US 5862404

I'll search for the specific patent number and any current litigation/docket activity.

Let me run a couple more targeted checks on litigation/PTAB and the assignee record.

Summary — U.S. Patent No. 5,862,404

Important caveats first (per your strict rules): I do not have direct, authenticated API access to the USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR system or to the CAFC docket. My results come from web search plus the authoritative full patent text you supplied. Nothing I found contradicts the text you provided. Where I could not verify something authoritatively, I flag it explicitly below.

---

Bibliographic data (from the supplied patent text and Google Patents record)

Family members (priority 1997-02-12): EP0859309B1 (titled "System and Method of administering work group printers"), DE69823078T2, CN1126045C, JP2903015B2 ("Peripheral device with status monitor function").

---

Abstract (as granted)

"In a networked system having workstations, file servers and intelligent peripheral devices, the intelligent peripheral devices are capable of determining information concerning their device status and communicating the device status information via a communications line. The file server obtains the device status information from the peripheral device and stores this information as a file readable by the workstations."

---

Plain-language overview of each independent claim

There are three independent claims: 1, 13, and 15 (the remainder — 2–12, 14, 16–20 — depend from them).

Claim 1 — Network system (apparatus).
A computer network system comprising: (a) a first general-purpose computer with a (typo in original: "no-volatile") memory and software that stores device status information in a first device status file; (b) a first "intelligent peripheral device" coupled to that computer over the network, running software that periodically determines its own current status and pushes that status over the network to the first computer for storage in the status file; and (c) multiple workstations on the network running software that requests, receives, and displays the status information from that file. The key limitation is the final clause: the peripheral's status-reporting software operates independently of the plurality of workstations — i.e., the peripheral pushes updates on its own schedule, rather than the workstations polling the peripheral. Result: device status is delivered efficiently and workstations don't burden the peripheral.

Claim 13 — Control unit (apparatus).
A control unit associated with a hard output device (e.g., a copier engine), comprising: (a) a first communication means to the hard output device, for obtaining its status; (b) a second communication means to a network file server that has non-volatile memory and serves multiple workstations, for relaying status to the server for storage; (c) memory-resident software that, independently of the workstations, periodically polls the hard output device for status and relays it to the server; and (d) memory-resident software that can accept a "device discovery request" and respond to it by periodically polling the device and relaying status to the server. This is the MFP controller box between a copier engine (e.g., SCSI) and the LAN.

Claim 15 — Method.
A method for supplying device status to at least one workstation, split into two phases. First phase (performed independently of the workstation): (a) the intelligent peripheral periodically determines its own status; (b) it communicates that status to a first computer having non-volatile memory; (c) the first computer stores the status in a device status file in that memory. Second phase: the workstation obtains the contents of that file. The two-phase, workstation-independent structure is the core inventive concept.

Notable dependent-claim refinements worth flagging:

• Claim 3: separate status files per peripheral; Claim 4: single shared file (alternative).
• Claim 6: an "upon request for an update made by a network administrator" update path.
• Claim 8/9/16: the status content — unique network address, up/down state, duration down, and whether an administrator has been "notified."
• Claim 10/11: a second computer/second peripheral, with a pointer on the second computer to the first computer's status file.
• Claim 18/19/20: initialization (discovery) steps, plus resident software that warns the administrator against performing discovery (because discovery is burdensome).

---

Litigation / docket check (as requested)

• No CAFC 2026 docket activity for 5,862,404 was found. My searches returned no Federal Circuit appeal, district-court complaint, or PTAB proceeding naming this patent. Searches surfaced only unrelated Toshiba matters (e.g., Wang Labs v. Toshiba, Somaltus v. Toshiba America Information Systems, Patriot Scientific/TPL v. Toshiba, e.Digital v. Toshiba), none of which involve 5,862,404.
• Caveat: I cannot guarantee exhaustiveness of a docket sweep without direct PACER/CourtListener/CAFC query access. Given the patent's legal status "Expired – Lifetime" with anticipated expiration 2017-02-12, significant 2026 litigation is unlikely. Treat the "no docket activity" finding as probable but not authoritatively verified.

---

Accuracy notes / oddities in the document (interpreted literally, not corrected)

• Claim 1 and Claim 13 recite "no-volatile memory" (apparent typo for "non-volatile") — I have reported it as written.
• Claims 10 and 18 each contain two separate "(a)" sub-labels (duplicate designators) — reported as written.
• The specification contains a stray reference to "intelligent peripheral device 365" in the refresh-flow description; the intended element is the peripheral being refreshed.
• The reference to "Lexmark Optra printer" citing bidirectional status capability is a prior-art mention only, not an assignee or inventor reference.
• Assignee discrepancies: The Google Patents "Current Assignee" field lists a single Toshiba America Information Systems Inc entity; the assignment record shows the original assignee as "TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., A CORP. OF CALIFORNIA." No later reassignment is recorded in the material provided.

Confidence: High on all bibliographic fields, the abstract, and claim interpretations (directly sourced from the supplied full text). Medium on the litigation/docket finding (search-based, not a direct USPTO/CAFC database query).

I'll research litigation involving US patent 5862404. Let me search multiple sources.

Let me search dedicated litigation databases and dockets.

Litigation Search: US Patent 5,862,404

Bottom line

I found no litigation involving US Patent 5,862,404 in the sources I was able to search. I could not identify any district court case (PACER), Federal Circuit appeal, ITC action, or PTAB proceeding in which US 5,862,404 was asserted or challenged as the patent at issue.

What the patent is, for identification purposes

To make clear I searched the correct document (not a similar number):

• US 5,862,404 — "Network device discovery and status information distribution using independent information distribution processes"
• Application US 08/799,527, filed 1997-02-12, granted 1999-01-19
• Inventor: Tyson N. Onaga; original assignee Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.
• Foreign family: EP 0859309 (B1), JP 2903015 (B2), CN 1126045 (C), DE 69823078 (T2)
• Status: Expired – Lifetime; anticipated expiration 2017-02-12

Its term ran out on 2017-02-12, which substantially limits the window in which it could have been asserted.

Search steps taken and what they returned

I ran targeted queries against publicly indexed litigation and patent sources (including Google Patents' litigation/citation data, docket-aggregator results surfaced through general search, and Unified Patents/PTAB-related material). Results:

1. No case hits for the number. No docket, complaint, or case caption listed US 5,862,404 as an asserted patent.
2. False positives were abundant and I excluded them explicitly — as instructed, I did not auto-correct or conflate identifiers:
   • JP 5862404 B2 — a Japanese patent cited as "Citation (applicant)" in EP 4047421 (light-emitting component / optical writing device, Fuji Xerox). Different jurisdiction, different subject matter.
   • US 10,639,404 ('404 Patent) — a different US patent (Wound Healing Technologies Corp. / Solventum IPR, and the Cantor Gaming / Interactive Games v. DraftKings '404 patent). Irrelevant to US 5,862,404.
   • Non-patent matches: a Lithuanian registry notice number, a Brazilian corporate filing number, a Pakistani phone number, and a Texas water-well ID — all coincidental.
3. Toshiba as plaintiff. I searched for Toshiba-initiated enforcement of this patent and found nothing. Note that Toshiba America Information Systems appears as defendant/assignee in various matters over the years, but none surfaced tied to 5,862,404.

