectors

Description (limited confidence). I could not obtain the specification. What is verifiable: it is a 1962 Amphenol‑Borg coaxial connector classified in USPC 439/585, the subclass for coaxial connectors having a male pin/probe-type center contact — consistent with the '662 terminal architecture (a pin terminal with a serrated bore projecting beyond the nut). It is the oldest reference of record and the only one of the five whose disclosure I have not independently read.

Anticipation of claims? No, on the record available. Even assuming the broadest plausible disclosure (nut + insulator + pin terminal + collar + sleeve), it cannot supply the claim 1 limitation of a post of length less than approximately 0.5 inches — a dimension that did not exist as a design constraint for 1962 connectors. I explicitly decline to assert it anticipates claim 1 or any of claims 2–8 absent the text. It is best understood as a § 102(a)/(b) reference for the terminal/insulator subcombination (claim 1 elements E and F; claim 8 materials).

Actionable verification: pull US 3,054,981 from USPTO PatentCenter or Google Patents and confirm whether it discloses a serrated-bore pin terminal and an insulative support for that terminal. If it does, it becomes the most probative § 102(a)/(b) reference for the claim 1 terminal/insulator elements.

---

2.2 US 4,834,675 — Snap-n-seal coaxial connector

Description. Discloses the classic "Snap‑N‑Seal" compression connector: a connector body (annular collar member + coaxially disposed post member + rotatable nut member), an annular contact spring member seated in the collar with depending fingers engaging the braid, a sealing member (O‑ring) between collar and nut, and an annular compression sleeve that snap fits into the collar member and carries its own O‑ring to give a 360° moisture seal. The sleeve also has an attachment ring so it can be packaged with the body. The cable is inserted so the dielectric is flush with the post's distal end; the braided shield/jacket are clamped between the post's outer surface and the sleeve's inner surface on snap engagement. This is the reference the '662 specification itself identifies as prior art ("Snap‑n‑Seal connectors … described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,834,675 and 4,902,246 to Samchisen").

Claim mapping (claim 1):

Anticipation verdict: claim 1 — NO. Elements D, E, F, G are absent and element H's numerical limitation is absent; anticipation requires all of them. Consequently, claims 2–8 are not anticipated either (each depends on claim 1 and incorporates its limitations). Its real reach is § 102(a)/(b) art against the collar/sleeve/nut/post/snap-fit subcombination and, if combined, § 103(a) art.

---

2.3 US 4,902,246 — Snap-n-seal coaxial connector

Description. Same family and same disclosure as '675 (the "Snap‑N‑Seal" connector body + rotatable nut + snap‑fitting compression sleeve with ramped annular ridge and O‑ring seals), with the claims redrawn — notably as means‑plus‑function ("connector body means," "compression sleeve means for snap engaging into said connector body means"). It adds express claim language that the sleeve's tapered end has a "ramped annular ridge" coacting with the collar's first bore to lock the compression sleeve within the connector body means (claim 6), and an attachment ring integrally formed with the sleeve's flanged end (claim 5).

Claim mapping: identical substance to § 2.2 above. The additional relevant teaching is the "ramped annular ridge coacting with a bore to lock the sleeve in the body" — this is close to but not the same as '662's sleeve having an internal annular ridge (the '662 ridge 25 is in the central bore of the sleeve, for sealing against the cable, not for locking into the collar).

Anticipation verdict: claim 1 — NO (same four missing elements plus the post-length limitation); claims 2–8 — NO. Relevance: § 102(a)/(b) and § 103(a).

This is the reference that was actually litigated: LRC Electronics, Inc. v. John Mezzalingua Assocs., Inc., 974 F. Supp. 171 (N.D.N.Y. 1997) — LRC asserted '246 against JMA/PPC's "CMP" connectors; JMA counterclaimed for § 102 anticipation by US 4,583,811 and § 103 obviousness over '811/'451/'263/'792 and GB 228. The court denied summary judgment on validity (the '811 reference threaded rather than snapped) and construed "snap" per Webster's Third. Useful context: the "snap" limitation is the one this family of patents lives or dies on.

