US 6038711

I'll verify this against live sources before summarizing.

Now let me check the litigation/CAFC docket status specifically.

US 6,038,711 — Verification Summary

Source of record: the authoritative full text supplied in the prompt (Google Patents, https://patents.google.com/patent/US6038711/en), cross-checked against FreePatentsOnline (https://FreePatentsOnline.com/[6038711](/patent/6038711).html), EveryPatent (http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat6038711.html), and Justia (https://patents.justia.com/patent/6038711). All three mirrors agree on the bibliographic data below.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (as issued)

"A potty chair resembling a miniature toilet uses features of appearance and a handle for producing a simulated flushing sound, to attract a toddler, familiarize her/him with the device and remove barriers to its usage. A dual phase reward system including a displayable trophy and a storage cubby hole for prizes such as candy, stickers, and toys, encourage the child to use the device and accelerate the completion of potty training."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

• Claim 1 — the base "miniature toilet" combination. A free-standing stool with a seat, a collection receptacle, and a hinged/openable lid; plus a generally rectangular back member attached to the stool that "resembl[es] a toilet tank," has "significant depth," and is at least partially hollow so items that encourage usage can be placed inside it; the stool + back member together look like a miniature full-sized toilet. The claim closes with a means-plus-function element: "means for attracting the toddler … to increase familiarity and develop the toddler's desire to use said device."
• Claim 15 — the "flushing sound" variant. Same stool/lid/receptacle + back member structure, but the attracting means is recited concretely: a pivotable handle driving a sound unit that produces a simulated flushing-toilet sound.
• Claim 16 — the "trophy reward" variant. Same stool/back-member structure, where the attracting means is a reward system including a displayable trophy, a first attachment means on a non-visible portion of the device for storage, and a second attachment means on a highly visible portion for display (spec: Velcro® strip on the tank top; hook on the rear for storage).
• Claim 18 — the "decal under the lid" variant. Same stool/back-member structure (back member expressly "configured so as to resemble a toilet tank"), where the attracting means is at least one decal affixed beneath the openable lid, to induce the toddler to open the lid, become familiar with the device, and reduce/eliminate fear about the receptacle.
• Claim 19 — the "see-through tank" variant. Same stool/back-member structure, where the attracting means is a back member made of see-through plastic with eye-catching display devices suspended inside it (spec: plastic fish/stars).

Dependent claims 2–14 largely track these themes: flush-handle sound unit (2, 17), reward compartment formed in the hollow back member (4), clear-plastic compartment wall (5), latchable door (6), lockable door (7), trophy display on the tank top surface (8, 9), child-friendly appearance/decals (10–13), and a removable, washable collector (14).

Litigation history (verified as to the district court)

• Google Patents records a U.S. case filed in the Western District of Wisconsin, docket 3:07-cv-00421 (Unified Patents litigation data link).
• That case is Clark v. Fisher-Price, Inc. (W.D. Wis., Judge Shabaz, 2008). Per the case summary at StudiCata, the court held Fisher-Price's "Fun To Learn Potty" infringed claims 1 and 15; on claim 1 it construed "for allowing items which encourage usage to be positioned therein" broadly enough to cover sound-producing electronics, and it left the "simulated sound of a flushing toilet" question (claim 15) for the jury. It granted summary judgment for Clark on some invalidity defenses but denied it on others (obviousness fact disputes precluded summary judgment).

On your specific request re: "CAFC 2026 dockets"

I found no CAFC docket, appeal, IPR, or other 2026 proceeding involving US 6,038,711, and I do not believe one exists. This is a negative finding, stated with the caveat below:

• The patent's term expired April 7, 2019 (anticipated expiration; status "Expired – Lifetime"), so it cannot be asserted for post-expiration infringement and a 2026 merits appeal on it is implausible.
• My searches on Federal Circuit 2026 activity returned only unrelated 2026 cases (Oasis Tooling v. Siemens/GlobalFoundries, Columbia v. Gen Digital, USAA v. PNC, Constellation Designs v. LG, FedEx v. Qualcomm, Enviro Tech v. Safe Foods, Willis Electric/Polygroup). However, I was not able to query PACER or the CAFC's own docket system directly — only general web search. So I cannot state with high confidence that no docket exists; I can only say that nothing in the searchable record supports one.
• Likewise, I could not authoritatively confirm whether the 2008 Fisher-Price district-court outcome was ever appealed or how it finally resolved (e.g., settlement, judgment, or affirmance). Treat that as unverified.

Two additional uncertainty flags worth noting

1. Internal inconsistency in the specification. The patent repeatedly touts as a benefit that "there is no electrical device to short circuit or malfunction," yet the same specification discloses a "sound producing microchip circuit" sourced from A.G.C. (New Hyde Park, N.Y.) and claims 2/15/17 recite a sound unit. This boilerplate-vs.-disclosure tension is a real feature of the document, not a transcription error.
2. Means-plus-function exposure. Independent claims 1, 15, 16, 18, and 19 all recite "means for attracting the toddler…" That phrase is the point of novelty, and the supporting disclosure is largely a catalogue of alternative attractions (sound unit, compartment, trophy, decals, suspended items). Under § 112(f)/Donaldson, the scope of those claims would be limited to the disclosed corresponding structures and equivalents — a construction risk the Clark v. Fisher-Price claim-construction dispute touched on tangentially.

Bottom line: the bibliographic core you asked for is confirmed and consistent across four independent sources: William A. Clarke, filed April 7, 1999, issued March 21, 2000, individually owned, now expired (April 7, 2019), with five independent claims (1, 15, 16, 18, 19) all built on a miniature-toilet stool plus hollow toilet-tank-shaped back member, differing only in the claimed "means for attracting the toddler." The only litigation I can verify is the 2007–2008 Wisconsin district-court case against Fisher-Price; I have no verified evidence of any 2026 CAFC activity, and given the 2019 expiration I would treat any such report as requiring direct PACER/CAFC confirmation before relying on it.

I'll run targeted searches on the patent number across litigation sources.

The generic searches returned noise. Let me query the specific patent number and the known case directly.

Litigation known for US 6,038,711

I searched for the specific number and cross-checked the litigation pointers in the Google Patents record and the available case-summary sources. Here is what can be verified, with the limits of my verification stated explicitly.

1. Clark v. Fisher-Price, Inc. — the only verified case

Sources: Google Patents records the case as "US case filed in Wisconsin Western District Court," docket 3:07-cv-00421, linking to Unified Patents litigation data (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Wisconsin%20Western%20District%20Court/case/3%3A07-cv-00421). The substantive holding (claims 1 and 15 infringed; invalidity partially defeated, obviousness surviving to trial) is summarized at StudiCata, "Clark v. Fisher-Price, Inc. (2008)" (https://www.studicata.com/summaries/united-states-district-court-western-district-of-wisconsin/clark-v-fisher-price-inc-2008-ehgn5v/).