Important caveats on completeness

• I was unable to directly query the Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) or PACER in a way that returned results for this specific number; those are the authoritative sources you named, and a direct docket query there is the proper way to confirm a negative.
• Free aggregators do not reliably index every 1990s–2000s case, and pre-2000 litigation is particularly poorly covered in online dockets. A negative result here is not proof that no suit was ever filed — only that no such suit is reflected in the indexed sources I could reach.
• Given the patent expired in 2017 and is a network printer-status/discovery patent of modest scope, and given I found no NPE activity, the absence of litigation is consistent with expectations.

Recommended verification for a definitive answer

To state conclusively that no litigation exists, query directly:

• PACER Case Locator / Docket Search (party: Toshiba America Information Systems; and full-text search using the patent number in complaints)
• Unified Patents Litigation Portal case list
• Lex Machina / Docket Navigator / Docket Alarm patent case search filtered to patent number 5,862,404
• CAFC docket search for appeals referencing 5,862,404

If you'd like, I can attempt additional targeted searches (e.g., by the '404 patent's EP/JP family members, or by Toshiba America Information Systems as plaintiff) to try to surface any enforcement activity.

I'll verify the structured "no proceedings" result with targeted searches before writing.

AIA Trial Proceedings — U.S. Patent No. 5,862,404

Section prepared for a prospective defendant. Sources: the canonical "PTAB proceedings on file" structured block (USPTO Open Data Portal), the authoritative full patent text supplied, and targeted web searches for claim-level outcomes, panels, and appeals.

---

Proceedings overview

US 5,862,404 has been the subject of zero AIA trial proceedings — 0 total, 0 active, 0 with claims invalidated, 0 with claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM record for this patent, and no proceeding number tied to it surfaced in web search. The defensive posture this gives a defendant is the inverse of the usual IPR story: there is no PTAB record to rely on, no claim has been canceled, no estoppel has been created, and the full claim set (claims 1–20) stands untested at the Board. A defendant cannot point to an FWD saying "claim 1 is dead." Conversely — and this is the practically important point — there is no adverse PTAB precedent ratifying the patent's validity either, so the entire invalidity case remains open to be built from scratch.

---

Proceedings detail

There are no proceedings to itemize. I deliberately did not generate placeholder or reconstructed entries, because the instruction (and 37 C.F.R. § 42 practice generally) is that proceeding numbers must not be invented. For the record, the following near-miss identifiers surfaced during verification and were excluded as false positives, not conflated with the patent at issue:

No petitioner (Toshiba entity or otherwise) was identified as having filed against US 5,862,404. Note that Toshiba affiliates have appeared as petitioners in unrelated AIA trials — e.g., Toshiba Corporation / Toshiba America Information Systems as real parties-in-interest against Optical Devices, LLC's RE40,927; and Toshiba Tec / Toshiba America Business Solutions / Toshiba America / Toshiba Corporation as RPI in an IPR against a K.Mizra patent. None of those involve US 5,862,404. I flag them only so the negative finding is not confused with a search miss on the "Toshiba" name.

---

Why the list is legitimately empty (eligibility window analysis)

This matters for evaluating whether the absence is meaningful or merely an artifact:

• Post-Grant Review — unavailable. U.S. 5,862,404 issued from Application No. 08/799,527, filed 1997-02-12 — a pre-AIA (first-to-invent) patent. PGR reaches only first-inventor-to-file patents. PGR was never available here.
• Inter Partes Review — available in principle, but the window closed. For a pre-AIA patent, IPR became available 2012-09-16. The patent expired 2017-02-12 (anticipated expiration, "Expired – Lifetime" per the record). That leaves a roughly 4.4-year IPR filing window, and the patent would have had to be commercially asserted to make a petition worth funding. No petition was filed.
• CBM — practically unavailable. CBM (2012-09-16 through its 2020-09-16 statutory sunset) required a patent claiming a method/apparatus for a financial product or service and excluded "technological inventions." The '404 claims a networked printer/MFP status-distribution architecture — a technological solution to a network-efficiency problem (the specification's stated objects are to reduce query burden on peripherals and avoid repeated discovery). It would have faced a strong "technological invention" defense to CBM eligibility. As a fallback, CBM would have been a poor vehicle even had it been tried.

Conclusion: the emptiness is consistent with expectations for an expired, non-asserted, modest-scope network-printer patent, not an indexing gap on a hotly contested one.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything is UNTESTED. Claims 1–20 of US 5,862,404 have never been construed or adjudicated by the PTAB. The three independent claims remain exactly as granted on 1999-01-19:

• Claim 1 — network system: first general-purpose computer with (as written) "no-volatile memory" storing a first device status file; first intelligent peripheral device running software that periodically pushes its own current status to that computer; a plurality of workstations that request, receive, and display the file contents; and the operative negative limitation that the peripheral's reporting software runs "independently of the plurality of workstations."
• Claim 13 — control unit (MFP controller between a hard output device and the LAN): first communication means to the hard output device, second communication means to a file server, memory-resident software that independently of the workstations periodically polls the device and relays status to the server, plus software that accepts a device discovery request and responds by doing the same.
• Claim 15 — two-phase method: Phase 1 (performed independently of the workstation) — peripheral periodically determines status, communicates it to a first computer with non-volatile memory, which stores it in a device status file; Phase 2 — the workstation obtains the file contents.

Estoppel landscape: clean slate for a defendant. Because no IPR, PGR, or CBM ever reached a final written decision on this patent, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to anyone, and no § 325(e)(2) estoppel exists either. A defendant today may raise any § 102 or § 103 ground based on patents and printed publications in district court or the ITC without being cabined by any prior PTAB record. There is also no § 315(b) one-year bar in play, since there is no asserted complaint tied to this patent, and the patent is expired so § 315(a)/(b) timing concerns are largely academic.

Pattern signals: none to read. There is no repeat petitioner funneling multiple IPRs at this patent, no patent-owner appeal history at the Federal Circuit on PTAB outcomes, and no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) in the chain — which is unsurprising given that the patent is expired and (per the earlier litigation section) was never identified as asserted in any indexed district-court or ITC matter. The absence of a Unified Patents-style proceeding is itself a signal that this patent was not a serial-assertion nuisance.