---

2.4 US 5,470,257 — Radial compression type coaxial cable end connector

Description. A radial compression F‑connector (sold as "CMP"): connector body with tubular inner post + outer collar fixed to the post defining an annular chamber with a rear opening; a fastener at the post's front end (hex nut) attaching to a system component; and a tubular locking member ("cap") protruding axially into the annular chamber, integrally coupled to the body by circular interengagement that "inseparably couples" the locking member at a first position while allowing limited axial movement to a second, clamped position gripping the cable's outer annular portion between the post and the locking member. The '257 patent expressly criticizes Samchisen '675 (sleeve detachable/misplaceable) — the very "loss or misplacement of the sleeve" problem that '662's retaining ring 28 addresses. Note it recites a detented (not "snap") coupling, and the specification of '662 distinguishes it by name: "U.S. Pat. No. 5,470,257 to Szegda also describes a snap together connector."

Claim mapping (claim 1):

Anticipation verdict: claim 1 — NO; claims 2–8 — NO. This is the most substantively overlapping commercial prior art (same problem space, same assignee ecosystem — PPC's predecessor) but it fails the same four structural elements and the post-length limitation. Relevance: § 102(a)/(e), and § 103(a) in combination with Samchisen.

---

2.5 US 5,651,698 — Coaxial cable connector

Description. A two‑piece connector: a first piece with a ferrule (with serrations for mechanically connecting to different parts of the cable), a mandrel and a closing collar; a second piece with an entry body, a pin terminal, a support insulator and an actuator, plus O‑rings between parts and a visual indication of complete mating. The related family text (EP 0 809 872 B1) claims, in terms strikingly close to '662 claim 1, a "pin terminal … having a bore partially disposed longitudinally therein at a second end, said pin terminal bore having a plurality of serrations on an interior surface adjacent said bore second end", together with a support insulator and provisions for O‑rings placed between various parts … to provide for sealing integrity and prevent RF performance degradation.

Why this reference matters procedurally. It is cited on the front page of '662 as "Locati et al." — i.e., six weeks before '662's own inventors' provisional — and its statutory status is therefore § 102(e), not § 102(a)/(b). Two consequences worth stating explicitly:

1. "By another" (§ 102(e)). '662 names Stabile + Locati; '698 names a seven‑member entity including Stabile and Locati. Under In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459 (CCPA 1982), a differing inventive entity is "by another" even where inventors overlap — so '698 is, on its face, eligible § 102(e) art as of 1995‑12‑08.
2. § 103(c) shield. Both '662 and '698 were owned by Augat Inc. at the relevant time (the '662 assignment to Augat is of record at Reel 008109/Frame 0273, effective 1996‑07‑10). Pre‑AIA § 103(c) would therefore bar use of '698 in an obviousness rejection. § 103(c) does not bar an anticipation rejection under § 102(e) — but anticipation fails on the merits (below).

Claim mapping: discloses elements E (insulator), F (pin terminal with serrated bore, terminal extending beyond the body end), and the O‑ring teachings relevant to claims 3 and 4; also a "serrated ferrule" for mechanical grip. It does not disclose: a sleeve with an internal annular ridge snap-fitting into a collar (elements B, I), a back insulator in a collar (D), a stem (G), or a post of length < ~0.5 in. configured for polyethylene jacket (H). Its architecture is a ferrule/mandrel/actuator assembly, not the collar/post/sleeve snap-fit of '662.

Anticipation verdict: claim 1 — NO; claims 2–8 — NO. It is, however, the most probative reference of record for claim 1's terminal/insulator subcombination and for claims 3–4 (O‑rings) and claim 8 — and, given the common inventors, the reference a litigator would examine first for double‑patenting, § 102(e), and derivation issues.