2. No other litigation found

• No IPR, PGR, CBM, or reexamination involving 6,038,711 appeared in any search — consistent with the Google Patents record, whose "Cited By"/"Citations" listings show the patent used only as prior art (e.g., it is cited in WO 2005/098790 and JP 2007531911A), not as the subject of a PTAB proceeding.
• No CAFC appeal involving 6,038,711 surfaced. I cannot confirm whether the 2008 Wisconsin outcome was appealed, settled, or tried to judgment.
• No 2026 activity. Nothing in the searchable record shows any 2026 district-court, CAFC, ITC, or Foreign (UPC) proceeding on this patent.
• The only "similar-number" hits (e.g., the "871专利" Chinese patent No. 201380069871.2 in the Medtronic/venus Medtech matter, Shuffle Master's '871 gambling-chip patent, IEC standard 6038711) are unrelated and were excluded per your instruction.

Limits on this answer — please read

1. I could not query PACER or the CAFC docket system directly. My access was general web search. So the absence of additional cases is a negative finding from the searchable record, not a PACER-verified null.
2. One targeted search hit the tool-call limit before returning, so I could not fully exhaust the Unified Patents litigation portal caselist or a docket-level record for 3:07-cv-00421. The docket number and forum are confirmed; the filing date and final disposition are the two fields I would want to confirm against the docket itself.
3. Consistency with the prior section: this is consistent with the earlier-generated verification summary (same case, same forum, same docket 3:07-cv-00421, same 2008 holding). No contradiction found.
4. Practical context: with the patent expired April 7, 2019 (26 years from the April 7 required-date), no new infringement suit could be premised on post-expiration conduct, which is a strong structural reason to expect no 2026 case exists.

Bottom line: the single known, verifiable litigation for US 6,038,711 is Clark v. Fisher-Price, Inc., in the Western District of Wisconsin, docket 3:07-cv-00421 (filed 2007), in which Clark won partial summary judgment of infringement on claims 1 and 15 but the case proceeded with invalidity/obviousness still in dispute. I have no verified evidence of any other federal case, IPR, ITC action, or CAFC appeal, and I would treat any reported 2026 proceeding as requiring direct PACER/CAFC confirmation before relying on it.

I'll verify the structured "no PTAB activity" default against live sources before writing anything.

Now checking the litigation chain and any PTAB/CAFC docket tied to this patent.

One more pass: checking for reexamination, CBM, or any post-issuance USPTO challenge, and the district-court appeal chain.

AIA Trial Proceedings — US 6,038,711 (Clarke, "Potty training device")

Bottom line up front: there are zero AIA trial proceedings on this patent. The structured USPTO Open Data Portal block returns none, and my independent web searches (PTAB/Board decisions, docket aggregators, litigation trackers) surfaced no IPR, PGR, CBM, or derivation proceeding naming US 6,038,711 — only utility and design patents citing it. This is a verified negative finding, with the confidence caveat noted at the end.

---

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings: 0 — 0 active, 0 with claims invalidated, 0 with claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials; consequently the patent's 19 claims are entirely untested at the PTAB, and the defensive posture is not "the patent has survived IPRs and is hardened" but rather "the PTAB never touched it, so there is no estoppel and no Board ruling to lean on — and, more importantly, there is no live patent left to assert, since it expired 2019-04-07."

No proceeding sections follow, and here is why

The requested per-proceeding template (### {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} — {Petitioner} v. {Patent Owner}) is intentionally empty. I will not manufacture a docket number, panel, or Final Written Decision. What follows is the evidentiary basis for the null result and what it means for a defendant.

Why no AIA vehicle was realistically available or used

• Filing date is 1999-04-07 — pre-AIA. The application was filed long before 2012-03-16. That eliminates two of the three AIA trial types outright:
  • Post-Grant Review (PGR) is available only for patents with an effective filing date on or after 2012-03-16 (35 U.S.C. § 321; AIA § 6(c)(2)(A)). Not available.
  • Covered Business Method (CBM) review was limited to patents claiming a "financial product or service" (AIA § 18(a)(1)(E), SightSound). A plastic children's potty chair classified in A47K 11/04 with a Y10S 4/902 art unit tag is not a covered business method patent. Never available. (CBM itself sunset 2020-09-16.)
  • IPR (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, available from 2012-09-16 for any patent regardless of filing date) was the only vehicle that could ever have been used — and nobody used it.
• Timing explains the gap. The only assertion I can verify is Clark v. Fisher-Price, Inc., W.D. Wis. 3:07-cv-00421 (Judge Shabaz), filed 2007 — five years before IPR existed. The defendant of record never had an IPR option. By the time IPR became available, the case was over.
• Expiration removed the incentive. Google Patents records the patent as Expired – Lifetime, anticipated expiration 2019-04-07, with maintenance fees paid through the 12-year window (last FAY 2012-03-21, with surcharge). A petition filed after 2019-04-07 would have been an expensive exercise against a patent that could not be asserted prospectively — an outcome I would not expect any rational petitioner (including a defensive aggregator) to fund.

Corroborating absence in the secondary sources

• The Google Patents "Family has litigation" flag for this family points to Darts-IP family 23104311 and the Unified Patents litigation link at https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Wisconsin%20Western%20District%20Court/case/3%3A07-cv-00421 — both are district-court references, not PTAB. Notably, the Unified Patents entry is the only litigation-of-record trace, and Unified Patents is a defensive aggregator that files IPRs; there is no corresponding Unified Patents IPR on this patent.
• The '711 family is a single-application family (US 09/287,778, one member, "Family ID=23104311"). No continuation, no reissue, no post-issuance patent-family filing that could have spawned a separate PTAB target.
• Searching the '711 number in PTAB-decision and litigation corpora returns the patent only as prior art or citation, e.g., as the X-category reference in WO 2005/098790 A1 (Procter & Gamble, toilet training aides and kits) and in the ISR for PCT/AU2005/001914. In each instance US 6,038,711 is cited, never challenged.

One adjacent thing worth distinguishing (not a PTAB proceeding)

The Board does appear in the neighborhood of this art, but on a different patent and different patent owner: First Quality Baby Products v. Kimberly-Clark, IPR2014-00169 / IPR2014-01021 / IPR2014-01023, and the appeal in Reexamination Control 95/001,228 (Appeal 2015-005945, Decision on Appeal 2015-11-05, panel APJs McCarthy, Song, Martin), concerning U.S. 6,849,067 and U.S. 6,645,190 — diaper/training-pant patents. Those are trainer-pant absorbent-article patents, not potty-chair patents, and they involve different parties entirely. Do not let a search result conflate them with US 6,038,711; I found no family, party, or ownership overlap.

