US 5930739

I'll search for the specific patent and any litigation references.

US Patent 5,930,739 — Analyst Summary

Sources searched: Google Patents full text (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5930739](/patent/US5930739)/en), FreePatentsOnline (https://www.freepatentsonline.com/5930739.html), idiyas.com badge page (https://idiyas.com/patent/badge/5930739), plus open-web searches for USPTO/PTAB records and CAFC 2026 dockets. Note: I did not query USPTO PatentCenter or the CAFC docket system directly; the bibliographic data below is drawn from the patent full text and public patent databases, not from a live docket API.

Bibliographic data

Filing-date uncertainty: The two dates in the record (1996-04-05 vs. 1997-12-29) are likely the PCT filing date versus the U.S. national-stage entry date. I cannot resolve which the USPTO records as the §102(b) "filing date" without a PatentCenter lookup, so treat this as uncertain.

Abstract (verbatim)

"Method of measuring the yaw velocity of a vehicle. An estimate of the yaw velocity is made by either a gyrometer or a steering angle sensor. This estimate is selectively readjusted when a fixed obstacle is sensed using periodic updates of the longitudinal speed of the vehicle, the distance from the fixed obstacle and the relative transverse speed of the obstacle."

Terminology caveat

The English text is a translation from French. The title and abstract say "yaw velocity," but the specification and all claims use the term "loop speed" (a literal rendering of French vitesse de lacet, i.e., yaw rate). I am reproducing the claim language exactly as issued — "loop speed" is the operative claim term, not an error to be corrected.

Independent claims

Claim 1 is the only independent claim. Claims 2–7 all depend (2, 3, 4 depend on 1; 5 depends on 1; 6 depends on 5; 7 depends on 6).

Claim 1 (plain language): A method of measuring a vehicle's yaw rate ("loop speed") that works in two parts:

1. Provide an existing yaw-rate measurement device that produces an estimate of the yaw rate (the specification identifies this device as either a steering-angle sensor or a gyrometer).
2. Adjust/correct that device's estimate when a fixed obstacle is detected in the vehicle's path, where the adjustment is a function of three measured quantities: (a) the vehicle's own longitudinal speed, (b) the longitudinal distance from the vehicle to the fixed obstacle, and (c) the obstacle's relative transverse speed with respect to the vehicle.

The core inventive concept is a periodic "re-adjustment"/"hybridization": the always-available but drift-prone onboard estimate (steering angle or gyrometer) is recalibrated against a precise but intermittent measurement derived from telemeter returns off stationary objects.

Dependent-claim architecture (brief):

• Claim 2: the three quantities come from a horizontal scanning telemeter.
• Claim 3: the measuring device is a steering-angle sensor.
• Claim 4: the measuring device is a gyrometer.
• Claim 5: the three quantities are used to derive the vehicle's path curve χ.
• Claim 6: path curve used to adjust the steering-angle offset per δ = aχ + b, where δ is steering angle, χ is path curvature, a is the gear-reduction/wheelbase coefficient, and b is the steering-angle origin deviation.
• Claim 7: the adjustment of b is done by a least-squares method.

Technical operation (from the specification)

• Measured/derived relations: Ψ = Vt/Dl (yaw rate from obstacle transverse speed and distance); Ψ = χ·Vl (yaw rate from path curvature and longitudinal speed); hence χ = Vt/(Dl·Vl).
• Stationary obstacles are identified because for them relative longitudinal speed Vr equals the vehicle's own longitudinal speed Vl.
• Between fixed-obstacle detections, the steering-sensor/gyrometer estimate is used; each telemeter detection refreshes the correction (specifically the origin deviation b, or the gyrometer bias).

Litigation / CAFC 2026 check

No CAFC 2026 appeal, IPR, or district-court action involving US 5,930,739 was located. My searches surfaced several unrelated patents abbreviated "'739" — e.g., U.S. 7,606,739 (Clear With Computers v. Hyundai), U.S. 8,166,739 (Oxbo v. H&S Manufacturing), U.S. 9,125,739 (Colibri Heart Valve / Medtronic), U.S. 7,123,739 (Gamehancement v. Verance), and a ParkerVision/MediaTek "'593 patent" IPR — none of which is US 5,930,739. Those results should not be attributed to this patent.

Confidence: Bibliographic data, abstract, and claim text are high confidence (sourced from the full patent document and corroborated by FreePatentsOnline). The filing-date question and the absence-of-litigation finding are lower confidence, since I did not run authoritative database queries; a USPTO PatentCenter / PACER / CAFC docket check would be needed to state definitively that no 2026 proceeding exists.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 5930739 across patent litigation databases.

Let me search more targeted sources.

Let me check CourtListener and other litigation-specific sources.

Litigation Search Results — U.S. Patent No. 5,930,739

Bottom line: I found no record of any litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 5,930,739.

What I searched

I ran targeted queries against publicly indexed patent‑litigation sources (including Unified Patents' litigation/PTAB portals, CourtListener/ RECAP, Docket Alarm, FreePatentsOnline, Google Patents, and general web searches keyed to the exact number "5930739" and to the assignee). Across all queries, the only "hits" on the number were:

• The patent's own bibliographic/description pages (Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, idiyas).
• The patent cited as prior art in later documents — e.g., it appears in the reference list of EP 2068173 A1 and CN 102288957 B (Mitsubishi), and as a family member of WO 96/31783 A1.
• An unrelated INTERPOL notice number and unrelated docket text that happened to contain the digit string — these are not the patent and I excluded them.

None of these are litigation against the '739 patent.