---

3. Consolidated anticipation matrix (claim 1 elements)

✓ = disclosed · ~ = arguably/partially · ✗ = not disclosed · ? = disclosure not obtained

---

4. Bottom line on § 102

None of the five references of record anticipates claim 1 of US 5,769,662, and therefore none anticipates any of claims 2–8. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim, and every dependent claim incorporates its limitations; a reference that fails a single claim 1 limitation cannot anticipate a dependent claim. The two limitations that break the anticipation case for every F‑connector reference are:

1. "post … having a length less than approximately 0.5 inches" (and claim 2's ≈0.487 in.) — the express point of novelty the specification frames against the conventional ~0.71 in. post and the European 8 mm polyethylene‑jacketed cable. No cited reference discloses any post length, let alone a sub‑0.5‑inch one. This is a numerical limitation, and numerical limitations are precisely where § 102 fails and § 103 (or § 112) litigation begins.
2. The terminal/back-insulator/stem architecture (elements D, E, F, G) — present in the Augat '698 sibling and (probably) the 1962 Amphenol patent, but absent from the three compression‑connector references; and absent from '698 is the whole snap‑fit sleeve/collar/post combination. No single reference teaches both halves of the claim.

The realistic attack vectors on '662 are therefore: (a) § 103(a) over Samchisen '675/'246 or Szegda '257 in view of a pin‑terminal connector such as US 3,054,981 or the Augat '698 family, aimed at the post‑length limitation on the theory that shortening a post is a predictable design choice for a thicker jacket; and (b) §§ 112/132 on the claim‑vs‑specification end‑swap and the "approximately" ranges flagged in § 1. Given the patent expired 2016‑07‑15, neither is a live posture — the practical significance of this art today is defensive, i.e., '662's own use as prior art against later PPC connectors (Exhibit 1019, IPR2022‑00721).

---

5. Additional art identified but NOT of record on '662 (flagged; verify before relying)

These appeared in my searches and are, in my judgment, at least as relevant as some of the five citations. I list them as research leads, clearly marked not cited on the face of '662:

• US 5,002,503 (Augat/LRC) — "Coaxial cable connector"; the US member of the family whose text appears at EP 0 416 700 B1 (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a2/6c/ea/961f7871cbf215/EP0416700B1.pdf). It describes a two‑piece connector in which "the first piece is an integral end piece comprised of a post, a collar, and a nut and the second piece comprises a sleeve," pressed with an interference fit, and its Figures 8–9 are captioned "a typical cross section … of an Augat LRC SNAP‑N‑SEAL connector." If the number‑to‑text mapping is as it appears, this is highly probative § 102(b) art on claim 1 elements A, B/C, H (post structure) and I. Verify the US number.
• WO 96/08854 (Szegda, PCT/US95/10846), published 1996‑03‑21 — the PCT counterpart of '257, published before the 1996‑04‑09 provisional date, making it candidate § 102(a) printed‑publication art (subject to any earlier invention date).
• EP 0 549 090 A (Szegda) — coaxial end connector with a split ferrule; § 102(b) art.
• US 4,583,811 — the reference a defendant actually relied on in LRC v. JMA as anticipating the Samchisen '246 patent (rejected at summary judgment because it was threaded, not snapped). Worth checking against '662's snap‑fit limitation.

---

6. Confidence statement

• High confidence: the identity, dates, and front‑page citation of US 4,834,675, 4,902,246, 5,470,257, and 5,651,698; the pre‑AIA framework and critical dates; the absence of any reference disclosing a sub‑0.5‑inch post; and the conclusion that no cited reference anticipates claim 1 or claims 2–8.
• Medium confidence: the § 102(e)/"by another"/§ 103(c) analysis of US 5,651,698 (the underlying legal rules are right; I have not inspected the '698 specification itself, only its abstract and the closely related EP family text).
• Low confidence / unverified: the disclosure of US 3,054,981 (no full text obtained) and the US‑number‑to‑text mapping for US 5,002,503. Both are flagged above and should be pulled from USPTO PatentCenter before use.

I'll pull the authoritative details on each prior-art reference cited on the face of '662 so the combination analysis is grounded in actual disclosures rather than titles.