A second gap I could not close at high confidence

I found no ex parte or inter partes reexamination of US 6,038,711 in the searchable record. That is a different channel from AIA trials, so it is outside the structured block's scope, and my search on it terminated before I could confirm exhaustively. Treat "no reexamination ever" as probable but unverified — the file-wrapper history on PatentCenter would settle it in one step.

---

Strategic summary

Canceled vs. sustained vs. untested. By AIA-trial reckoning, there is a trichotomy with an empty second and third bucket: zero claims canceled, zero claims sustained, all 19 claims untested — claims 1–19, including independents 1, 15, 16, 18, 19, stand exactly as issued in 2000. Any narrowing of this patent exists only in the district court's 2008 claim construction in Clark v. Fisher-Price, which (per the case summary at StudiCata) read "for allowing items which encourage usage to be positioned therein" broadly enough to cover the accused device's sound electronics, and left the "simulated sound of a flushing toilet" limitation of claim 15 to the jury. That construction has no issue-preclusive effect on a non-party and no PTAB counterpart. So a defendant cannot say "claim X is dead"; the honest statement is "claim X was never adjudicated by the Board, and the only adjudication of infringement of claims 1 and 15 was against Fisher-Price in a case that has never, to my knowledge, been authoritatively reported as affirmed."

Estoppel landscape. This is the cleanest part of the analysis: there is no ITC/PTAB estoppel to worry about and none to rely on. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estops only the petitioner in an IPR (and its real parties in interest and privies) from raising in a civil action any ground it raised or reasonably could have raised. No petition was ever filed, so:

• No statutory estoppel attaches to any party. Every § 102/§ 103 ground that could have been raised is still fully available to any defendant — assuming one is ever sued.
• Conversely, there is no petitioner-side benefit to inherit: no FWD findings, no instituted grounds, no Board claim constructions, and no petitioner expert testimony a defendant could adopt wholesale.
• Practically, the prior-art universe remains what the examiner cited, all of which is still fair game: US 3,364,478 (Creative Monitor, infant training chair), US 4,407,024 (Schneider), USD 292,019 (Hall), US 5,369,820 (Blount, toilet training potty), US 5,573,407 (Dunford), US 5,652,975 (Hoskin, automatic talking potty), US 5,781,939 (Bledsoe, "audible reward system"), and US 5,829,073 (Lee, toilet training kit). If anyone were to petition, this set — plus the "update a mechanical children's toy with modern electronics" rationale the Federal Circuit endorsed in Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) — would be the obvious starting point for a § 103 attack on claims 2, 15, and 17 (the sound-unit claims). But note the irony the prior section already flagged: the '711 specification simultaneously touts "no electrical device to short circuit" while disclosing a microchip sound circuit, which cuts for the patent on the sound claims and against it on the "no electronics" framing.

Pattern signals. No patterns to speak of, because there is no baseline activity:

• No serial petitioner — zero petitions from anyone.
• No aggressive PTAB appellate practice by the patent owner — there is no Board decision to appeal, hence no CAFC appeal of a PTAB outcome (consistent with the prior section's conclusion that no 2026 CAFC activity involving this patent exists; the Leapfrog and Kimberly-Clark v. First Quality appeals I found are unrelated patents and parties).
• No defensive aggregator in the chain — Unified Patents appears only as the litigation-data source for the 2007 Wisconsin case, not as a petitioner.

---

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant / have received a demand letter citing US 6,038,711:

1. Lead with expiration, not with PTAB. The patent expired 2019-04-07. Assertion today (2026-09-26) would face a § 286 damages lookback reaching only to 2020-09-26 — a window that begins after expiration, leaving no period of enforceable infringement. That should end the matter faster than any IPR ever would. (This is my legal assessment, not a verified holding — confirm against § 286 and the expired-patent cases before relying on it in correspondence.)
2. There is no FWD to link to, and I will not imply otherwise. The only rulings worth citing are the district-court materials in Clark v. Fisher-Price, Inc., No. 3:07-cv-00421 (W.D. Wis. 2008), accessible via the Unified Patents link https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Wisconsin%20Western%20District%20Court/case/3%3A07-cv-00421 and summarized at https://www.studicata.com/summaries/united-states-district-court-western-district-of-wisconsin/clark-v-fisher-price-inc-2008-ehgn5v/. Neither is a USPTO PTAB decision, and neither binds a non-party.
3. No trial-stage milestones exist — no institution-decision deadline, no oral hearing, no statutory one-year-FWD clock is running, because no trial was instituted. Do not calendar PTAB dates for this patent.
4. If you nonetheless need the defensive-art record, the productive targets are claims 2, 15, 17 (flush-sound unit — threatened by Hoskin '975 and Bledsoe '939 plus the Leapfrog electronics-update rationale) and claims 10–13, 18, 19 (decals / see-through tank — note EP 1 787 558 A2 and WO 2004/080258, which post-date the '711 priority date and therefore are not prior art against it, but illustrate the crowdedness of the "decorated lid/tank" space). Any such work would be for licensing-negotiation leverage only, given point 1.
5. Close the two open verification gaps if the stakes justify it: (a) pull the PatentCenter file wrapper to confirm whether any ex parte reexamination was ever filed; (b) confirm whether the 2008 Wisconsin judgment was ever appealed, since the prior section correctly flagged that as unverified. Both are one-step checks via https://patents.google.com/patent/US6038711/en → USPTO PatentCenter, and via PTAB E2E (https://e2e.uspto.gov) / PTAB Decisions (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions) and CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%226038711%22).

Confidence note (stated plainly): my conclusion rests on the canonical ODP block in this prompt plus multiple independent web searches, none of which produced a proceeding number. I did not query the PTAB E2E API or PACER directly. If a petition exists that is neither in ODP nor indexed by the major aggregators, I did not find it — but given the 2019-04-07 expiration and the pre-AIA filing date, I would treat any report of a live AIA trial on US 6,038,711 as requiring direct E2E confirmation before crediting it.

I'll verify the assignment record and litigation details before reconstructing the chain.

Let me probe the assignment record and the litigation outcome more specifically.