One substantive note for a defense theory if this patent ever resurfaces in a demand letter: the independent claims are anchored on the peripheral-side, workstation-independent push/poll architecture. The specification itself concedes that prior-art intelligent peripherals already could determine and relay status — it expressly names the Lexmark Optra as providing "identification data as well as other information as to status," and lists the '404's own cited art including US 5,323,393 (Canon Information Systems, "Method and apparatus for obtaining and for controlling the status of a networked peripheral"), US 5,537,626 and US 5,537,550 (Canon, LAN-coupled printer / interactive network board logging peripheral statistics), and US 5,220,674 (DEC, local area print server forwarding printer status messages). Those are all named in the '404's own "Patent Citations (24)" list. The likely battleground for any challenge would therefore be the centralized-file + workstation-independent-update combination, not peripheral status reporting per se — and the claim-drafting oddities flagged in the summary section (e.g., "no-volatile memory" in claims 1 and 13, the duplicated "(a)" designators in claims 10 and 18) are § 112 written-description/indefiniteness talking points worth preserving.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Treat "no PTAB activity" as the operative finding and say so plainly in any opinion. The structured ODP data is the canonical source, and independent search corroborated it. Do not represent to a court or client that any claim of the '404 has been canceled — that would be false.
2. If you are a defendant facing an assertion, do not look for a PTAB lifeline. There is no FWD to link to, so there is nothing to cite for claim cancellation. Any invalidity position must be built and briefed independently, drawing on the 24 examiner-cited references in the patent's own citation list plus whatever the asserted products/art suggest.
3. Practically, the patent is expired (2017-02-12) and the anticipated term has run. Confirm the expiry date against USPTO PatentCenter maintenance-fee records before investing in a merits analysis — the earlier litigation section found no assertion of this patent in indexed dockets, consistent with an expired patent that never saw enforcement.
4. If you nonetheless want a definitive negative for the file, the authoritative checks are:
   • PTAB E2E / PTAB Center: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb (search by patent number 5,862,404)
   • USPTO Open Data Portal AIA trial proceedings endpoint (the source of the structured block: no records returned).
   • PTAB Decisions: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions (keyword search the patent number).
   • CourtListener (free) / PACER for any appeal that referenced the patent; the patent owner here is Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., and the inventor is Tyson N. Onaga — useful search keys if a proceeding is ever identified.
5. Caveat on completeness I will not paper over: the ODP ingest reflects the "most recent" dataset. Given the patent is expired and the IPR window closed in 2017, I assess the chance of an un-indexed AIA trial as very low, but I did not directly query PTAB E2E or PACER in this session, so I cannot call the negative authoritatively verified — only highly probable and well-corroborated.

I'll research the assignment chain for US 5,862,404 across USPTO Assignment Center, Google Patents legal events, and corporate/assignee records.

Let me query the EPO/INPADOC legal status record and Google Patents legal events for this patent, which mirror USPTO assignment data.

Let me check the dedicated patent record sites which mirror USPTO assignment data.

Assignment & Ownership Chain — US 5,862,404

Methodology caveat, up front. I attempted to pull the USPTO Assignment Center record (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov) and the Google Patents "Legal Events" mirror for this patent. My tool access to those primary/dedicated pages returned only partial results, and I exhausted my search budget before retrieving the reel/frame numbers. I did not obtain a reel/frame citation for US 5,862,404, and I will not invent one. What follows is layered explicitly by confidence: the inventor/assignee identity is solid (it comes from the authoritative full patent text you supplied), while the assignment-detail fields (reel/frame, correspondent) are marked not retrieved rather than guessed.

No contradiction with the earlier sections of this analysis. The bibliographic block, "Current Assignee = Toshiba America Information Systems Inc," and the "no litigation found" finding are all consistent with everything below. The one new wrinkle I surfaced is a jurisdiction-level ownership discrepancy in the family (flagged in "Original assignee").

---

Inventors

Corroboration of the Toshiba employment relationship. The EP family member EP 0859309 lists the inventor address as "Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba, Intell. Prop. Div., 1-1 Shibaura 1-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105, JP" (UK IPO record at search-for-intellectual-property.service.gov.uk/EP0859309; mirrored at data.inpi.fr/brevets/EP0859309). That is Toshiba Corporation's central IP division address — i.e., Onaga's work was routed through Toshiba's mothership IP department, not a standalone US startup lab.

Other filings by the same inventor (typeset.io author page; Justia inventor page for "Tyson Onaga") — all four are Toshiba-family, which argues against the "inventor quickly departed" pattern:

• US 5,862,404 (this patent, 1997)
• EP 0859309 / CN 1126045 (same family, 1998)
• US 6,266,693 — "Method of controlling printer information in a network environment," assignee Toshiba America Information Systems Inc., filed 1998-08-31 (a follow-on filing, ~19 months after this one)

Unusual-pattern check: Not present. There is a single inventor, so there are no co-inventor departures to measure; and Onaga filed a second application for the same assignee ~19 months later, which is the opposite of the "all inventors bail within 12 months" precursor to a portfolio fire-sale.

---

Original assignee

TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation — named on the face of the patent as the assignee of record (execution/record 1997-02-12).

• Line of business. TAIS was Toshiba's US sales/marketing and support subsidiary (Irvine, California was its headquarters location), handling Toshiba's US computer, peripheral, and imaging products. The patent's own specification describes the commercial embodiment directly: multifunction peripherals MFPs 110a/110d = control unit 140 (a monitor-less Windows NT general-purpose computer with a SCSI link) + hard output unit 115 (a high-speed copier engine), plus a NIC to the LAN. So yes — the assignee shipped a product embodying the claims: the Toshiba network multifunction peripheral / print-controller box described in FIGS. 1 and 4.
• Current status. TAIS is/was a subsidiary of Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba (Japan). I could not verify TAIS's present corporate status from a primary source in this session, and I flag it as unconfirmed: Toshiba Corporation was taken private in 2023 in a Japan Industrial Partners-led tender offer, and Toshiba had earlier (2018) transferred its PC business (Toshiba Client Solutions) to Sharp. Whether any of that touched the TAIS legal entity or this patent is unknown to me and should be checked against Assignment Center and SEC filings rather than assumed.
• ⚠️ Family-level ownership discrepancy (flagged, not resolved). The EP family member EP 0859309 is recorded as owned by Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba (the Japanese parent) — not TAIS. Two readings: (a) the EP was simply prosecuted in the parent's name as a matter of Toshiba filing practice, or (b) there was a later, possibly unrecorded-in-the-US transfer of the US case from TAIS up to Toshiba Corp. This is a concrete lead worth a targeted look-up: search Assignment Center for any 1998–2005 assignment TAIS → Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba keyed to 5,862,404/08/799,527. I could not confirm either reading, so treat it as an open question, not a finding.
• Maintenance posture (relevant to "was this ever monetized?"). The family was allowed to run down rather than be enforced: EP 0859309 shows last renewal 8 Feb 2012 (15th year), next renewal 9 Feb 2013, status "Ceased — Not in force" (UK IPO); JP 2903015 and CN 1126045 are both listed "Expired – Fee Related" in the supplied Google Patents family data; US 5,862,404 is "Expired – Lifetime" at the 2017-02-12 end of term. Fee-lapse across foreign members is a non-monetization signal.

---

Assignment timeline

One recorded US assignment was identified in the material available to me.

• 1997-02-12 (executed; recorded 1997-02-12) — Reel/Frame NOT RETRIEVED (see methodology caveat)
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS))
  • Assignor: Onaga, Tyson N.
  • Assignee: Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., a corporation of the State of California
  • Correspondent: not retrieved — the correspondent of record on this recording was not exposed in the sources I could reach. With only one record in the chain there is no recurrence to test anyway.
  • Context: Employment/initial assignment at filing — rights vest in the employer-subsidiary at the time of application. Not an arm's-length acquisition, not a securitization, not a transfer to an asserter.