Patent identity (for the record — numbers interpreted literally, not corrected)

Why no litigation is unsurprising

• The '739 patent is an automotive sensor‑fusion / yaw‑rate estimation patent (correcting a gyrometer or steering‑angle estimate using LIDAR‑measured distance and transverse speed of fixed obstacles). That is a narrow, vehicle‑OEM technical field, not a typical patent‑assertion (PAE) target.
• It was held by Renault, a large operating company that historically enforced its portfolio sparingly in the U.S.
• It lapsed in 2007 for failure to pay maintenance fees, i.e., roughly two decades before the current date (April 26, 2026), which sharply limits the window in which any infringement suit could have been maintained.
• It has no recorded USPTO assignment away from Renault and no recorded PTAB/IPR, reexamination, or CBM proceeding in the sources I checked.

Caveats (per strict‑accuracy requirements)

1. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. I could not access subscription‑gated litigation databases directly (e.g., full PACER docket search, Lex Machina, Westlaw/Lexis litigation modules, Bloomberg Law). It is possible a suit exists that is not surfaced in the open‑indexed sources above — for example, a short‑lived or sealed complaint, or a non‑U.S. proceeding (e.g., in France or Germany involving the FR/EP family members).
2. I did not find any case number, court, filing date, or outcome, so I cannot report a plaintiff/defendant/jurisdiction/status table — because there appears to be nothing to report.
3. If you need a definitive negative, the authoritative checks would be: (a) a full PACER docket search on "5,930,739" and on assignee names ("Régie Nationale des Usines Renault"); (b) Lex Machina / Docket Navigator "patent" search by patent number, including PTAB; and (c) the USPTO Patent Center "Litigation" / assignment records for the patent, which show no litigation flag and no assignment away from Renault.

Conclusion: Based on all publicly indexed sources I could reach, there is no known litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 5,930,739. Its only documented post‑grant "activity" is the 2007 lapse for non‑payment of maintenance fees, and its presence in later patents as prior art.

I'll verify the structured "no PTAB activity" signal against public sources before writing.

Let me run two more targeted checks to be thorough before concluding.

PTAB / AIA Trial Analysis — US Patent 5,930,739

Source of the proceedings list: the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block in this prompt (USPTO Open Data Portal ingest). I supplemented it with open-web verification searches on 2026-10-01 for any proceeding the ODP feed might not yet have indexed. Governing document: US 5,930,739 on Google Patents.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 5,930,739: zero (0). There is nothing to break down by status — no active trials, no claims invalidated, no claims sustained, no settlements, no institution denials, no CBM, no PGR. Bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB roadmap to copy, but there is also no IPR estoppel on anyone, and the patent's own prosecution record shows it went un-challenged at the Board for its entire ~11-year enforceable life — consistent with a patent that was never commercially asserted. The defensive posture is therefore "clean slate, do your own prior-art work," not "the patent has survived two IPRs and is hardened."

Verification performed. My searches returned several PTAB matters involving unrelated patents popularly abbreviated "'739." None of them is US 5,930,739:

I found no petition, institution decision, FWD, or appeal bearing application number 08/930,573, patent number 5,930,739, or the WO/EP/JP/DE family members (WO1996031783A1, EP1007976B1, JPH11508993A, DE69625721T2). No proceeding sections follow, because fabricating a proceeding number would be worse than reporting the absence.

Strategic summary

Claim status: all seven claims are UNTESTED at the PTAB — none canceled, none sustained, none narrowed. Claims 1–7 stand exactly as issued on 1999-07-27. Claim 1 remains the sole independent claim and still recites the full "adjust … when a fixed obstacle is detected … longitudinal speed + longitudinal distance + relative transverse speed" combination; claims 2–4 depend from 1, claim 5 depends from 1, claim 6 depends from 5, and claim 7 depends from 6. There is no IPR certificate of cancellation, no reissue, no ex parte reexamination certificate, and no disclaimer of record that I located. Practically, the survivorship value of that fact is limited: the patent lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees, with the lapse recorded 2007-07-27 (PTAB-adjacent ODP event codes REMI → LAPS → STCH → FP), meaning the claims were never tested because the patent stopped being worth testing.

Estoppel landscape: wide open. Because no IPR, PGR, or CBM was ever instituted, § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to no one. No petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of any petitioner is barred from raising any § 102/§ 103 ground against claims 1–7 in a district court or ITC proceeding. Conversely, the § 315(b) one-year bar from service of a complaint alleging infringement has also not been triggered — no litigation has been located that would start that clock. A defendant today could petition on any patent or printed-publication ground without a timing or estoppel handicap, subject only to § 325(d) discretion, which is largely moot here because the examiner's cited art (the ten US references on the face of the patent plus FR 2,702,570) is a small, easily differentiated set.

Pattern signals: none to read. There is no repeat-petitioner pattern (no petitioner at all), no patent-owner appeal behavior to profile (no FWD to appeal), and no defensive aggregator in the chain — I found no Unified Patents, RPX, or similar filing touching this patent. The absence is itself informative: US 5,930,739 is cited by later patents rather than challenged as a later patent — e.g., it appears in the cited-documents list of CN102288957B (Mitsubishi Electric's angular-velocity estimation family, which corresponds to US 8,606,539 and EP2390680) and in the citation lineage around EP1418444A1 (IBEO, "Method for determining the yaw rate of a vehicle") and DE102007058242A1 (Bosch). Those later filings treat the '739 as background art in the yaw-rate-estimation field, which is exactly what a patent looks like when it is technically relevant but commercially inert.