Inventors

• Single-inventor patent. No joint inventors are named on US 6,038,711, so the "all inventors depart within 12 months" fire-sale tell is not applicable.
• The correspondence address on the printed patent is the inventor's own home address, not a corporate IP department — a strong, early signal that this was an independent-inventor filing rather than an employee invention.
• No pre-issuance assignment to an employer appears anywhere in the record. If Clarke had been an employee inventor in a relevant R&D role, the expectation would be a recorded assignment to the employer before or shortly after issue. There is none. That absence is itself a finding.
• Behavioral corroboration of independent ownership: the fact that Clarke personally sued Fisher-Price eight years later (see below) rather than a corporate assignee confirms he retained title. An inventor who has signed away his rights cannot be the plaintiff of record.
• I could not determine Clarke's occupation or any employer from the available sources. Treat employer as unknown, not "none."

Naming note (do not auto-correct): the patent names the inventor CLARKE; WILLIAM A., while the litigation caption renders it Clark v. Fisher-Price, Inc. (dropping the terminal "e"). These refer to the same person; I flag the discrepancy rather than silently normalizing it.

Original assignee

None — the patent issued to William A. Clarke as an individual.

• Google Patents lists both "Original Assignee: Individual" and "Current Assignee: Individual" with the express caveat that listed assignees may be inaccurate.
• There is no corporate assignee of record, no reissue assignee, and no indication the patent was ever held by a company.
• Primary line of business / products: The specification describes the device as a concept — a miniature-toilet potty chair with a simulated-flush handle, decals, a reward cubby, suspended tank items, and a displayable trophy. The record does not establish that Clarke manufactured or sold a commercial embodiment. One third-party Justia citation lists a "Flushin' Friends from Parents of Invention" potty product reference alongside this patent, but I could not verify any connection between that product and Clarke, and I do not rely on it. Product-in-commerce status: unverified.
• Current status of the owner: Individual, residing in Erie, Pennsylvania as of the address of record. The patent itself is Expired – Lifetime, anticipated expiration 2019-04-07. I have no verified information on Clarke's current status.

Assignment timeline

Finding: No recorded assignments exist for US 6,038,711.

This conclusion rests on two independent checks:

1. Google Patents legal events (authoritative text supplied) show only grant and maintenance-fee activity — no ASGN/assignment entries:
   • 2000-03-09 — STCF patent grant
   • 2003-10-08 — REMI maintenance-fee reminder
   • 2004-03-19 — FPAY fee payment (year 4) + SULP surcharge for late payment
   • 2007-08-27 — FPAY fee payment (year 8)
   • 2011-10-31 — REMI reminder
   • 2012-03-21 — FPAY fee payment (year 12) + SULP surcharge
   • 2019-04-07 — anticipated expiration
2. Google Patents records no assignee other than "Individual." Because Google's legal-events feed is populated from USPTO assignment data, the absence of any assignment event is meaningful corroboration.

Important limitation, stated plainly: I was not able to query the USPTO Patent Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) or its older index (https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) directly — only general web search was available to me, and targeted searches for a reel/frame record on this patent returned nothing. I therefore cannot state with 100% confidence that the Assignment Center is empty; I can state that no assignment record surfaced from any source, and every source that does carry assignment/owner data shows the inventor as the sole owner. Per the task rules, I am not fabricating reel/frame entries to fill this gap.

Because there is no assignment chain to annotate (no conveyance type, assignor/assignee pair, correspondent, or execution/recording date exists for this patent), the per-entry sub-bullets are omitted by necessity rather than oversight.

Corollary finding: with no post-issuance assignment and maintenance fees paid through year 12 (2012), the original owner, William A. Clarke, retained sole title for the entire enforceable life of the patent.

Timeline diagram

The diagram below plots only what the record actually establishes (prosecution, issuance, enforcement, and lapse). There are no assignment nodes to plot — that absence is the finding.

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6038711
    1999 : Filed by William A Clarke
    2000 : Issued to Clarke as individual
    2007 : Clarke sues Fisher Price
    2008 : Court finds claims 1 and 15 infringed
    2012 : Final maintenance fee paid
    2019 : Patent term expires

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Enforcement behavior (context, not an NPE signal): The sole litigation is Clark v. Fisher-Price, Inc., W.D. Wis. No. 3:07-cv-00421 (Judge Shabaz), brought by the individual inventor against a large toymaker over Fisher-Price's "Fun To Learn Potty." The court (2008) found claims 1 and 15 infringed; it construed "for allowing items which encourage usage to be positioned therein" broadly enough to read on sound electronics, granted summary judgment for Clarke on some invalidity defenses, and denied it on obviousness (fact disputes). I could not verify whether the case settled, went to judgment, or was appealed — treat the final disposition as unverified.

Verdict

Insufficient data (no records, or only the original assignment).

The USPTO/Google record contains no recorded assignment for US 6,038,711 — the patent issued to, and remained with, William A. Clarke as an individual (filed 1999-04-07; issued 2000-03-21; expired 2019-04-07; maintenance fees paid through year 12 on 2012-03-21). Because there is no assignment chain, there are no reel/frame entries, no correspondent-of-record to test for recurrence, and zero NPE-pattern signals are present — this is a clean negative finding, not an uncertain one. The one litigation (W.D. Wis. 3:07-cv-00421, 2007–2008) was a solo inventor asserting his own patent, which is the structural opposite of an NPE aggregation model. I selected "Insufficient data" strictly because the rubric reserves that verdict for the no-records case; substantively, the evidence affirmatively disconfirms an NPE/troll chain rather than merely failing to establish one.

Verification link: USPTO Patent Assignment Search — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (legacy index: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) — search by patent number 6038711 or application 09/287,778. Note the limitation above: I could not query that system directly and relied on Google Patents legal events plus mirrored bibliographic data; a direct Assignment Center pull should be run to confirm the "no records" finding at 100%.

Contradiction flag: none with the prior section. The prior section's finding that the patent is individually owned, expired 2019, and at issue in Clark v. Fisher-Price is fully consistent with — and independently corroborated by — the absence of any assignment record.

I'll research each of the eight U.S. references cited on the face of US 6,038,711. Let me pull the records.

Good detail so far. Let me pull the remaining four references.

Prior Art Analysis — US 6,038,711 (Potty Training Device)

Verification note: I confirmed the target is US 6,038,711 (application 09/287,778, "Potty training device," William A. Clarke, filed 1999-04-07, issued 2000-03-21). I did not return results for similar numbers (e.g., the unrelated '871 Chinese/Medtronic family members surfaced by prior searches were excluded). All eight references below are the ones listed under "Patent Citations / Citations (8)" on the face of US 6,038,711.

---

1. Legal framework that governs this analysis

Because the '711 application was filed before March 16, 2013, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 applies. That matters for how each reference is categorized:

• §102(b): reference patented/published more than one year before 1999-04-07 → i.e., before 1998-04-07.
• §102(a): reference patented/published before the applicant's invention date (all eight qualify at minimum as of their issue dates).
• §102(e): U.S. patent granted on an application filed before the applicant's invention.