Post-issuance assignments: none found. The Google Patents legal-events timeline for US5862404 (per the supplied full text and the mirror at patents.google.com/patent/US5862404/en) shows only three events after filing: the 1997-02-12 assignment to TAIS, the 1999-01-19 grant, and the 2017-02-12 anticipated expiration. There is no second assignment, no security agreement, no merger, no change of name, no license record. Per your rule, that is itself a finding: absent a contrary Assignment Center entry, the original assignee (Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.) still held the patent when it expired.

Verification link: USPTO Assignment Search — search by patent number 5862404 · Assignment Center. A direct query there is the only way to (i) obtain the reel/frame for the 1997-02-12 recording, (ii) capture the correspondent of record, and (iii) definitively confirm the absence of any post-1997 assignment — including the possible TAIS→Toshiba Corp. transfer flagged above.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 5862404
    1997 : Filed by Toshiba America Info Systems
         : Onaga assigns rights to TAIS
    1999 : Patent granted
    2017 : Term expires unassigned

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

---

Verdict

Insufficient data — only the original assignment.

Justification: the entire recorded US chain is a single conveyance, 1997-02-12, from inventor Tyson N. Onaga to Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., with no post-issuance assignment, security agreement, merger, or license reflected in the Google Patents legal events before the patent's 2017-02-12 end of term — which means the operating-company assignee most likely owned it until expiration. Not one of the eight NPE signals is affirmatively present, so no "NPE — high/moderate confidence" or "Operating-company assertion" verdict is supportable; and because I could not retrieve the reel/frame or the correspondent of record, and could not authoritatively confirm the absence of a TAIS→Toshiba Corp. transfer, the honest outcome is Insufficient data rather than a clean "operating-company" call.

Verify directly at USPTO Assignment Search for 5862404 (or Assignment Center) — specifically checking for any 1998–2005 recording whose assignor is Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. and whose assignee is Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba, which is the one plausible missing link in this chain.

I'll verify the cited references against live sources before building the §102 analysis.

Let me verify the remaining key references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 5,862,404

Target document (identified literally): US 5,862,404 A — "Network device discovery and status information distribution using independent information distribution processes." Application US 08/799,527; filed 1997-02-12; granted 1999-01-19; inventor Tyson N. Onaga; original assignee Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5862404/en

I found no competing document under a similar-looking number that matches this record (e.g., JP 5862404 B2 is a different, unrelated Japanese patent; US 10,639,404 is a different US patent). The analysis below is anchored to 5,862,404 only, per your instruction to interpret the identifier literally and not auto-correct.

---

1. Method and honesty caveats

• The 24 U.S. patent citations below are taken from the "References Cited" table printed on the face of 5,862,404 itself (and reproduced in the Google Patents record). That is the authoritative list of what the examiner actually considered.
• I independently re-verified the four references most likely to drive a §102 analysis (US 5,323,393; US 5,220,674; US 5,537,550; US 5,109,486) against Google Patents, EveryPatent, Justia, and the EPO. Where I did so, I give a URL.
• The remaining references I report from the patent's own citation table; I did not individually re-open each full text (I hit a tool-call limit mid-verification). Treat those entries as medium confidence on bibliographic detail and low-to-medium on the internal-disclosure characterization.
• Critical statutory point you should not gloss over: Anticipation under §102 requires every element of a claim in a single reference. Almost none of these references is a true single-reference anticipation of claims 1, 13, or 15. Most are §103 obviousness references, or §102 art only for the narrower dependent claims. I flag this explicitly for each entry rather than overstating anticipation.

Statutory frame (pre-AIA, since filed 1997-02-12): one-year bar date = 1996-02-12.

• Publications/patents dated before 1996-02-12 → §102(b) statutory bar (and §102(a)).
• Publications/patents dated 1996-02-12 through 1997-02-12 → §102(a) only (before the invention, not the one-year bar). This matters for the November 1996 vendor documents and the April 1996 MFPI standard.

---

2. The claim framework the references must be mapped against

(Building on the earlier claim summary; not repeated in full.)

• Claim 1 requires the combination of: (a) a general-purpose computer with non-volatile memory storing a device status file; (b) an intelligent peripheral that periodically determines and sends its status to that computer; (c) multiple workstations that request/receive/display the file contents; and the catch-all — the peripheral's status reporting operates independently of the workstations.
• Claim 13 requires a control unit with (a) a comm means to a hard output device, (b) a comm means to a file server, (c) resident software that periodically polls the device independently of the workstations and relays to the server, and (d) resident software that can accept a device discovery request.
• Claim 15 requires a two-phase method whose first phase is performed independently of the workstation (peripheral self-determines status → sends to a computer with non-volatile memory → computer stores it in a device status file), and whose second phase is the workstation reading that file.

The novelty-defining element is the "independent information distribution process" — the peripheral (or its controller) pushes/periodically refreshes status into a shared server-side file without being polled by the workstations. Every reference below should be read against that element.

---

3. Tier 1 — Most relevant references (networked peripheral status)

3.1 US 5,323,393 A — Barrett et al. (Canon Information Systems, Inc.)

• Citation: US 5,323,393 A, "Method and apparatus for obtaining and for controlling the status of a networked peripheral." Inventors Lorraine F. Barrett, William C. Russell, Andrew J. Kraslavsky, Robert D. Wadsworth. Appl. No. 978,281.
• Dates: filed 1992-11-18; granted 1994-06-21. (§102(b) — pre-1996-02-12.)
• Verified: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5323393 ; full text PDF https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/89/49/39/f40ccdf47890cb/US5323393.pdf
• Description: A Network Expansion Board (NEB) sits between a LAN and an open-architecture printer, coupled via a bidirectional (SCSI-capable) peripheral interface. A status request issued on the LAN (e.g., from an administrator's console) is directed to the board; the board interrogates the printer over the peripheral interface, transfers the printer's status back onto the LAN, receives altered status, and writes it back to the printer. It expressly frames the peripheral as an "intelligent, interactive network member" that can transmit "detailed status information, operational parameters," etc.
• §102 relevance: This is the single closest reference to the architecture of claims 1 and 13 (networked board between LAN and peripheral that obtains and serves device status). However, the disclosure is request-driven — status is fetched in response to a LAN request — which cuts against the claim-1/13/15 limitation that status be gathered periodically and independently of the workstations. Best characterized as a strong §103 reference, and a §102 candidate only for claim 13(a)–(b) (the two communication means) taken narrowly, not the whole claim.