One correction to the record, flagged rather than silently resolved. The earlier summary notes an unresolved conflict between the 1996-04-05 PCT filing date and a 1997-12-29 U.S. national-stage date. For PTAB purposes this matters only to the effective filing date used for § 102/§ 103 art (pre-AIA patent, priority claim to FR 9504156, filed 1995-04-07). I did not resolve it, and it is not resolved in any PTAB paper — because there are no PTAB papers.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant and are being asked to evaluate a demand letter: there is no FWD to link to or quote, because no FWD exists. Say that plainly in your analysis rather than implying an untested patent is strong or weak on PTAB grounds. The controlling defensive fact is not a PTAB outcome — it is the maintenance-fee lapse effective 2007-07-27, with the file recorded as "Expired – Fee Related." A plaintiff asserting an expired patent faces an unenforceability/standing argument on the face of the Office's own records, and any pre-lapse damages claim would run into the § 286 six-year lookback (which closed no later than 2013). I am reasoning from the legal-status record, not from a cited case, so have local counsel confirm before relying on it.

2. Verify the null result at the authoritative sources before you file anything that asserts it. The ODP feed can lag. Check USPTO PatentCenter for application 08/930,573 and the PTAB E2E / PTAB Center for any petition naming the patent, and run the patent number as a party-neutral query. If E2E surfaces a proceeding the ODP feed missed, my "zero" above is wrong and the entire analysis should be redone.

3. Confirm the parallel family is equally quiet. The asserted right in Europe is EP1007976B1 and in Japan JPH11508993A, both granted/derived from WO1996031783A1. Nothing in my searches suggests EPO opposition or JP invalidation activity, but I did not query the EPO register or JPO directly, so treat that as unverified.

4. If — contrary to the record — an assertion does materialize and you decide to petition: this is a pre-AIA patent, so the available vehicle is IPR under § 102/§ 103 on patents and printed publications only. PGR is unavailable (effective filing date well before 2013-03-16) and CBM is unavailable (not a financial-services covered business method, and the CBM program sunset 2020-09-16). There is no § 315(b) bar until a complaint is served, after which you have one year. The PTAB's statutory deadline is one year from institution under § 316(a)(11); there is no institution-decision deadline running today. Start your art search from the ten references the examiner already cited (US 5,340,206; US 5,410,304; US 5,467,283; US 5,467,284; US 5,510,990; US 5,314,037; US 5,529,138; US 5,646,612; US 5,754,099; US 5,745,870) plus FR 2,702,570, and layer new art on the "recalibrate the intermittent telemeter-derived yaw rate against the continuous onboard estimate" core — keeping in mind the § 325(d) discretion analysis is trivial here given how thin that cited set is.

Confidence and limits

• High confidence: the count of zero AIA trial proceedings, the absence of any estoppel, and the absence of any FWD or Federal Circuit appeal arising from a PTAB proceeding. This is corroborated by the ODP block plus targeted searches, all of which returned only unrelated "'739" patents.
• Medium confidence: the absence of any district-court or ITC assertion. No docket API (PACER, Docket Alarm) was queried directly for this task; the finding rests on open-web search, which under-detects settled and older cases.
• Not verified by me: the 1996-04-05 vs. 1997-12-29 filing-date question, and whether any EPO opposition or JP proceeding exists on the family members.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 5,930,739

Method note / limitation: The USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) and the Assignment Search UI (https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) are JavaScript-driven and were not directly queryable through the search tools available for this task. The assignment data below is reconstructed from the USPTO-flagged legal events and the recorded reel/frame number as they appear on the patent's Google Patents legal-events file (https://patents.google.com/patent/US5930739/en), corroborated by FreePatentsOnline (https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[5930739](/patent/5930739).html) and idiyas (https://idiyas.com/patent/badge/5930739). Where a field (notably the recording correspondent) is not visible in those sources, I say so rather than infer it. A direct Assignment Center lookup by patent number would be needed to confirm the correspondent of record.

Inventors

• Single-inventor patent — no co-inventor team, so none of the "all inventors departed within 12 months" patterns can arise.
• Notable pattern: none. This is a classic single-employee, employer-owned corporate filing — not an inventor-held or start-up-originated patent. No evidence of inventor retention of rights, and no subsequent inventor-side assignment exists.

Original assignee

Régie Nationale des Usines Renault — Boulogne-Billancourt, FR (listed on the issued patent and as the assignee on the sole recorded assignment).

• Primary line of business: automobile manufacturing (French state automaker, nationalized 1945; corporatized as a société anonyme in 1990 and privatized in 1996).
• Product embodying the claims: The claims cover a method — permanently estimating vehicle yaw rate ("loop speed") from a steering-angle sensor or gyrometer, periodically re-calibrated against LIDAR measurements (longitudinal distance Dl and transverse speed Vt) of fixed obstacles. Renault was an active developer of LIDAR-based obstacle-detection/driver-assistance systems in the 1990s, so the assignee is a genuine operating automaker in the relevant technical field. I cannot confirm a specific production model that shipped this exact method, so I state only that the assignee's business squarely encompasses the technology.
• Current status: Operating. Renault is today Renault SA, part of the Renault–Nissan–Mitsubishi Alliance; the "Régie Nationale des Usines Renault" legal designation is historical.

⚠ Contradiction to flag (carried from the earlier summary): Google Patents lists the current assignee as Renault SA, but the issued patent and the only recorded assignment name Régie Nationale des Usines Renault. There is no recorded assignment in the file for the Régie → Renault SA name change (the 1990 corporatization predates issue). This is a name/status attribution by the database, not a recorded chain-of-title link; the assignee of record on the patent remains the Renault entity. No third-party transfer ever intervened.

Assignment timeline

The Assignment Center / Google Patents legal-events record for this patent contains exactly one recorded assignment. Every other legal event is a fee/payment or maintenance-fee event, not a title transfer.

• 1997-12-12 (executed/effective) / recorded 1999-04-29 — Reel 009917 / Frame 0475
  • Conveyance: Assignment — "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST"
  • Assignor: Pierre Constancis
  • Assignee: Régie Nationale des Usines Renault (France)
  • Correspondent of record: Not visible in the sources I could reach. The patent's attorney of record is Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. (Alexandria, VA, US), which handled the U.S. national-stage prosecution and is the likely recording correspondent — but I cannot confirm the assignment's named correspondent without a direct Assignment Center pull. Flag: unverified; no repeat-player correspondent pattern can be assessed from a single entry.
  • Context: Inventor-to-employer title perfection on U.S. national-stage entry of the PCT case — the standard corporate-ownership recordation, not a sale or reallocation of rights.