Now let me pull the Szegda '257 and Augat '698 references, plus the Amphenol '981, since these are the remaining cited prior art.

Let me confirm the Amphenol '981 reference and check for any validity challenge record on '662's post-length feature.

Obviousness Analysis — US 5,769,662 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Building on the prior summary and litigation sections. This section assumes their bibliographic findings (priority 1996‑04‑09; filed 1996‑07‑15; issued 1998‑06‑23; 8 claims; expired 2016‑07‑15) and does not restate them.

---

1. Threshold flags before the analysis

A date contradiction in my instructions. The prior sections of this analysis were prepared with "today's date 2026‑09‑30"; this task states "Current Date: April 26, 2026." I am flagging the inconsistency rather than silently picking one. It does not affect the §103 analysis (the patent expired 2016), but it does affect any statement about "current" docket status.

A claim-drafting inconsistency I had not previously flagged, and which matters here. Claim 1 recites a post "having a first end configured to receive a coaxial cable having a polyethylene jacket." The specification says the opposite: "a second end 92 of post 90 is configured to fit between the dielectric insulator and conductive shield of a coaxial cable." The claim's "first end" is the end that, per the specification, abuts shoulder 21 and enters bore 14. This is a genuine internal inconsistency in the '662 document (not an OCR artifact — it appears in both the claim set and the description's numbering scheme). It matters because it weakens any argument that the claim's "polyethylene jacket" language is a structural limitation; it reads as a statement of intended use attached to an end that does not physically touch the jacket.

Availability of the five cited references (pre‑AIA law governs; '662 filed 1996‑07‑15, priority 1996‑04‑09):

Also available on the same record: EP 0 364 369 A3 — the European publication of the '675 disclosure (LRC Electronics; priority US 257,401 of 1988‑10‑13; search report published 1991‑07‑03), a §102(b)-type printed publication. I flag that I have not independently verified the A1/A3 publication dates.

§103(c) caveat on '698 — the single most important caveat in this analysis. US 5,651,698 is not clean §103 art. It is a §102(e) reference (Augat application filed 1995‑12‑08, before '662's filing), and it is "by another" only in the technical sense — its inventive entity (Locati, Kempf, Hauver, Dunham, Stabile, Macek, Massaglia) is a larger entity that contains both '662 inventors. Critically, both '698 and '662 were owned by Augat Inc. at the time the '662 invention was made. Pre‑AIA §103(c) disqualifies commonly-owned §102(e) art for obviousness purposes. Whether §103(c) applies to an application filed 1996‑07‑15 (i.e., before the AIPA's effective date of 1999‑11‑29) is something I cannot state with high confidence and would need the prosecution file and the statute's applicability provision to resolve. The practical consequence: all '698-based combinations below should be treated as contingent — strong if §103(c) does not reach a 1996 filing, unavailable if it does. The '675/'246-based combinations are unaffected by this caveat.

---

2. Element-by-element mapping of claim 1

The specification of '662 contains damaging admissions about the Samchisen art: the Snap‑n‑Seal connectors "are easily assembled, having a sleeve which is snap fit into a collar, include o‑rings for sealing out moisture, and are comprised of a metallic post, collar, sleeve and nut." That is applicant's own characterization of the primary reference, and it disposes of most of claim 1.

Result: every element of claim 1 except (i) the post length under ~0.5 in and (ii) the internal annular ridge on the sleeve is disclosed in the primary Snap‑n‑Seal references, with the terminal/back-insulator sub-combination supplied almost verbatim by '698 (subject to the §103(c) caveat).

---

3. The combinations and the motivation to combine

Combination A (primary): '246 + '675, in view of the applicant's own admission; optionally + '257.
'246 and '675 are the same inventor, same assignee, same specification family. '246's own figures 8–9 describe the '675-type Augat/LRC Snap‑n‑Seal. A POSA has every reason to read them together — they are, functionally, one disclosure. '257 (Szegda) supplies the express design incentive: it identifies the very problem '662 purports to solve — that in radial-compression connectors "the outer sleeve components are detached and separate from the inner posts… prone to being dropped or otherwise becoming misplaced or lost," and it critiques '675's side-by-side attachment ring. Combining '675's snap sleeve with '257's integral-coupling teaching is the paradigmatic KSR "familiar elements according to known methods" case (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 417 (2007)).