3.2 US 5,537,550 A — Canon Kabushiki Kaisha (Russell et al.)

• Citation: US 5,537,550 A, "Interactive network board for logging peripheral statistics with logging level commands."
• Dates: priority 1992-11-18 (US 978,283); granted 1996-07-16. (§102(b) / §102(a).)
• Verified: https://patents.justia.com/patent/[5537550](/patent/5537550) ; http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat5537550.html
• Description: An interactive network board interposed between a LAN and a printer. Its processor "caus[es] the peripheral information requests to be transmitted to the peripheral at a first predetermined interval" (expressly ~one minute per claim 6) and stores the returned information; separately, it receives peripheral status queries from the LAN and returns the log file as a status report. This is the one cited reference that expressly teaches periodic, autonomous polling of a peripheral by an intervening network board.
• §102 relevance: The most dangerous single reference for claim 13(c) ("periodically polls the hard output device... independently of the workstations"). Its weakness as a full §102 reference: the accumulated data is stored in local board NVRAM or printer NVM, not relayed into a file server's non-volatile memory, and the LAN-facing transfer is query-driven. So it is a near-anticipation of claim 13's polling element and a powerful §103 reference when combined with 3.1 / 3.3.

3.3 US 5,220,674 A — Morean et al. (Digital Equipment Corporation)

• Citation: US 5,220,674 A, "Local area print server for requesting and storing required resource data and forwarding printer status message to selected destination." (Continuation of Ser. No. 07/075,047.)
• Dates: filed 1987-07-17; granted 1993-06-15. (§102(b).)
• Verified: http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat5220674.html ; PDF https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/d7/7a/22/808af4c2e27efa/US5220674.pdf
• Description: A local-area print server connected between a data-processing system and printers. It contains a status collector that receives printer status messages, a configuration-data store indicating destination nodes per event type, and forwards printer status messages to a selected destination; it also stores print requests and resources and "informs the other components... of the status of the printing system, such as when... it becomes inoperable and needs attention."
• §102 relevance: Directly relevant to the server-side storage and distribution of printer status recited in claim 1 and the two-phase method of claim 15. Its limitation against the patent: status flow here is event-driven server-to-node message forwarding, not a file that workstations independently read. §103 reference; possible §102 candidate for dependent claims 3/4/5 (server maintaining per-device status and answering status requests) read narrowly.

3.4 US 5,537,626 A — Canon Kabushiki Kaisha

• Citation: US 5,537,626 A, "Apparatus for coupling printer with LAN to control printer operation by transferring control parameters, printer status data and printer configuration data between printer and LAN."
• Dates: priority 1992-11-18; granted 1996-07-16. (§102(b)/(a).)
• Verified: Google Patents sitemap entry confirms grant date 1996-07-16 (https://www.google.com/patents/sitemap/en/Sitemap/G06/G06F/G06F_3_3521.html)
• Description: A coupling apparatus that bidirectionally transfers printer status data, control parameters, and configuration data between a printer and a LAN. Same Canon NEB family of art as 3.1/3.2.
• §102 relevance: Reinforces the claims-1/13 architecture (a dedicated controller translating and relaying printer status to a LAN). §103 reference; near-duplicative of 3.1 and 3.2, so its marginal value is as corroboration, not as independent anticipation.

---

4. Tier 2 — Relevant references (status monitoring, discovery, notification)

4.1 US 5,109,486 A — Seymour (Motorola, Inc.)

• Citation: US 5,109,486 A, "Distributed computer system with network and resource status monitoring." Inventor Leslie G. Seymour.
• Dates: filed 1989-01-06; granted 1992-04-28. (§102(b).)
• Verified: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5109486 ; PDF https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/95/52/66/aa469872a8d935/US5109486.pdf
• Description: Each node has a configuration manager that maintains a status monitoring file of records; it receives status-change messages from remote configuration managers, local resource managers, and its network interface module, compares them to its records, and notifies requesting processes of changes. The monitoring is distributed and intended to be transparent to requesters.
• §102 relevance: Relevant to the "independent information distribution" concept in claim 1/15 — status changes are propagated by monitoring infrastructure rather than discovered by the requester ad hoc. But it is node/resource, not peripheral, status, and there is no device-status file readable by workstations. §103 reference for claims 1 and 15.

4.2 US 5,084,875 A and US 5,214,772 A — Weinberger

• Citations: US 5,084,875 A and US 5,214,772 A, both "System for automatically monitoring copiers from a remote location."
• Dates: both filed 1989-12-13; granted 1992-01-28 and 1993-05-25, respectively. (§102(b).)
• Description: Systems for automatically monitoring copier status/usage from a remote location (the seminal remote copier-monitoring line of art). One of these (5,084,875) was cited as category-"A" art in the EPO search report for the related Canon EP 0 598 504.
• §102 relevance: Directly supports the "automatic remote determination of device status" element of claims 1/15. Weakness: the disclosure is a telephone/remote-monitoring-center model, not a LAN file server read by workstations. §103 reference; possibly a §102(a) anticipation argument for claim 1(b) alone (peripheral self-determines status and transmits it) if read broadly.

4.3 US 4,941,084 A — Hitachi, Ltd.

• Citation: US 4,941,084 A, "System for locating resources resided in a distributing processing system by sequentially transmitting resource inquiries through a looped transmission line."
• Dates: filed 1984-09-14; granted 1990-07-10. (§102(b).)
• Description: Locating distributed resources by sequentially broadcasting resource inquiries — a resource-discovery technique.
• §102 relevance: Maps onto the discovery aspects of the patent: claim 7 (workstation software for discovering peripherals) and claims 18–20 (initialization/discovery steps). Not relevant to the status-distribution claims. §102(a)/§103 reference for claim 7 specifically.

4.4 US 5,119,493 A — International Business Machines Corp.

• Citation: US 5,119,493 A, "System for recording at least one selected activity from a selected resource object within a distributed data processing system."
• Dates: filed 1990-02-23; granted 1992-06-02. (§102(b).)
• Description: Recording selected activity from a selected resource object in a distributed system — i.e., central recording of resource activity.
• §102 relevance: Supports the "recording device status/activity in a central file" aspect of claims 3/4/15. §103 reference.

4.5 US 5,550,957 A — Lexmark International, Inc.

• Citation: US 5,550,957 A, "Multiple virtual printer network interface."
• Dates: filed 1994-12-07; granted 1996-08-27. (§102(a) — after 1996-02-12; before the 1997 filing.)
• Description: A network interface presenting multiple virtual printers on a network — relevant to the patent's multiple-intelligent-peripheral and per-device jobs/status file features.
• §102 relevance: §103 reference for claims 2–5 (plural peripherals, per-device or shared status files). Not anticipatory of claims 1/13/15.

4.6 US 5,631,847 A — Elonex I.P. Holdings, Ltd.

• Citation: US 5,631,847 A, "System for network file server failure notification."
• Dates: filed 1995-04-27; granted 1997-05-20. (§102(e)/(a).)
• Description: Detecting and notifying of file-server failure on a network.
• §102 relevance: Bears on the specification's watch-dog-timer discussion and the "notified" status attribute in claims 9 and 16–17 (whether an administrator has been notified of a down condition). §103 reference for claims 9/16/17.

4.7 US 5,633,999 A — Nonstop Networks Limited

• Citation: US 5,633,999 A, "Workstation-implemented data storage re-routing for server fault-tolerance on computer networks."
• Dates: filed 1990-11-07; granted 1997-05-27. (§102(e).)
• Description: Workstation-side re-routing of storage access for fault tolerance.
• §102 relevance: Relevant to claim 11's pointer to another server's status file and to the specification's cross-workgroup access discussion (which is explicitly described as "a simple example"). §103 reference for claim 11.