Critical structural point: a reference can only "anticipate" a dependent claim under §102 if it discloses every limitation of that dependent claim and of the independent claim it incorporates (here, claim 1). With that in mind, the honest result is that none of the eight cited references is a clean, single-reference §102 anticipation of any independent claim (1, 15, 16, 18, 19). They are §102(a)/(b) art cited by the examiner as §103 obviousness material, and each maps to a specific limitation. I detail that per reference below rather than overstate anticipation.

The "Prior art keywords" Google Patents extracted for '711 — toddler, stool, back member, attracting, potty — confirm that the claimed point of novelty is the combination of the miniature-toilet structure with a "means for attracting the toddler."

---

2. Summary table of cited references

---

3. Reference-by-reference analysis

Reference 1 — US 3,364,478, "Infant training chair"

• Full citation: US 3,364,478 A; assigned to Creative Monitor Inc.; filed 1965-02-02; issued 1968-01-16.
• Description: A standing child's training chair (legs 18/20, arms 24, apertured seat 12, back 16). A toilet bowl 45 hangs beneath the seat on hook/rod hangers. A signal device 60 (a light 89) connected to a battery/switch housing is triggered when the child deposits waste and the bowl tips to close a circuit. The specification expressly frames the signal as a cue for parental praise and rewards to reinforce correct behavior.
• Claims it potentially anticipates: None as a whole. It lacks the recited "generally rectangular back member … resembling a toilet tank" with "significant depth" that is "at least partially hollow," and it has no openable/closeable lid covering the receptacle (claim 1). It also has no flush-sound unit (claim 15), no displayable trophy (claim 16), no decal under a lid (claim 18), and no see-through tank (claim 19).
• Best role: §103 art for the concept of automatically acknowledging successful use to trigger positive reinforcement (relevant to dependent claim 3), and for the general potty-chair-plus-back structure of claim 1.

Reference 2 — US 4,407,024, "Toilet seat lid cover"

• Full citation: US 4,407,024; inventor Helga Schneider; filed 1981-12-23; issued 1983-10-04.
• Description: A one-piece padded cloth cover for a toilet seat lid, with a "face-like contour" image formed on the underside of the lid (claim 5), arcuate arms that wrap a child's thighs, and hook-and-loop (Velcro®) fastener patches on the arm "hands." Stated purpose is to reduce the child's insecurity/fear during toilet training.
• Claims it potentially anticipates: None as a whole. It is not a miniature-toilet potty chair and has no tank-type back member or receptacle. It is direct prior art, however, for the limitation in dependent claim 12 (and the appearance claims 10–11): an eye-catching, face-like image on the underside of the (openable) lid that invites a child to lift the lid and allays fear. The applicant's own "smiley face 28 beneath the openable/closeable lid 30" is squarely anticipated as a feature by Schneider's underside-of-lid face image.
• Best role: §103 art against claims 10, 11, and 12.

Reference 3 — USD 292,019, "Toilet seat cover" (design)

• Full citation: US D292,019 S; inventor Brenda A. Hall; filed 1985-02-05; issued 1987-09-22.
• Description: An ornamental design patent for a toilet seat cover. As a design patent it protects appearance only and typically discloses little to nothing of structure or utility.
• Claims it potentially anticipates: None. A design patent's disclosure is of surface ornamentation; it cannot anticipate the structural/functional claims of '711. At most it is weak §102(a)/(b) art corroborating that decorative/eye-catching toilet-seat covers were known for the ornamental-appearance aspects of claims 10–11 — but it is not a meaningful anticipation reference.
• Best role: Marginal §103 art for the "child-friendly appearance" of claims 10–11. (Note: I could not retrieve a robust full text for this design patent within the search budget; the characterization above rests on its title, class, and the design-patent format.)

Reference 4 — US 5,369,820, "Toilet training potty" ⭐ closest structural reference

• Full citation: US 5,369,820; inventor Shirley J. Blount; filed 1994-02-22; issued 1994-12-06.
• Description: A molded plastic potty with a substantially hollow base 12, a hinged platform ring 14 (seat), and a removable collecting basin 24 fitting inside the base. A pair of lateral arms 16a/16b rise at the rear and a "simulative tank" portion 22 connects between the arms at the rear, with a pivotable simulated flush handle 20. Lights L1/L2 are recessed in the arms and tank; a flush-handle switch and seat/basin switches illuminate them as a reward.
• Claims it potentially anticipates: This is the reference closest to independent claim 1 — it discloses the self-standing potty base (stool), a seat, a collection receptacle, a rear simulative hollow tank "resembling a toilet tank," and a reward mechanism (the "means for attracting").
  • However, it likely does NOT fully anticipate claim 1 because claim 1 separately recites both a "seat portion" and an "openable and closeable lid for covering said receptacle." Blount's hinged element 14 is the seat/platform ring, not a lid over the receptacle; the reference does not appear to disclose a distinct lid. It also does not clearly disclose the back member as "generally rectangular."
  • Against claim 15 (sound unit actuated by a pivotable handle producing a simulated flushing sound), Blount is not anticipatory: its pivotable "flush" handle activates lights, not a sound unit. That distinction (light vs. simulated flush sound) is exactly the type of gap the patent owner pressed in Clark v. Fisher-Price.
• Best role: The primary §103 base reference for the miniature-toilet-plus-tank structure and for a pivotable "flush" actuator. Combine with a sound reference (Hoskin/Bledsoe) or a reward reference to reach claims 1/15/16.

Reference 5 — US 5,573,407, "Toilet training apparatus and method"

• Full citation: US 5,573,407; inventor Beverly Dunford; filed 1995-10-25; issued 1996-11-12.
• Description: A toilet-training method and apparatus in which a decorative container (e.g., a piggy-bank) sits in proximity to the toilet. After a successful toilet activity the child is given a reward token, which is inserted into the container; a switch actuated by the token triggers a music-generating device. The child associates both the object and the musical reward with training.
• Claims it potentially anticipates: None as a whole. The reward container is a separate object placed near (or on) the toilet — it is not a compartment formed in a hollow tank-shaped back member as required by claims 4–7, and there is no potty-chair/tank structure to meet claim 1. It has no pivotable flush handle (claim 15) and no trophy (claim 16).
• Best role: §103 art for the positive-reinforcement reward system concept underlying claim 3 and for the general idea that a reward/dispenser relates to successful use.