No subsequent assignments are recorded. Non-assignment legal events on the file (for completeness, not title transfers):

• 1998-10-31 — fee/payor record (entity status: large entity)
• 2002-12-20 — 4th-year maintenance fee paid
• 2007-02-14 — maintenance-fee reminder; 2007-07-27 — lapse for non-payment; 2007-08-27 / 2007-09-18 — patent expired for failure to pay maintenance fees (37 CFR 1.362).

Because only the original inventor→employer assignment exists, and no post-issuance transfer of any kind is recorded, the chain terminates at the original operating-company assignee. That is the finding: Renault retained the patent to expiry.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 5930739
    1995 : Priority filing FR 9504156
    1996 : PCT filed by Renault
    1997 : Constancis assigns to Regie Nationale des Usines Renault
    1999 : US patent issued
    2007 : Lapsed for unpaid maintenance fees

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Net: zero positive signals. The only "unusual" feature is the absence of any post-issue transfer — the mark of an operating company that kept its own patent rather than an assertion vehicle.

Verdict

Insufficient data (only the original assignment).

The entire recorded chain of title is a single inventor-to-employer assignment — executed 1997-12-12, recorded 1999-04-29 at Reel 009917/Frame 0475, from Pierre Constancis to Régie Nationale des Usines Renault — after which no assignment of any kind was ever recorded. There is no NPE transfer, no asserter in the chain, no cascading LLCs, and no bankruptcy sale; the patent simply lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees effective 2007-07-27 (Google Patents legal events) while still held by the original operating-company assignee. Under the rubric, this cannot be scored as an NPE or a defensive-aggregator outcome because no downstream assignment exists to analyze — hence "insufficient data," with the substantive finding that ownership never left the original automaker.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 5930739) or https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. A direct pull is recommended only to capture the recording correspondent name for Reel 009917/Frame 0475, which the accessible sources do not expose.

Caveat (unchanged from prior sections): absence of additional assignments in the sources I could reach is not proof of absence; a full Assignment Center / PatentCenter pull would make the "single-assignment" finding definitive.

I'll research each cited reference to assess its relevance as prior art. Let me start by verifying the patent and pulling details on the cited references.

Let me research the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent 5,930,739

Note on scope: I confirmed the target document via the Google Patents full text (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5930739](/patent/US5930739)/en) and the idiyas badge record (https://idiyas.com/patent/badge/5930739). The idiyas record corroborates the U.S. national-stage filing date of Dec. 29, 1997 (Appl. No. 08/930,573), resolving that item flagged as uncertain earlier. All alphanumeric identifiers below are reproduced literally; I have not corrected anything.

Critical date framework. I use the earliest effective date — FR 9504156 priority, 1995‑04‑07 — as the reference point for § 102/§ 103 analysis, because a French priority does not create a § 102(e) date for a U.S. counterpart, and because the U.S. filing is 1996‑04‑05 (PCT) / 1997‑12‑29 (national stage). This matters: one cited reference (US 5,745,870) has a U.S. filing date after the '739 priority date, which constrains how it can be used. I flag this where relevant.

1. The 10 references cited on the face of US 5,930,739

These are the examiner-cited U.S. patents, per the "Patent Citations (10)" list in the patent record.

Also relevant: the "Family Cites Families" entry FR 2,702,570 B1 (Renault, 1995‑04‑21) — this is the applicant's own earlier patent expressly identified in the '739 Background as the closest prior process (telemeter-derived radius of curvature and angular speed, plus odometer for longitudinal speed).

2. Element-by-element map of Claim 1

Claim 1 (the only independent claim) requires:

• (a) a loop-speed ("yaw-rate") measuring device that provides an estimate of loop speed;
• (b) adjusting that device's estimate when a fixed obstacle is detected in the path;
• (c) the adjustment being related to (i) the vehicle's longitudinal speed, (ii) the longitudinal distance to the fixed obstacle, and (iii) the obstacle's relative transverse speed.

The invention's point (specification) is a selective readjustment / "hybridation" — the always-on but drift-prone estimate (steering-angle sensor or gyrometer) is recalibrated against the precise-but-intermittent telemeter measurement taken off a stationary object (stationary confirmed because relative longitudinal speed Vr equals the vehicle's own Vl; then Ψ = Vt/Dl and χ = Vt/(Dl·Vl)).

3. Reference-by-reference assessment

US 5,745,870 (Mazda) — the most technically relevant reference

• Full citation: US 5,745,870 A; Yamamoto, Doi, Yoshioka; assignee Mazda Motor Corp.; filed 1995‑09‑13; JP priority JP 6‑220353 (1994‑09‑14); issued 1998‑04‑28.
• Description: Radar head unit detects obstacles; a stationary-status judgment means determines whether a detected object is stationary; a first traveling-path prediction means then computes a radius of curvature R1 from "data indicative of running conditions of the vehicle with respect to the obstacle" — expressly distance, direction, relative velocity, and velocity of transverse movement (claim 7 / claim 14); a second prediction means computes R2 from velocity V0 and steering angle θH; a selection means picks R2 when no stationary object is present and R1 when one is. Its stated object is to predict the traveling path without a yaw-rate sensor, substituting the stationary-object computation.
• Claim mapping: Elements (a), (c)(i)–(iii) are disclosed (velocity, distance, relative velocity, transverse velocity of a stationary object). Element (b) — adjusting/re-adjusting a loop-speed measuring device — is not disclosed: US 5,745,870 selects between two independent path predictions rather than correcting one sensor with the other. It explicitly avoids using a yaw-rate sensor at all.
• § 102 assessment: Does not anticipate Claim 1 (missing element (b)). It is the strongest § 103 reference for the germ of claims 1 and 5 (claim 5's "path curve χ" from the three quantities is squarely described). Date caveat: its U.S. filing (1995‑09‑13) postdates the '739 priority (1995‑04‑07), so it is not § 102(e) art against the '739; it can only be reached through its 1994‑09‑14 JP priority if that document qualifies as a § 102(a)/(b) publication — a point the examiner evidently accepted but that I cannot verify from the open record. Treat this reference as § 103 material, not § 102.