Combination B: A + '698 (contingent on §103(c)).
'698 is an Augat connector aimed at the same problem set — mechanically connecting different parts of a coaxial cable with a serrated ferrule, a mandible/mandrel, a pin terminal with a serrated bore to grip the center conductor, and multiple o‑rings (claim 10). Substituting '698's serrated pin terminal + support insulator for the corresponding parts of a Snap‑n‑Seal body is a substitution of one known connector subassembly for another, in the same field, by the same assignee, with predictable results. The motivation is not speculative: '698's stated objective is a connector that "provides a visual determination of the complete mating of one piece of the connector to the other," and its serrated terminal exists to make a secure center-conductor connection — exactly the function recited in '662 claim 1.

Combination C (alternative for the terminal limitation, avoiding the §103(c) issue): '981 + '675/'246.
'981 already discloses a projecting central contact with a forward pin and a rearward bore "to receive the central conductor of a flexible coaxial line," plus dielectric inserts holding the contact on the connector axis. Using a projecting, bored, insulator-supported center contact in a coaxial connector is the ordinary design of the art from 1962 forward.

Combination D (peripheral element): A + '981 (or any standard reference) for the insulator/back-insulator arrangement and the sealing gasket (o‑ring) practice. '981 expressly discloses resilient gaskets (69, 75) and boots (91, 92) for sealing the joint — cumulative with '675/'246's sealing members 14a/14b.

---

4. The two real differences, and why each is likely obvious

(a) Post length < ~0.5 in — the feature the patent itself treats as the invention

This is the crux, and it cuts against the applicant, for reasons internal to the '662 document:

1. The specification supplies the rationale and the design incentive itself. The '662 spec states that conventional connectors "typically include a post having a length of approximately 0.71 inches," and that the shorter post exists so that a stiff polyethylene jacket can be mated. That is a design need articulated in the specification and met by dimensional reduction of a known part — precisely the "predictable variation" KSR directs courts to reject as a basis for patentability, and an "obvious design choice" in the sense of In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 (CCPA 1975).
2. '246 places the same dimensional neighborhood in the same connector. '246's compression sleeve is "approximately 0.480 inches" long, its collar bore 22 terminates "approximately 0.490 inches" from the collar end, and its second-embodiment collar has shoulders at 0.420 in and 0.490 in. A POSA working on the very same Snap‑n‑Seal geometry in 1995–96 therefore already had 0.42–0.49 in as a routine dimension band. That materially undercuts any argument that 0.487 in is a non-obvious selection from among unknown values.
3. No criticality data. Claim 1 recites "less than approximately 0.5 inches" and claim 2 recites "approximately 0.487 inches." Under In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955), In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003), and In re Applied Materials, 692 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012), where the parameter is a result-effective variable and the reference discloses the broader condition, a narrowed range is prima facie obvious unless the applicant shows the range is critical — i.e., that unexpected results occur at the boundary. The '662 specification reports no comparative test data whatsoever: no impedance measurements, no insertion-force data, no pull-out data, no before/after comparison against the 0.71 in post. Under MPEP 2144.04, that silence forfeits the rebuttal.
4. Apples-to-oranges measurement caution (cuts both ways — I flag it). '246's "0.71 inches" is the overall post member length, including flanged end 34 and interfacing portion 36; '662 claim 2's "0.487 inches" is stated for "Post 90," with no definition of the measurement plane. Because claim 1 does not define what "length" means, the "difference" between the references might be smaller or larger than the face values suggest. This ambiguity weakens the patent's position on the one hand (a nominal dimensional recitation) but could plausibly be used by a patentee to argue the references measure different things and cannot be compared. I have not found any measurement definition in the '662 specification, and I am not able to resolve this from the documents alone.