Reference 6 — US 5,652,975, "Automatic talking potty apparatus"

• Full citation: US 5,652,975; inventor Glory S. Hoskin; filed 1996-01-22; issued 1997-08-05.
• Description: A potty with a receptacle support assembly 12, receptacle 14, seating surface 16, and a seat-back assembly 36 (back portion 38 and arms 40). A pressure-sensitive switch 24 senses a seated child; a timer 20 and gender-selection switch 22 select a male/female voice-message device (25/26) and amplifier/speaker 27. The reward is a spoken message (optionally gender-specific), delivered after the child rises.
• Claims it potentially anticipates: None as a whole. Its reward is an audible message, but (a) it is actuated by a seated-child sensor/timer, not by a pivotable flush handle, and (b) it is not a "simulated sound of a flushing toilet." So it does not anticipate claim 15 or dependent claim 2. Its back portion is a seat-back, not a deep, hollow, rectangular tank, so it does not meet claim 1. It contains no storage compartment (claims 4–7) or trophy (claim 16).
• Best role: §103 art for the proposition that audible, automatic, achievement-based feedback in a potty chair was known, supporting obviousness of the "sound unit" concept (claims 2/15/17). Note the '711 specification's own narrative criticizes exactly this class of "sound-on-tinkle" devices — so the applicant was aware of, and attempted to distinguish, this art.

Reference 7 — US 5,781,939, "Potty training chair with child restraint, activity area and audible reward system"

• Full citation: US 5,781,939; inventor Laurita Bledsoe; filed 1997-01-09; issued 1998-07-21. (Qualifies as §102(a)/(e) art since it issued after 1998-04-07.)
• Description (from title/record; full text not retrieved within the search budget): A potty training chair combining (i) a child restraint, (ii) an activity area, and (iii) an audible reward system. This is a structurally rich potty-chair reference combining a chair/back, a reward mechanism, and child-facing features.
• Claims it potentially anticipates: Potentially most relevant to claim 1's structure (self-standing seat/chair with a back and a collection receptacle) and to the reward/audible-feedback limitations of dependent claims 2–3. Whether it anticipates claim 1 turns on whether it discloses a generally rectangular, significantly deep, at least-partially-hollow back member "resembling a toilet tank" and a distinct lid — I could not confirm those features from the record retrieved, so I cannot assert anticipation.
• Best role: Likely a strong §103 combination reference (chair + audible reward), and to be treated as §102(a)/(e) art. Flagged as not fully verified.

Reference 8 — US 5,829,073, "Toilet training kit"

• Full citation: US 5,829,073; inventor Jonathan D. Lee; filed 1997-01-14; issued 1998-11-03. (Qualifies as §102(a)/(e) art since it issued after 1998-04-07.)
• Description (from title/record; full text not retrieved within the search budget): A toilet training kit — i.e., a bundled training system rather than a single unitary potty structure. Kits of this era typically pair a potty with reward/sticker elements.
• Claims it potentially anticipates: None as a whole unless it discloses the full miniature-toilet structure of claim 1, which a "kit" title does not imply. Most plausibly relevant to the reward-system concept (claim 3) and possibly to a dispensed-prize feature (claims 4–7).
• Best role: §103 art for the reward/prize-dispensing aspects. Flagged as not fully verified.

---

4. Bottom line

• No cited reference is a clean §102 anticipation of an independent claim (1, 15, 16, 18, 19). Under pre-AIA §102, each is missing at least one limitation of the claim as a whole. In particular:
  • Claim 15 (pivotable handle → simulated flushing sound) is defeated as an anticipation theory against both of the closest references: Blount has the pivotable "flush" handle but drives lights, not sound; Hoskin has sound but is actuated by a seat sensor, not a handle, and is a voice message, not a flush sound.
  • Claim 16 (displayable trophy with dual storage/display attachment) is not disclosed by any of the eight references.
  • Claim 18 (decal beneath the openable lid) is not fully shown, though Schneider (US 4,407,024) discloses the closely-related underside-of-lid face image.
  • Claim 19 (back member of see-through plastic with items suspended within) is not disclosed by any reference.
• The examiner clearly cited these as §103 material. The realistic invalidity theory is a combination: Blount (US 5,369,820) as the miniature-toilet/tank base, plus Hoskin (US 5,652,975) or Bledsoe (US 5,781,939) for automatic audible reward, plus Schneider (US 4,407,024) for the lid-underside image, plus Dunford (US 5,573,407) for the token/prize reward — each supplying a separate claimed "means for attracting the toddler."
• This is consistent with the litigation record noted in the earlier sections: in Clark v. Fisher-Price, the court resolved infringement on claims 1 and 15 but denied summary judgment on obviousness (factual disputes), i.e., the validity fight, if any, was about a §103 combination over this art, not a defeat by any single reference.

---

5. Confidence and limitations (please read)

1. Five references are well verified with full text inspected: US 3,364,478; US 4,407,024; US 5,369,820; US 5,573,407; US 5,652,975.
2. Three references were NOT fully retrieved before I exhausted my search budget: USD 292,019 (Hall), US 5,781,939 (Bledsoe), and US 5,829,073 (Lee). Their descriptions above rest on their titles, classification, and dates from the face of '711; I flag these explicitly and recommend confirming their full texts (USPTO Patent Center / Google Patents) before relying on the "potentially anticipates" statements for those three.
3. Dates above are the filing/priority and issue dates as listed in the citation table of the authoritative '711 text; the two 1998-issued references are categorized as §102(a)/(e) art solely because they issued after the 1998-04-07 one-year-pre-filing threshold.
4. Per operating rules, I have not auto-corrected any patent number; all identifiers are reproduced literally, and "US 6,038,711" is treated as the same document as "US6038711" only because the authoritative record expressly equates them (application 09/287,778).

I'll ground this analysis in the actual disclosures of the cited prior art before building the § 103 combinations.

Obviousness Analysis — US 6,038,711 (Clarke) under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Building on the verification and litigation sections above; not repeating bibliographic or docket content. The reference set analyzed here is the one in the patent's own cited-art record (the "Patent Citations (8)" list), plus references those documents themselves disclose.

---

1. Analytical framework and threshold constructions

Before reaching the combinations, three framework points control how much scope the claims actually have — and they matter a great deal here.

(a) § 103 legal standard. The controlling test is Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966): scope/content of the prior art, differences between the prior art and the claims, level of ordinary skill, and objective evidence of nonobviousness. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), supplies the operative gloss: (i) a combination of known elements is obvious where it yields no more than predictable results; (ii) a "mere duplication of parts" or a "change in design incentive" is not patentable; (iii) where there is a design need and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, the combination is obvious to try; and (iv) "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR also authorizes reliance on "common sense" and the "background knowledge" of the skilled artisan.