US 5,467,283 (Mazda) — relevant to claims 3 & 4

• Full citation: US 5,467,283 A; Butsuen et al.; Mazda Motor Corp.; filed 1992‑10‑21; issued 1995‑11‑14.
• Description: Obstacle-sensing apparatus with steering-angle sensing means, yaw-rate sensing means, vehicle-velocity sensing means, a first path predictor based on steering angle and a second based on yaw rate, plus selecting means that selects one path "in dependence upon the operating state of the vehicle."
• Claim mapping: Discloses the two alternative measuring modalities recited in claims 3 (steering-angle sensor) and 4 (gyrometer/yaw-rate sensor), and the availability of a yaw-rate estimate. Again it is a selection architecture, not a correct-with-telemeter architecture — element (b)'s fixed-obstacle adjustment is absent.
• § 102 assessment: No anticipation of Claim 1. Strong § 103 support for the claim‑3/claim‑4 alternatives. Filed 1992 → valid § 102(b) art as to its disclosure generally.

US 5,314,037 and US 5,529,138 (Shaw) — relevant to the "measuring device" element

• Full citations: US 5,314,037 A (filed 1993‑01‑22, issued 1994‑05‑24); US 5,529,138 A (CIP of the '037 application, filed 1993‑01‑22 parent, issued 1996‑06‑25).
• Description: Laser-radar collision avoidance. The summary of US 5,529,138 states: "A steering wheel rotation sensor or a laser gyroscope is utilized to give information of system-equipped vehicle's directional change" — i.e., both a steering-angle-derived yaw estimate and a gyroscope-based yaw estimate are disclosed. US 5,529,138 further discloses a "wheel skidding detecting system based on a discrepancy between the directional change rate predicted by a steering wheel rotation sensor and the actual directional change rate detected by a laser gyroscope."
• Claim mapping: Discloses element (a) in both the steering-sensor and gyroscope variants (again supporting claims 3 and 4), and even compares a predicted directional-change rate to a measured one — conceptually adjacent to "readjustment." But the corrective input in Shaw is a gyroscope comparison, not a telemeter measurement of a fixed obstacle's distance and transverse speed; element (b)'s fixed-obstacle trigger and elements (c)(ii)–(iii) are absent.
• § 102 assessment: No anticipation of Claim 1. Useful § 103 art for the "measuring device" limitation and for the general concept of correcting a steering-derived yaw estimate.

US 5,410,304 (Daimler-Benz) — background / § 102(b) art only

• Full citation: US 5,410,304 A; Daimler‑Benz AG; filed 1992‑05‑05; issued 1995‑04‑25.
• Description: Records distance a_m to a lead vehicle/obstacle, relative speed v_rel, visual range a_sw, own speed v_eig, and steering angle β_L; a safety computer forms signed difference values (Δa, Δv) and drives a danger display. It is an environment-sensor fusion + display system.
• Claim mapping: Contains longitudinal speed and steering angle and relative-obstacle data — but it computes a danger degree, not a yaw-rate estimate, and there is no gyrometer (element (a) absent in the loop-speed sense) and no readjustment of a yaw measurement (element (b) absent).
• § 102 assessment: No anticipation. Cited for general context (sensor fusion using steering angle + relative speed + distance). Filed 1992 → § 102(b) art as to disclosure.

US 5,343,206 (Fiat Auto) — background / § 102(b) art only

• Full citation: US 5,343,206 A; Fiat Auto S.p.A.; filed 1990‑07‑05; issued 1994‑08‑30.
• Description: Scanning sensor builds a map of the environment, reconstructs road geometry, reconstructs the presumed vehicle path from road geometry (and, at a lower approximation level, from steering-wheel position), and detects obstacles within that path. It computes radius/curvature from steering-wheel angle (claim 6: R_V, C_0V = 1/R_V from steering-wheel angle θ).
• Claim mapping: Discloses steering-angle→curvature (relates to claims 5/6) and obstacle distance/relative-speed measurement. No yaw-rate measuring device and no adjustment of one (elements (a)/(b) absent).
• § 102 assessment: No anticipation. Background art on steering-angle-based curvature.

US 5,467,284 (Mazda) and US 5,754,099 (Nippondenso) — obstacle detection/warning

• Full citations: US 5,467,284 A (Mazda; filed 1993‑05‑24; issued 1995‑11‑14); US 5,754,099 A (Nippondenso; filed 1994‑03‑25; issued 1998‑05‑19).
• Description: Both are obstacle-detection / obstacle-warning systems for motor vehicles. I did not obtain full claim text for these two in this pass, so I describe them from their titles, assignees, and the '739's citation context only — this is lower-confidence.
• Claim mapping: As obstacle-sensing/warning systems they relate only to the existence of obstacle detection that underlies element (b)'s "when a fixed obstacle is detected." Neither is identified as computing or correcting a yaw rate, so elements (a) and (b)'s adjustment are absent.
• § 102 assessment: No anticipation of Claim 1 on the record I could verify. Caveat: I could not retrieve their full claims; if either discloses telemeter-based curvature correction, that would change the analysis and warrants a direct full-text check.