4.8 US 5,031,115 A — Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba

• Citation: US 5,031,115 A, "Printer interface using printer response to determine printer type."
• Dates: filed 1988-04-28; granted 1991-07-09. (§102(b).)
• Description: Determining printer type from the printer's own response.
• §102 relevance: Supports the "device information (manufacturer, command set and model)" and unique-network-address content recited in claim 8 and the spec. Notably assigned to the same corporate family as the assignee. §103 reference for claim 8; not anticipatory of the independent claims.

---

5. Tier 3 — Background / secondary references

These are cited on the face of the patent but are directed to general computing, interface hardware, or caching rather than networked peripheral status. They are unlikely to anticipate any claim standing alone; they serve as §103 background.

Notes on the two with the most arguable relevance:

• US 4,897,781 A (IBM, 1990) — remote-file caching: supports the "workstation reads a centrally maintained file" mechanics of claim 1(c). §103 background for the workstation-access element.
• US 5,239,627 A (IBM, 1993) — bi-directional parallel printer interface: supports claim 13(a)'s "first communication means for ... obtaining device status information from the hard output device." §103 reference for claim 13(a) only.

---

6. Non-patent literature cited on the face of 5,862,404

6.1 MFPI-1 Standard — highest-value NPL reference

• Citation: Multifunction Peripheral Interface Standard, Level 1 (MFPI-1), version 5.3, dated April 9, 1996.
• Date vs. bar: 1996-04-09 → §102(a) (published before the Feb. 1997 filing, but within the one-year window, so not a §102(b) bar).
• Description: A published industry standard defining the interface by which multifunction peripherals (print/copy/scan/fax devices) expose status and control information — precisely the class of devices (the MFPs 110a/110c/110d) central to the patent.
• §102 relevance: This is a printed publication that speaks to the capability of an MFP to determine and report its own status — i.e., the "intelligent peripheral device" predicate that claims 1(b), 13, and 15 rely on. Potentially anticipatory of the peripheral-capability element of claim 1(b)/claim 15(a), and strong §103 art for the overall system.

6.2 Vendor marketing documents (all November 1996 → §102(a))

• Canon GP 200F; Canon GP 30F; Ricoh Lan XP; Konica 7050, 7728, 9715FP, 9615FP, MD System, QScan Film Scanner, EV Jetcolor.
• §102 relevance: These are printed publications evidencing commercial networked-peripheral status/monitoring products on sale/published months before the Feb. 1997 filing. They are §102(a) printed-publication art for the general concept of network-visible device status, and they also raise possible §102(b) on-sale/public-use questions depending on actual availability dates. They are not, from their titles alone, anticipatory of the specific independent claims; treat them as §103 corroboration and as evidence of the state of the art.

---

7. Summary matrix — reference × claim

Key: A = plausible single-reference §102 anticipation argument (narrow/partial); O = §103 obviousness value; — = not material.

"A" entries are all partial — I am not asserting that any single reference discloses every element of claim 1, 13, or 15.

---

8. Bottom line on §102 vs. §103

1. No cited reference appears to fully anticipate claims 1, 13, or 15 as a whole. The reason is uniform: none of the cited art discloses the combination of
   (i) a peripheral/controller that periodically/autonomously pushes status independently of the workstations,
   (ii) into a status file on a general-purpose computer/file server, that
   (iii) multiple workstations independently read.

   • US 5,537,550 supplies (i) but stores locally.
   • US 5,220,674 supplies (ii)/(iii)-adjacent behavior but is event-message-driven, not file-based.
   • US 5,323,393 supplies the LAN-board architecture but is request-driven.

2. The patent's likely validity story is the "independent information distribution process" (the claim-1 final clause and the claim-15 first-phase-independent-of-workstation clause). The art the examiner cited is mostly the request/query-driven status art — which is exactly what the patent positions itself against. That is the narrow gap the claims were drafted to occupy.

3. Strongest §103 combinations an examiner or challenger would use:

   • US 5,537,550 + US 5,220,674 — periodic board polling (5,537,550) + server-side storage/distribution of printer status (5,220,674) → claims 1, 13, 15.
   • US 5,323,393 + US 5,220,674 — networked peripheral-status board + print-server status storage → claims 1, 13.
   • US 5,109,486 + US 5,084,875/5,214,772 — distributed status-change monitoring + automatic remote device monitoring → claim 1's "independent" distribution element.
   • US 4,941,084 + MFPI-1 → claim 7 and claims 18–20 (discovery/initialization).

4. Narrowest dependency claims most exposed to single-reference §102:

   • Claim 7 (discovery) — US 4,941,084.
   • Claim 8 (status content = address / up-down / duration) — US 5,031,115, US 5,323,393, US 5,537,550.
   • Claim 11 (cross-server pointer) — US 5,633,999.
   • Claim 13(a) (interface obtaining device status) — US 5,239,627, US 5,537,550.

---

9. Explicit uncertainty / verification gaps

• I re-verified US 5,323,393, US 5,220,674, US 5,537,550, and US 5,109,486 (URLs given above). I did not re-open the full texts of the other 20 patent citations — those characterizations rest on the cited titles plus the patent's own citation table. If you need examiner-grade reliability, each should be confirmed against its full specification and claims.
• The MFPI-1 standard and the November 1996 vendor documents are cited as non-patent literature on the face of 5,862,404; I did not retrieve their actual contents, so my §102 descriptions of them are inferences from the citation and the patent's own framing, and should be confirmed from the primary documents.
• I could not complete the last round of targeted searches (US 4,941,084, US 5,550,957, US 5,119,493 full texts) due to a tool-call limit; their dates are taken from the patent's citation table.
• Statutory framing caveat: Dates of grant are used above as the §102 trigger for patents (correct for a granted US patent used as a printed publication). For any reference whose filing date is relied on (e.g., §102(e) for US 5,633,999, US 5,631,847, US 5,638,530), the analysis would need the reference's actual filing/priority date relative to 5,862,404's invention date — I have used the filing dates printed in the patent's citation table.

I'll ground this on the prior art listed in the patent's "Prior Art" (Citations) section. Let me quickly verify the content of the most analytically important references before reasoning about combinations.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 5,862,404 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope, sourcing, and confidence caveats

This builds on the prior sections (claim overview and litigation findings) rather than repeating them. Per your instruction I used the "Prior Art" (Citations) section of the patent page — the 24 examiner-cited U.S. patents plus the Non-Patent Citations — as the universe of references.

Sourcing caveat you should treat as material: Google Patents supplied only titles for most of the 24 cited references. I was able to retrieve and verify the actual disclosure (abstract/claims/spec) for the four references most load-bearing to this analysis:

For the remaining references I reason from their issued titles (which are unusually descriptive here) and flag where that is the only basis. Where the reference is a title-only basis, I mark it [title-only]. This is a hypothesis-level analysis, not a litigation-grade invalidity opinion; each combination below should be confirmed against the full reference text.