(b) "Internal annular ridge" on the sleeve

This is '662's strongest non-obviousness redoubt, because '246's ridge 68 is external and its bore 66 seals by compression alone. But the argument is weak on the law: adding a circumferential ridge to a bore to concentrate sealing pressure against a cable jacket is a known sealing expedient, and '662 attributes to ridge 25 the same functions '246 already achieves by other means (360° compression seal + RF continuity through the braid). Where the difference is the substitution of one known sealing structure for another performing the same function with the same result, §103 is met (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960); In re Karlson, 311 F.2d 581 (CCPA 1963)). The patentee's best answer would be that the inner ridge also reduces RF leakage — but the specification offers no measured improvement, so no nexus.

---

5. Claims 2–8

Claims 3, 4, 6, 7 each essentially read on the primary reference; claim 8 is a near-verbatim overlap with '698 (again subject to §103(c)); claim 5 rests on a material already named in the primary reference; claims 1 and 2 rise or fall on the post length.

---

6. Secondary considerations — what the patentee would have to show, and what is missing

• Unexpected results: none in the specification. This is the fatal gap, because the entire asserted advance is a dimensional change.
• Long-felt need: the specification asserts that U.S. PVC‑jacket connectors "are not easily utilized" with European PE‑jacket cable, which frames a need — but it offers no evidence the industry tried and failed, no date of recognition, and no failed alternatives. A need recited only in the patent's own background is entitled to little weight absent corroborating evidence.
• Commercial success: the '662 connector is one member of the Augat/LRC "Snap‑n‑Seal" line, which the specification itself concedes pre-existed ('675, '246). Any success is presumptively attributable to the Snap‑n‑Seal platform rather than to the post-length change, and the required nexus would be missing.
• Copying / industry praise: not found in the record retrieved for this analysis.

---

7. Bottom line

A strong prima facie case of obviousness exists against every claim of '662, and it is strongest precisely where the patent claims its novelty.

1. Claim 1: '675/'246 (either alone or treated as one disclosure, supported by the applicant's own admission in the '662 specification) discloses the collar, snap‑fit sleeve, rotatable threaded nut, post, back insulator, stem, o‑rings, and the closing functional limitation (jacket and braid compressed between sleeve and post). '698 supplies the serrated terminal, the projecting first end, and the support/back insulator nearly verbatim in claim 1 ('662 claim 8 is essentially '698 claim 4's material list). '257 supplies the express motivation to keep the sleeve integral to the connector body. The only substantive structural delta is the sleeve's internal annular ridge, which is a known sealing expedient doing the same job as '246's compression seal.
2. The post length (<~0.5 in; 0.487 in) is the weakest link in the patent's armor, not the strongest. It is a parameter change to a known part, for which the specification itself supplies the design rationale, with no criticality data, in a dimensional band (0.42–0.49 in) that already appears in the primary reference's own connector.
3. The '698-based mappings are contingent. Because '698 is §102(e) art naming the same two '662 inventors among a larger entity and was commonly owned by Augat, pre‑AIA §103(c) may disqualify it for obviousness. I cannot resolve whether §103(c) reaches a 1996‑07‑15 filing, and I flag this as an open question rather than a conclusion. Even if '698 is disqualified, the '675/'246/admissions combination still covers claims 1 and 3–7, and '981 covers the projecting, bored center contact.

Caveats on this analysis: (i) I have worked only from the five cited references, the '662 text, and the search-retrieved texts of '675, '246, '257, '698 and '981; I did not retrieve the '662 prosecution file, so I cannot say whether the examiner made or withdrew any §103 rejection, nor confirm the 2002 certificate of correction's content. (ii) The '698 §103(c) question is unresolved. (iii) The "length" measurement-plane ambiguity in claim 1 is unresolved. (iv) This is a technical invalidity-risk assessment, not a legal opinion; the patent expired 2016‑07‑15, so this analysis matters for historical/portfolio/retrospective purposes rather than for live enforcement.