US 5,510,990 (Nippondenso) — lead-vehicle discrimination

• Full citation: US 5,510,990 A; Nippondenso Co., Ltd.; filed 1992‑12‑08; issued 1996‑04‑23.
• Description: System distinguishing a vehicle traveling ahead based on an adjustable probability distribution — i.e., target/lead-vehicle identification, not yaw-rate measurement.
• Claim mapping: Relates only to selecting which detected object is the relevant lead vehicle. No yaw-rate measuring device, no readjustment.
• § 102 assessment: No anticipation. Background art.

US 5,646,612 (Daewoo) — collision avoidance method

• Full citation: US 5,646,612 A; Daewoo Electronics Co., Ltd.; filed 1995‑02‑09; issued 1997‑07‑08.
• Description: Method and apparatus for avoiding vehicle collision. Filing date 1995‑02‑09 is before the '739 priority (1995‑04‑07), so it can qualify as prior art (§ 102(e) as a U.S. patent whose application was filed before the '739 invention — note its issue date 1997‑07‑08 postdates the '739 U.S. filing, so § 102(b)/(a) are unavailable and only § 102(e) is potentially available). I did not retrieve its full claims; description is from title/assignee — lower confidence.
• Claim mapping: As a collision-avoidance method it likely detects obstacles and computes closing data, but nothing in the record indicates a yaw-rate measuring device or its readjustment.
• § 102 assessment: No anticipation on the available record; § 102(e) only, and only if it discloses the (a)/(b) elements — which the title does not suggest.

FR 2,702,570 (Renault) — the applicant's own starting-point art

• Full citation: FR 2,702,570 B1 (Renault); cited as "Family Cites Families"; grants 1995‑04‑21.
• Description (per the '739 Background): A process of detecting/selecting collision-risk obstacles using a horizontal scanning telemeter to determine the radius of curvature and angular speed of the following vehicle, plus an odometer for longitudinal speed, then estimating collision danger by comparing paths. The '739 specification expressly states this measurement is precise but "not permanent" and subject to inaccuracy from other selectable obstacles — which is the stated motivation for the '739 invention.
• Claim mapping: This is the closest thing to the telemeter-derived curvature/yaw computation of claims 2/5. But there is no onboard yaw-rate measuring device being readjusted; the telemeter supplies the measurement directly. Element (a) in the "installed instrument providing an estimate" sense and element (b)'s adjustment are still missing.
• § 102 assessment: No anticipation. It is the acknowledged background; the '739's novelty lies precisely in adding the continuous onboard estimate and hybridizing it with this telemeter measurement.

4. Bottom line

No single cited reference appears to anticipate Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Every one of the ten U.S. citations is missing at least element (b) — the adjustment/re-adjustment of an onboard loop-speed measuring device upon detection of a fixed obstacle — and most are missing element (a) in the loop-speed sense as well. That is consistent with the invention's stated purpose: prior systems either (i) measured yaw/curvature directly from the telemeter but only intermittently (FR 2,702,570; US 5,343,206), (ii) selected between steering-angle and yaw-rate path predictions (US 5,467,283; and by analogy US 5,745,870's two-predictor selection), or (iii) used sensor fusion for danger display/warning (US 5,410,304; US 5,314,037 / US 5,529,138; US 5,467,284; US 5,754,099; US 5,510,990; US 5,646,612).

Most relevant prior art, ranked:

1. US 5,745,870 (Mazda) — closest; discloses stationary-object-based curvature/path computation using distance, direction, relative velocity and transverse-movement velocity (→ directly bears on claim 5 and the three quantified inputs of claim 1); best § 103 combination reference. (§ 102(e) date problem noted above.)
2. US 5,467,283 (Mazda) — steering-angle and yaw-rate path prediction → § 103 support for claims 3 and 4.
3. US 5,529,138 / US 5,314,037 (Shaw) — steering-wheel sensor vs. gyroscope, and skid detection from the discrepancy between predicted and measured yaw rate → § 103 support for the "measuring device" and "correction" concepts.
4. FR 2,702,570 (Renault) — the admitted background; telemeter-derived curvature and angular speed.
5. Remaining references (US 5,410,304, US 5,343,206, US 5,467,284, US 5,754,099, US 5,510,990, US 5,646,612) — background/§ 103 context only.

Which claims each reference can potentially reach under § 102 (strict, single-reference standard):

Confidence and caveats:

• High confidence for US 5,745,870, US 5,467,283, US 5,314,037, US 5,529,138, US 5,343,206, US 5,410,304 and FR 2,702,570 (full text or detailed abstracts retrieved).
• Lower confidence for US 5,467,284, US 5,754,099 and US 5,646,612 — I obtained only bibliographic data and titles in this pass and did not retrieve their full claim sets; my "no anticipation" conclusion for those three rests on the absence of any indication that they compute or correct a yaw rate, and should be confirmed against their full texts.
• Google Patents lists citations without indicating whether any was actually used in a § 102 rejection or only as a § 103/background citation; the "potentially anticipatory" column above is my technical reading, not a record of examiner action.
• I did not obtain the USPTO's own Office Action / reasons-for-allowance for 08/930,573, which would show exactly how each reference was applied. That document (PatentCenter file wrapper) is the authoritative source and would settle the § 102-vs-§ 103 question definitively.

I'll analyze obviousness by grounding the prior-art references in the patent's own citation lists, then verify key references via search.

Strong results. Let me verify the two closest references' dates and content (US5745870 filing date; FR2702570 content).

Obviousness Analysis — US 5,930,739 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note. This builds on the previously generated summary and litigation sections (which established the bibliographic record, the single independent claim 1, and the no-litigation finding). It is not repeated here. All alphanumeric identifiers are interpreted literally. Because the application was filed in 1996–1997 and issued 1999, pre‑AIA § 102/§ 103(a) governs, together with the pre‑AIA § 102(e) framework (including the AIPA-era treatment of published PCT applications designating the U.S.).