---

1. Legal framework applied

• Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966): scope/content of claims, differences from prior art, level of ordinary skill, objective indicia.
• KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007): a combination is obvious where prior-art elements work "according to their established functions," where there is a "design incentive" or "market demand" to combine, and where the combination is "a predictable variation" using "a known technique … to improve similar devices in the same way." No rigid "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" test.
• 35 U.S.C. § 103: validity judged from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the 1997-02-12 priority date; the reference must be analogous art.

PHOSITA definition (proposed): a bachelor's degree in computer science/electrical engineering, or equivalent, with ~2 years of experience designing networked peripheral systems, LAN protocols, print servers, and device status/monitoring software. This is a mature, well-populated art by 1997.

---

2. The claim-1 gist, and where the patent actually stakes its novelty

The three independent claims (1, 13, 15) share one point of novelty that the applicant's own Background concedes everything else about:

• Peripherals that self-determine status and report it were known ("the Lexmark Optra printer … provides identification data as well as other information as to status").
• The problem the patent names is that workstation-initiated querying of peripherals "slows the performance of the printer," and that discovery is "burdensome to the network."
• The asserted solution: the peripheral periodically pushes status to a central file on a server, and workstations read that file — hence the final limitation of claim 1, "the software in the intelligent peripheral device … communicating … independently of the plurality of workstations."

So the §103 question reduces to: was it obvious by Feb. 1997 to invert the query direction — i.e., have the peripheral/its network board autonomously publish status to a shared central store, decoupling status collection from the clients? The prior art answers that clearly.

---

3. The primary references (verified)

A. US 5,323,393 — Canon Information Systems (granted 1994-06-21) — most material

The disclosed "Network Expansion Board" (NEB) sits between a LAN and a printer over a bi-directional SCSI interface, and expressly makes the peripheral an "interactive network member" capable of "transmitting to the network … detailed status information, operational parameters, and even data input to the peripheral through other modalities such as scanning, facsimile reception." Key specifics retrieved:

• It has a "flowchart showing the automatic logging of peripheral statistics" and a CPSOCKET task described as "the only task that has the ability to obtain printer status via the status lines."
• A PC "acts as the network administrator"; multiple PCs, a print server, and printers populate the LAN.
• It includes a PRESCAN module that examines broadcast traffic and a SAPSERVER broadcast-discovery module — i.e., device discovery over the LAN.
  Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5323393#1

This reference alone discloses the networked-peripheral-with-self-status, the SCSI-to-LAN interface board, automatic (unattended) logging of peripheral statistics, and LAN discovery.

B. US 5,220,674 — Digital Equipment (granted 1993-06-15) — the central-store teaching

A local-area print server that "informs other components of the digital data processing system of the status of the printing system," with:

• a status collector that "receiv[es] printer status messages … and forward[s] the printer status message through the network facility means to the destination node indicated by the configuration data"; and
• resource data stored centrally and retrieved for the printer.
  Source: http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat5220674.html

This is the "server obtains status from the device and redistributes it to the workstations" architecture — i.e., the file-server-as-broker element of claim 1(a)/(c).

C. US 5,214,772 / US 5,084,875 — Weinberger (1993-05-25 / 1992-01-28) — the periodic, remote monitoring teaching

"System for automatically monitoring copiers from a remote location." Verified disclosures:

• A translator/data-tap at each copier; "continuous, automatic monitoring of copier status … from a central location."
• Status is "processed and stored in a database" at the central data-collection computer, and displayed — copiers with problems "easily identified."
• Periodic acquisition is express: "it is only necessary for the translator to periodically evaluate the condition of the copier," via a background timer interrupt "at some interval, for example 1 second."
• The scanner/central computer "can poll each of the copiers at a uniform rate or, when requested by the user at the central location, vary the poll rate."
• Includes NVRAM holding an identifying signature usable as a device identifier returned with status.
  Sources: http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat5214772.html; US5084875 PDF (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/c6/5a/dc/f8eeeed5704e44/US5084875.pdf)

This teaches nearly every functional goal of the '404 patent — remote, periodic, automatic status collection into a central database, displayed to users, with on-demand rate change — but in the copier-monitoring (analog-telephone) context rather than a LAN file store.

D. US 5,109,486 — Motorola (granted 1992-04-28) — status-monitoring file + "without reducing network throughput"

Verified: distributed system in which a configuration manager keeps a "status monitoring file" of resource/node status changes and notifies requesting processes; the stated object is a system "which does not significantly reduce the network throughput," with monitoring "handled in a distributed fashion."
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5109486#1

This supplies (i) the "central record of device status" concept in a LAN, (ii) the push-notification model (changes are reported to registered requesters rather than each requester polling), and (iii) the exact motivation the '404 patent claims — preserving network/device throughput by centralizing status collection.

E. Non-Patent Citations (title-only, but probative)

• "Multifunction Peripheral Interface Standard, Level 1 (MFPI-1) version 5.3, Apr. 9, 1996" — an MFP interface standard predating the priority date by ~10 months.
• Marketing documents for Canon GP 200F / GP 30F, Ricoh LAN XP, and Konica 7050/7728/9715FP/9615FP/MD System (all Nov. 1996) — evidence that commercially shipped networked MFP/printers with status features were on the market before the priority date.

---

4. Claim-by-claim § 103 analysis

Independent Claim 1

Combination C1: Canon '393 + DEC '674 + Weinberger '772 (+ Motorola '486).

Motivation to combine (KSR, all three rationales):

1. Known function, predictable result. Canon '393's NEB is a device that already puts peripheral status onto the LAN; DEC '674's server already collects status and forwards it to interested nodes; Weinberger already periodically samples and stores device status centrally. Combining them uses each element for its established function (status acquisition + central storage + client distribution) with a predictable result — the situation KSR calls "the combination of familiar elements according to known methods … yield[ing] predictable results."
2. Explicit design incentive / market demand. The art itself articulates the very problem the '404 patent addresses: Canon '393 seeks to make a network peripheral "interactive" so the network can get status without walking to the device; Motorola '486 affirmatively states an object of not reducing network throughput; Weinberger's whole premise is that many distributed machines are best monitored from a central point. A PHOSITA facing the applicant's admitted problem ("querying the device and performing status checks slows the performance of the printer") had a clear reason to move status collection to the peripheral/board and publish it to a central store so N workstations don't each poll the device.
3. Predictable variation / design choice. Once the store-and-forward server (DEC '674) and periodic self-sampling (Weinberger) are known, where the status collection lives (in the peripheral's network board vs. in a central poller) and how often it refreshes are ordinary engineering design choices driven by the known throughput/performance tradeoff.

Conclusion on Claim 1: Obvious over Canon '393 in view of DEC '674 and Weinberger '772/'875, further in view of Motorola '486. The only arguably distinctive limitation — "independently of the plurality of workstations" — is squarely taught or rendered obvious by Canon '393's autonomous NEB logging and Motorola '486's throughput-preserving distributed monitoring.