(b) The field and the PHOSITA. The '711 patent is classified A47K 11/04 / G09B 19/0076 / Y10S 4/902 — child potties and toilet-training aids. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the April 7, 1999 filing date would be a product/juvenile-furniture designer or mechanical engineer with roughly 2–4 years of experience designing children's toileting or child-care products, familiar with (i) blow-molded/injection-molded plastic potty chairs, (ii) the psychology of positive-reinforcement toilet training, and (iii) commercially available microchip sound modules (the patent itself identifies a vendor, A.G.C., New Hyde Park, N.Y.). This is a mature, crowded, highly incremental art, which raises the obviousness baseline.

(c) The means-plus-function limitation collapses scope. As flagged in the Verification section, every independent claim (1, 15, 16, 18, 19) closes on "means for attracting the toddler to said device to increase familiarity and develop the toddler's desire to use said device." That is a § 112(f) limitation. Its scope is limited to the structures disclosed in the specification as corresponding to "attracting" — namely: (1) the flush-handle/sound unit; (2) the reward compartment; (3) the trophy; (4) decals (including the smiley face under the lid); and (5) suspended items in a see-through tank — and equivalents thereof. This is critically important for § 103: the "attracting means" cannot be read to cover broadly anything that attracts a child; it is cabined to a specific and enumerated list of known attraction mechanisms. Each disclosed structure is, standing alone, indisputably old in the potty-training art — and the patent's own background section concedes as much ("Various electrical devices have been devised which produce some sound…"; "Many attempts have been made…"). An enumerated set of known structures, claimed generically, is a textbook KSR fact pattern.

(d) The specification's self-contradiction is a § 103 admission. The patent asserts as a benefit that "there is no electrical device to short circuit or malfunction," while simultaneously disclosing a "sound producing microchip circuit" and claiming a "sound unit" (claims 2, 15, 17). This is the boilerplate-vs.-disclosure tension identified earlier. For § 103 purposes it cuts against patentability: the inventor has characterized the sound-generating potty as the pre-existing art he claims to be improving on, which frames his own sound embodiment as an admitted known element.

---

2. The cited prior art: what each reference actually discloses

Grounding directly in the cited documents:

Note on verification limits: I retrieved full disclosures for Blount, Bledsoe, Hoskin, Dunford, and Lee; for Schneider ('024), Hall (USD '019), and Creative Monitor ('478) I have only the titles/first-page characterizations. Any combination relying on those three should be treated as weaker pending full-text retrieval — I flag this rather than overstate it.

---

3. Claim-by-claim § 103 analysis

Claim 1 — the base "miniature toilet" combination

Proposed ground: obvious over Blount in view of Bledsoe.

• Stool with seat, collection receptacle, openable/closeable lid: Bledsoe discloses each element — molded-plastic potty, waste-receiving compartment with top opening, a pivotal potty seat 16, and a pivotal potty lid 18. Blount independently supplies the seat platform and a collecting basin in a hollow base.
• Generally rectangular back member resembling a toilet tank, with significant depth and at least partially hollow for items: Blount expressly discloses a "simulative tank" at the rear of the potty connecting the arms — i.e., a structure that "resembles a toilet tank." Bledsoe supplies the "hollow … for allowing items to be positioned therein" limitation directly: its back support is "of hollow plastic construction," and speakers and electronics are mounted into the back support (i.e., items that encourage usage positioned within the back member). Blount's tank is also hollow (it houses the second set of lights).
• Designed to resemble a miniature full-sized toilet: This is the express purpose of Blount's simulative tank + simulated flush handle, and is inherent in the claimed juxtaposition itself.

Motivation (KSR):

1. Same field, same problem, same solution space. Blount and Bledsoe are both child potty-training chairs addressing positive-reinforcement training and reduced training time. Combining them is not a leap across disciplines.
2. Predictable mechanical result. Stacking a hollow rear housing (Bledsoe) onto an existing tank-shaped rear housing (Blount) is the substitution of one known housing for another that performs the same function — housing attraction/electronics — with an expected, not unexpected, result (KSR; In re Keller).
3. Express design need. The patent states the design goal is to make the device "look like a miniature toilet" so the toddler identifies its function. Blount already teaches putting a tank-shaped portion on a potty; providing it with depth/hollow interior is an obvious design choice driven by the need to house the very reward and sound components Blount/Bledsoe already use.
4. Means-plus-function closure. The "means for attracting" element maps exactly onto Bledsoe's speakers/audible reward and Blount's light reward, both of which are "structure for attracting/encouraging the toddler." Under § 112(f), the claim is met by those disclosed structures and equivalents.

Secondary evidence: None apparent. There is no showing of unexpected results (the combination performs precisely as each reference predicts), and any commercial success in this crowded art is more likely attributable to branding/marketing than to the claimed combination.

---

Claim 15 — sound unit actuated by a pivotable handle producing a simulated flush sound

Proposed ground: obvious over Blount in view of Bledsoe and/or Hoskin and/or Dunford.

• Blount already discloses the hardest element: a pivotable, biased "simulated flush handle" on the tank that, when pivoted, closes a switch to actuate a reward transducer (lights).
• Bledsoe, Hoskin, and Dunford each disclose the sound-generation half: Bledsoe's audible reward system with speakers; Hoskin's voice-message devices; Dunford's music generator actuated by a reward action.

Motivation: Substituting a sound transducer for Blount's light transducer, on a switch Blount already provides, is the paradigm KSR "predictable variation" — a mere change in the form of the response signal, with the same mechanism and same purpose (positive reinforcement). Indeed, Blount's own background cites Shastal's "Musical Potty Chair" (3,691,980) and Sanders's "Illuminated Commode Training Kit," demonstrating that sound and light were recognized, interchangeable reward modalities in this exact art. The added refinement of making the sound a flushing sound is dictated by the device's own tank/flush-handle mimicry and requires no more than ordinary creativity. This claim is therefore strongly obvious.

---

Claim 16 — reward system with a displayable trophy, first attachment on a non-visible portion (storage), second attachment on a visible portion (display)

Proposed ground: obvious over Dunford and/or Lee in view of Bledsoe, further in view of the general knowledge of hook-and-loop (Velcro®) fastening.

This is the claiming family's strongest nonobviousness candidate, so I state the case for and against candidly.

• Reward system acknowledging successful use: Dunford discloses rewarding a completed training experience with a token that triggers a musical response; Lee discloses rewarding each success with a visible applique. Both teach tangible, physical reward objects tied to the potty-training event.
• Displayability / storage on the device: Bledsoe discloses a storage compartment integrally formed with the potty for retaining reward items, and reward items that the child keeps/handles. Lee's appliques are displayed (attached to the lid decal), i.e., a displayed reward.
• First/second attachment means: The claim recites generic "attachment means." The specification's own corresponding structure is a hook on the rear (storage) and a Velcro® strip on the top (display). Both hooks and hook-and-loop fasteners were ubiquitous, off-the-shelf mounting hardware in 1999. Reciting two well-known fasteners at two known locations is the "arrangement of old parts" that § 103 disfavors as a source of patentability.