1. Legal framework applied

Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a claim is obvious where the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention. The § 103 inquiry asks whether the improvement is "more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions," and expressly allows combination where there is "a finite number of identified, predictable solutions" or a "design incentive" to try a known option.

POSITA definition (adopted): a controls engineer with 3–5 years of experience in automotive driver-assistance/obstacle-detection systems, familiar with scanning laser/microwave radar (LIDAR), ABS wheel-speed sensors, steering-angle sensors, gyrometers/yaw-rate sensors, and the kinematic relations Ψ = Vl/R, Ψ = χ·Vl, and δ = aχ + b (bicycle-model steering geometry).

All references below are from the same field of endeavor (vehicle obstacle detection, path prediction, or vehicle angular-rate measurement) — this is a strong factor supporting combinability, since all are reasonably pertinent to the problem the '739 inventor faced. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.

2. The § 103-eligible prior art, drawn from the patent's own citation lists

The '739 front page lists 10 U.S. citations, 4 "family cites", and 9 "cited by" documents. Only those predating the '739 effective date qualify. Sorting by date:

Not available as prior art. The entire "Cited By" set — US 6,256,584 (Honda, 2001), WO 2001/050154 / US 6,611,741 (Bosch, 2001/2003), EP 1 418 444 A1 (IBEO, 2004), EP 2 390 680 A1 / CN 102288957 / US 8,606,539 (Mitsubishi, 2011–2013), US 11,194,346 B2 (Yamaha, 2021) — all post-date the '739 priority date and therefore cannot be used in a § 103 rejection against it. They are useful only as evidence of how the field evolved (e.g., EP 1 418 444 A1, "Method for determining the yaw rate of a vehicle," confirms that telemeter-assisted yaw-rate determination remained a recognized approach).

3. Claim-construction touchpoints for the § 103 map

• "loop speed" = yaw rate (the operative claim term; § 112 not at issue here).
• "adjusting said loop speed measurement device" (claim 1) — the specification equates this to "recaler"/"hybridation," i.e., correcting the estimate (gyrometer bias, or the steering-angle origin deviation b), not calibrating a physical part.
• Fixed-obstacle identification — the specification's teaching ("for the latter Vr = Vl") is the claimed "fixed obstacle."
• Relations relied on: Ψ = Vt/Dl; Ψ = χ·Vl; χ = Vt/(Dl·Vl); δ = aχ + b.

4. Proposed § 103 grounds

Ground 1 — Claims 1, 2, 3, 5: FR 2,702,570 + US 5,745,870 (or US 5,467,283)

Motivation to combine. The motivation is supplied by the references themselves and admitted in '739's own Background: FR 2,702,570's telemeter measurement "is precise. However, it is not permanent, since it assumes that an obstacle has been detected and selected," and it "is marred by inaccuracies, linked to the presence of other selectable obstacles in the field of the telemeter." US 5,745,870 supplies the complementary half — a continuously available path prediction (from steering angle/velocity) used when no stationary object is detected — and US 5,467,283 teaches that the continuous estimate is known to be inaccurate for identifiable, correctable reasons (canted roads; driver jitter). A POSITA seeking "a measurement of the angular speed of a vehicle as precise as possible," continuously, would plainly have been led to use the intermittent precise telemeter measurement to correct the continuous estimate — the classic fusion/hybridization design choice. This is the "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" scenario of KSR.

Ground 2 — Claim 6 (and reinforcing 1–5): + US 5,343,206 (Fiat) and US 5,314,037 (Shaw)

Claim 6 requires adjustment of the steering-angle value per δ = aχ + b. The affine steering-angle↔curvature relationship and the offset term are well within the art:

• US 5,343,206 claim 6 already computes the vehicle's path curvature as C_0V = 1/R_V "on the basis of the said steering wheel angle (θ)" — i.e., χ as a function of δ, with the path built from the Cornu-spiral/curvature model (C₀, C₁). Coefficient a (gear reduction and wheelbase) is a fixed vehicle-design constant recited in '739 as a known quantity.
• US 5,467,283 explains precisely the physical sources of the b offset — that the sensed steering angle "does not agree with the actual turning angle" (canted road surface) and that driver-induced steering jitter desynchronizes the sensed angle from actual path — i.e., the "error introduced by the sensor … and by transverse forces (wind, centrifugal force, dévers)" that '739 attributes to b.
• US 5,314,037 / US 5,529,138 go further and teach the remedial step: "averaging means" that "determines an average steering wheel rotation over a predetermined distance and duration" and "generates correction factor signals if the average steering wheel rotation deviates from zero." That is, in substance, estimating and removing a steering-angle bias — the claimed adjustment of b.

Claim 6 conclusion: obvious. Applying a known affine sensor model (δ = aχ + b) and recalibrating its offset term when a precise independent reference measurement becomes available is the predictable use of known elements for their established functions.

Ground 3 — Claim 4: gyrometer variant — + US 5,314,037 / US 5,529,138 or US 5,467,283

Claim 4 merely substitutes a gyrometer for the steering-angle sensor of claim 3. The substitution is art-recognized and not inventive:

• US 5,529,138/US 5,314,037: "a laser gyroscope means mounted on the vehicle for detecting directional change rate of the vehicle," used alongside the steering sensor (with the "discrepancy" between the two used for skid detection).
• US 5,467,283: "yaw rate sensing means for sensing yaw rate produced by the vehicle" (sensor 7).
• '739's own Background concedes that the loop speed "can be estimated most simply by means of a gyrometer" — an admission that gyrometers were a known, available option for this exact measurement.