Dependents 2–12

• 2, 3, 4, 5 (multiple peripherals; one file each vs. shared file; server serves both): routine aggregation choices. Weinberger '772 monitors a plurality of copiers into one database (supports claim 4/shared file); DEC '674's earlier sibling claim set and Motorola '486's per-resource records support per-device files (claim 3). Selecting one file vs. one-per-device is an obvious data-organization choice with both alternatives taught.
• 6 (administrator-requested update): Weinberger '772's ability to increase poll rate "when requested by the user at the central location" and Canon '393's status-request path both teach on-demand refresh; obvious.
• 7 (a workstation with discovery software): Canon '393 PRESCAN/SAPSERVER broadcast discovery; Hitachi '084 [title-only] ("locating resources … by sequentially transmitting resource inquiries through a looped transmission line"); Motorola '486 discovery of nodes. Obvious.
• 8 (status = unique network address, up/down, duration down): Weinberger '772 transmits an identifying signature from NVRAM with status and reports fault codes; Motorola '486 reports node up/down/status-change with identifiers and time-based records. "Up/down + how long down" is a trivial derived time computation; the file server watchdog variant is addressed by Motorola '486's notification records. Obvious.
• 9 ("whether a network administrator has been notified"): a workflow bookkeeping flag; hit by the requirement of record-keeping motivation — Motorola '486's status-change notification records to "requesting processes" are the same concept applied to an administrator as the requesting process. Obvious as a routine data-field addition.
• 10, 11 (second computer/second peripheral; pointer from one server to the other's status file): Motorola '486 teaches remote configuration managers interacting across nodes and status records resolving remote resources; US 5,633,999 [title-only] ("routing") and IBM '781 [title-only] (cached remote data) support inter-node references. Providing a pointer/link to a remote status file is the canonical networked-cache design choice. Obvious.
• 12 (peripheral = control unit + hard output device): Canon '393's NEB + the copier "multiple device controller (MDC)" family (US 5,852,746, Network Interface Board for Digital Copier) directly teaches a control unit interposed between a hard-copy engine and the LAN. Obvious.

Independent Claim 13 (control unit; SCSI + network; polls the hard output device periodically; accepts/responds to a device discovery request)

This is the closest claim to Canon '393's actual disclosure, and the mapping is direct:

• "first communication means … obtaining device status information from the hard output device" → Canon '393's bi-directional SCSI interface to the printer/copier.
• "second communication means … relay[ing] device status … to the file server for storage in the non-volatile memory" → Canon '393 NEB-to-LAN + DEC '674 server storing status.
• "(c) independently of the workstations, periodically polls the hard output device" → Weinberger '772's periodic (≈1 s) automatic sampling of the copier; Canon '393's automatic logging of peripheral statistics.
• "(d) … accepting a device discovery request and responding …" → Canon '393's PRESCAN/SAPSERVER discovery modules.

Combination C13: Canon '393 + Weinberger '772/'875 + DEC '674. Motivation: identical to C1 — each reference is used for its established function; the periodic-polling cadence is an admitted design parameter (Weinberger explicitly uses a background timer); the discovery-responder is literally present in Canon '393. A PHOSITA would combine a status-capable network board (Canon '393) with a lightweight periodic poll loop (Weinberger) to feed a central server store (DEC '674) without a leap of invention.

Independent Claim 15 (two-phase method)

The claim's structure ("first phase, performed independently of the at least one workstation … periodically determining … communicating … storing") is the method counterpart of C1/C13 and is met by the same combination (Canon '393 + Weinberger '772 + DEC '674 + Motorola '486). The "second phase" (workstation obtains the file contents) is met by DEC '674's forwarding/console access and Motorola '486's status-notification to requesting processes. Obvious for the same reasons.

Dependents 14, 16–20

• 14 (SCSI line; network interface adapter; resident NOS; init/config/status software): Canon '393 discloses SCSI + Ethernet (10Base-2/5/T) + on-board firmware/NOS protocol stacks; implementing this on a general-purpose embedded OS is routine [Canon '393 verified; remainder routine design].
• 16 (status fields incl. administrator-notified): as claim 8/9.
• 17 (administrator access + updating "notified"): workflow flag; obvious.
• 18 (initialization/discovery: workstation discovers device; create status file; obtain status; write status): Canon '393 PRESCAN/SAPSERVER + Hitachi '084 + Motorola '486 teach discovery and record creation.
• 19 (resident software warns the administrator against performing discovery): This is the most "soft" limitation, but it is a user-interface/design choice layered on a known burdensome operation. Weinberger's/Canon's own characterizations of monitoring/discovery cost (and Motorola '486's throughput-preservation objective) supply the rationale for a warning; purely adding a cautionary UI prompt is not patentably distinct under KSR.
• 20 (initialization performed by a system administrator): Canon '393 designates a PC acting "as the network administrator." Obvious.

---

5. The strongest single-reference + minimal-combination challenges (ranked)

1. Canon '393 alone arguably anticipates or renders obvious much of claims 13–14 and the peripheral-side elements of claim 1 (self-status, network board, SCSI, automatic logging, discovery). If forced to the strongest case, lead with Canon '393 as the base reference.
2. Canon '393 + DEC '674 covers the "server stores and redistributes status" half of claim 1 and claims 15–18.
3. Add Weinberger '772/'875 to bolt on periodic/automatic, unattended collection and central database + display — the remaining claim-1/15 elements.
4. Add Motorola '486 for the "without burdening the network/device" rationale and the distributed status-monitoring records — this closes the "independently of the workstations" gap and supplies the express motivation.

---

6. Objective indicia (secondary considerations)

No evidence of nexus-bearing objective indicia was found or is reflected in the record: the patent expired 2017-02-12; the prior sections found no litigation or enforcement and thus no adjudicated indicia (long-felt need, unexpected results, commercial success) attributable to the claims. Absent such evidence, the Graham secondary factors do not rebut the § 103 case above. (Confidence: medium — a definitive negative on commercial-success/praise evidence would require the assignee's marketing record, which is not in the supplied material.)

---

7. Bottom line

• Claims 1 and 15 are, on this record, obvious over Canon US 5,323,393 + DEC US 5,220,674 + Weinberger US 5,214,772/US 5,084,875, further in view of Motorola US 5,109,486. Each reference supplies a distinct, verified element (self-reporting networked peripheral; central status store-and-forward; periodic/automatic central collection with database + display; throughput-preserving LAN status monitoring), and all four are analogous art, combined for predictable results with articulated motivation.
• Claim 13 is the weakest claim (most exposed), because US 5,323,393 alone discloses a SCSI-to-LAN control board that autonomously obtains and logs peripheral status and performs LAN discovery.
• Dependents 2–12 and 14–20 add only routine design choices, data fields, and organizational alternatives (per-device vs. shared file; on-demand refresh; discovery; status-content fields; inter-node pointers; administrator warning), each of which is either taught in the cited art or an obvious design variation under KSR.

What would change this conclusion: full texts of the title-only references (esp. Canon '626/'550, IBM '781, Hitachi '084, US 5,633,999, Lexmark '557) might either strengthen the case (more explicit periodic-push teachings) or reveal an unexpected result in the '404 specification. None of the verified references contradicts the analysis above.

Overall confidence: Medium-high that claims 1, 13, and 15 are obvious over the cited-art combinations (all four load-bearing references verified against their actual disclosure). Medium for the dependent claims, where several mappings rest on title-only references and routine-design reasoning that should be confirmed against full text.