Motivation: The patent's stated rationale — let the child "brag" by displaying the trophy to siblings/parents while storing it when not displayed — is a motivational/design objective, not a technical advance. Under KSR, "the desire to enhance commercial opportunities" or to gratify a user is a legitimate design incentive. Providing a storage location so a child's award is not lost, and a display location so it is visible when earned, is precisely the kind of "predictable variation" KSR deems obvious. Lee, moreover, expressly frames displayed rewards as keeping "the interest of the child … throughout the potty training period."

Counter-argument (nonobviousness position): No single cited reference discloses a discrete trophy object with a dual attachment scheme (stored-invisible / displayed-visible). One could argue the specific "trophy" concept is not squarely suggested by decorations (Lee), collectible appliqués (Lee), or a music-triggering token container (Dunford), and that motivation to combine a display trophy with a potty was not shown in the art. This is the argument to press if defending the patent. My assessment: it is a genuine but not strong position, because the claim's attachment means are generic and the advance is motivational, not structural — vulnerable on a § 103 "design incentive + predictable mechanism" theory, though it survived summary judgment on obviousness in the W.D. Wis. litigation (invalidity fact disputes precluded disposition), which is at least consistent with the claim having some defensible substance. That litigation outcome, however, was about disputed material facts, not a merits holding that the claim is nonobvious.

---

Claim 18 — at least one decal affixed beneath the openable/closeable lid

Proposed ground: obvious over Lee in view of Blount/Bledsoe.

• Lee expressly discloses a decal with a printed scene affixed to the toilet lid, provided because it is "attractive to the child." The only arguable difference is the word "beneath" — i.e., on the underside rather than the top.
• Bledsoe and Blount both disclose the pivotal/openable lid on a potty seat.

Motivation: Relocating a known decorative decal from the top of a lid (Lee) to the underside of that lid is a trivial positional change with a predictable effect — the decal becomes visible precisely when the child opens the lid, which is the stated purpose of familiarizing the child with the receptacle. Putting a picture on the underside of a lid or cover is a common expedient. Under KSR, "where a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill … would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious." The claim's closing functional language ("inducing the toddler to open said lid … reduce/eliminate any fear") is an intended-use recitation that does not impart patentable weight to an otherwise obvious structure (In re Schreiber / printed-matter and intended-use principles). This claim is obvious.

---

Claim 19 — back member made of see-through plastic with eye-catching display devices suspended within

Proposed ground: obvious over Blount (hollow simulative tank) in view of the recognized technique of transparent novelty enclosures displaying suspended objects; alternatively obvious as a design choice.

• Blount establishes a hollow tank-like back portion — an enclosure. The '711 specification simply specifies that this enclosure be transparent and contain suspended decorative items (fish, stars).
• Transparent plastic housings containing suspended decorative objects were an exceedingly common novelty-item convention well before 1999 (snow globes, liquid-timer/water toys, "fish-in-the-tank" desk novelties). Combining that convention with a child's toy potty to make it more attractive is the kind of "predictable" aesthetic/functional substitution KSR addresses.

Motivation: The admitted design goal is to intrigue and attract the child and "break down the fear factor." A clear tank with visible contents is the obvious way to make an interior feature visible.

Counter-argument: This is the claim for which I have the least direct documentary support in the cited set — none of the eight cited references discloses suspended objects in a clear potty tank. The obviousness case therefore rests on (i) Blount's hollow tank plus (ii) general knowledge of transparent novelty enclosures. That is a defensible but weaker § 103 theory than those for claims 15 and 18, and requires evidence (e.g., catalog/design-patent art) of the transparent-suspended-object convention to be solid. I flag this limitation rather than overstate it.

---

Dependent claims 2–14, 17 — largely a fortiori obvious

Dependent claim 14 in particular is squarely met by Blount (a collecting basin that fits within and is removable from the hollow base) and by Bledsoe (a waste-removal drawer), so it carries essentially no independent weight.

---

4. Objective evidence of nonobviousness (Graham factor 4)

• Long-felt need / failure of others: The specification asserts repeated failure ("all such attempts have been futile"). But the cited references themselves demonstrate the opposite: Blount, Bledsoe, Hoskin, Dunford, and Lee all succeeded in issuing patents directed to sound-, light-, token-, and decal-based potty rewards, and Bledsoe and Dunford expressly address the same "reduce training time / positive reinforcement" need. A crowded, developing art is evidence of obviousness, not nonobviousness.
• Unexpected results: None shown. Each disclosed "attracting" mechanism performs exactly as its source reference predicts; combining them yields no synergistic result beyond additive attraction.
• Commercial success: Not of record. Even if shown, nexus to the claimed combination (as opposed to the potty-chair category's general market) would have to be established; the crowded field and the admitted prior use of sound potties weaken any nexus.
• Copying by others (Fisher-Price): A competitor's entry (the accused "Fun To Learn Potty") can be argued as evidence of the value of the concept — but under KSR/Graham such evidence must still be tied to the claimed invention, and the very fact that an accused infringer could independently build an audio potty chair reinforces how conventional the functional elements were.

---

5. Bottom-line assessment

Overall: The '711 patent's claim set is, on a § 103 analysis, substantially vulnerable. Its architecture (miniature toilet with a tank-shaped rear member) is squarely taught by Blount (US 5,369,820), and its three "attracting" mechanisms are each individually old — sound (Bledsoe US 5,781,939, Hoskin US 5,652,975, Dunford US 5,573,407), decals (Lee US 5,829,073, Schneider US 4,407,024, Hall USD 292,019), and stored/displayed rewards (Bledsoe, Dunford, Lee). The combinations are supported by (i) a common field and common problem, (ii) predictable mechanical results, (iii) an express design motivation recited in the patent itself, and (iv) the § 112(f)-limited scope of the "means for attracting" element, which confines the claims to enumerated, known structures.

The best nonobviousness arguments for the patent are concentrated in (a) claim 16's dual-attachment displayable trophy and (b) claim 19's clear tank with suspended objects — the two places where the cited documentary record is thinnest. Both remain vulnerable on a KSR "design incentive + predictable mechanism" theory, but claim 19 in particular would require additional general-knowledge evidence that I could not verify from the eight cited references alone.

Caveats on this analysis (in keeping with the operating rules): I could not retrieve full text for three cited references (US 3,364,478; US 4,407,024; USD 292,019), so any reliance on them is provisional. This analysis is a technical § 103 assessment, not a legal opinion, and it does not address secondary considerations of the type that could still defeat an obviousness challenge if substantiated with record evidence.