Claim 4 conclusion: obvious; substituting one known yaw-rate transducer for another with the same function (per KSR, "the mere substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results").

Ground 4 — Claim 7 (least squares): + US 5,745,870 (averaging) and applicant's own admission

Claim 7 recites that the adjustment of b "uses a least squares method." This is a recitation of a known numerical technique, not a new structure or step. Support:

• Applicant's admission: the '739 specification states, "the invention proposes, notably using the methods of calculation known as least squares methods" — an express concession that least squares is a prior-art computational tool.
• US 5,745,870 claims 23–24 disclose fitting/averaging path curvature over multiple obstacles (selecting three farthest obstacles and computing an average of their radii of curvature) — a statistical combination of noisy sensor-derived curvature values, the same genus of operation.

Claim 7 conclusion: obvious. KSR: "a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Choosing a standard regression (least squares) to fit b against repeated telemeter-derived χ values is a routine engineering choice within the ordinary creativity of a POSITA.

Alternative primary reference — US 5,343,206 (Fiat) alone as to claims 1/5

If one prefers a scanning-radar primary reference that explicitly couples scanning, obstacle distance, relative speed, and steering-wheel-angle-derived curvature in one disclosure (claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9), US 5,343,206 supplies that combination. Its weakness as primary art is that it derives path from road geometry rather than from a fixed obstacle, so US 5,745,870's stationary-status judgment would still be needed — which yields essentially Ground 1 with the roles of primary/secondary reversed.

5. Claim-by-claim conclusion

There is also a secondary § 102 question worth preserving: US 5,745,870's claim 19 (measure from the stationary object when one is detected; predict from steering angle + velocity when it is not) arguably reads on the "selectively readjusted … permanently measured … selectively readjusted" architecture of claim 1, such that claim 1 may be anticipated rather than merely obvious — subject to the date caveat below.

6. Exceptions, weaknesses, and honest caveats

1. US 5,745,870's § 102(e) status is date-sensitive. Google Patents lists a priority date of 1994‑09‑14 and publication 1998‑04‑28, but I could not, from the sources reached, confirm its U.S. domestic filing date. If that filing predates 1995‑04‑07, it is § 102(e) prior art; if it is ≈1995‑09 (a Japan priority + 12-month Paris Convention path), it is prior art only if the '739 filing is refused the FR 9504156 priority and 1996‑04‑05 governs. The '739 front page nonetheless lists US 5,745,870 among the references of record, which indicates the examiner treated it as prior art. Flagged as uncertain — this is a genuine potential contradiction between the reference list and a strict date analysis, and should be resolved via USPTO PatentCenter / the file wrapper before relying on Ground 1's '870 leg.
2. US 5,646,612 and US 5,754,099 are borderline (§ 102(e) only); do not rely on them without confirming their U.S. filing dates.
3. Claim 6 is the hardest limitation. I did not find a single reference that in express terms states a steering-angle model of the form δ = aχ + b with a bias term b to be recalibrated. The rejection for claim 6 therefore rests on (i) US 5,343,206's steering-angle→curvature computation, (ii) US 5,467,283's explanation of the error sources that produce the offset, and (iii) US 5,314,037's "correction factor signals" for steering-wheel rotation — i.e., on an obviousness rationale rather than express disclosure. A POSITA would recognize b as a routine sensor-bias calibration parameter, but a patentee arguing non-obviousness would attack precisely here.
4. Teaching-away argument to anticipate. US 5,745,870's stated object is path prediction "without using a yaw rate sensor" and "instead of a yaw rate sensor" (cost-reduction motive). A patentee may argue this disparages yaw-rate sensors, cutting against Grounds involving claims 3/4. The rebuttal is that this is a cost preference, not a technical disparagement, and that the same assignee (Mazda) in US 5,467,283 uses both a steering-angle and a yaw-rate sensor — showing the "instead of" framing was not a settled teaching away. KSR also cautions that "[t]he mere fact that the prior art's solution does not include the very feature that the patentee claims is not sufficient to establish a teaching away."
5. Secondary considerations. No evidence of commercial success, licensing, copying, industry praise, or long-felt-but-unmet need was located (the patent lapsed 2007‑07‑27 for non-payment of maintenance fees, and my prior litigation survey found no enforcement). Absent such objective indicia, there is nothing to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.
6. Legal conclusion. This is a technical/analytical assessment, not a validity opinion. Actual unenforceability/validity is for the courts or the Office, and the patent is long expired (lapsed 2007; anticipated expiration 2016‑04‑05), so the only realistic present-day use of this analysis is defensive (e.g., citations as prior art) or historical.

7. Bottom line

Subject to the US 5,745,870 date caveat, every claim of US 5,930,739 would have been obvious under pre-AIA § 103(a) over the prior art cited on its own face. The strongest combination is FR 2,702,570 (Renault) as primary — which the '739 Background itself admits already determines vehicle radius of curvature and angular speed from a horizontal scanning telemeter but does so non-permanently — in view of US 5,745,870 (Mazda) (stationary-obstacle judgment; curvature from obstacle distance and transverse velocity; steering-angle/velocity fallback path) and US 5,467,283 (Mazda) (steering-angle sensor + yaw-rate sensor; express recognition that steering-angle path prediction is inaccurate), further in view of US 5,343,206 (Fiat) and US 5,314,037 / US 5,529,138 (Shaw) for the δ = aχ + b model, the gyrometer alternative, and correction-factor/averaging teachings.

Confidence: High for the identity, dates, and technical content of FR 2,702,570, US 5,343,206, US 5,314,037/US 5,529,138, and US 5,467,283 (verified from full-text/PDF sources and from '739's own descriptive text). Medium for US 5,745,870 as prior art (content high confidence; § 102(e) date unresolved). Medium for the claim-6 rationale (no express δ = aχ + b + offset disclosure located).