US 630606

I'll search for the specific identifier 630606 across patent and litigation sources.

Let me run additional targeted searches to confirm the record and check the litigation docket angle.

Let me do one final check for any litigation or docket activity tied to this specific number.

Scope and search note

I searched for the identifier 630606 literally (no auto-correction) across Google Patents, general web sources, and queries aimed at Federal Circuit 2026 docket activity. Findings:

• The number resolves to US 630,606 — a six-digit U.S. patent, granted in 1899. That is the record summarized below.
• No CAFC docket or 2026 court activity surfaced for this number in any search I ran. Two structural points are worth stating plainly: (a) the patent's anticipated expiration was August 8, 1916, so it has been unenforceable for over a century; and (b) "630606" does not match the Federal Circuit's docket-number format (e.g., "2026-1234"), so it would not itself be a CAFC docket number. I do not have live PACER/CM-ECF query access, so I cannot affirmatively certify that no case bearing this string exists somewhere in a docket — only that my searches returned none.
• The searches that did return "630606" hits were unrelated noise: it appears there as a foreign (AU) patent number in a PCT family listing, and as an application serial number on a different, later U.S. patent. Per your instruction, I am not reporting those as results for this patent.
• My summary below is grounded primarily in the authoritative full text you supplied from https://patents.google.com/patent/[US630606](/patent/US630606)/en, which conflicts with and supersedes general search results.

---

Bibliographic data — US 630,606

---

Abstract

There is no formal abstract. This patent predates the statutory abstract requirement, and none is printed in the specification. The closest equivalent is the opening statement of the specification:

"My invention relates to an improvement in picking-machines, and more particularly to a portable or hand picking-machine for general use in small establishments—as, for example, in making mattresses from hair, cotton, or other fibrous material."

The Google Patents "Definitions" block reproduces specification text rather than an abstract; it should not be treated as a patentee- or examiner-authored abstract.

Technologies disclosed: a hand/portable fiber-picking machine with a fixed lower toothed picker, a reciprocating upper toothed picker, adjustable curved guide tracks, a pitch-adjustable frame, and removable tooth-gang sections.

---

Independent claims — plain-language overview

The patent carries three claims, all of which read as independent. Note a source-text issue: the OCR renders the claim preamble as "IVhat I claim is l." and the third claim's numeral is missing entirely. Claim 3 is nonetheless a self-contained "in combination" claim, not a dependent claim.

Claim 1 — the machine as a whole (portable picking-machine)
A hand or portable picking machine made up of:

1. a supporting frame;
2. a lower picker permanently fixed in that frame;
3. an upper picker positioned to cooperate with the lower picker; and
4. vertically adjustable tracks that guide the upper picker toward and away from the lower picker as it moves back and forth lengthwise — with the tracks curved at their forward ends so they bend away from the lower picker's position.

Plain language: a small, carryable fiber-picking machine whose upper comb rides on height-adjustable, forward-curving rails so it lifts away from the stationary lower comb at the front of each stroke.

Claim 2 — the cooperating picker assembly plus curved tracks
A combination of:

1. a supporting frame;
2. a lower picker whose teeth are in staggered order;
3. an upper picker whose teeth are arranged to travel between the teeth of the lower picker; and
4. curved tracks arranged to throw the upper picker toward and away from the lower picker during its reciprocating movement.

Plain language: the interleaving-comb arrangement itself — staggered lower teeth, upper teeth sweeping between them, and curved tracks that automatically open and close the gap stroke-by-stroke. Note that this claim's distinguishing limitation is the staggered tooth order of the lower picker, which claim 1 does not recite.

Claim 3 — the tooth-and-socket fastening
A combination of:

1. upper and lower pickers arranged to coact with one another; and
2. teeth whose shanks are crooked, such that each shank alternately impinges on opposite sides of the socket in which it is held.

Plain language: a claim directed at the tooth-mounting technique rather than the machine kinematics — a deliberately bent tooth shank that bites into opposite walls of its bore to lock itself in place. The specification explains the mechanism: a hole roughly the size of the tooth is bored, and the shank portion contacting the hole wall is made "winding or slightly curved out of true" (c′) so that driving the tooth in "will compress the wood alternately on opposite sides of the hole, and thereby become firmly locked in its position."

---

Supporting disclosure worth noting

• Frame and pitch adjustment: body of bottom A with sides A¹/A² on four legs; the operator-end legs are "a" and the opposite-end legs "a" (the OCR gives the same letter twice — an error). A bolt B through an elongated slot a² in the leg, clamped by tail-nut b, lets the discharge end be raised or lowered so gravity can be tuned to how readily the fiber feeds.
• Removable tooth gangs: the skeleton bottom A carries removable sections C, C′, etc. (screwed in place), each with a gang of teeth c set at an angle to the section face. Gangs may all slant one way, alternate, or group two-one for a desired feed rate — the specification states this accelerates or hinders feed "as may be required."
• Track adjustment: tracks E, E′ on the inner faces of the sides, curved upwardly at e, e′ at the operator end; adjusted up/down by screws F and nuts f working through elongated slots a³, allowing the upper picker to be set nearer to or farther from the under picker.

---

Uncertainty and caveats

1. Source truncation. The supplied text contains an OCR gap: the paragraph beginning "back d, from which the teeth d project in rows…" is a fragment — the sentence introducing the upper picker's body and its reference character is missing. The upper picker is identified as D in the claims and in the phrase "The upper or'movable picker D is mounted on tracks E E′."
2. Inventor name. I report Johnathan W. Haines as the bibliographic record states, while the OCR signature block reads "JOHNATHAN W. HAINES." I have not independently verified the spelling against the USPTO assignment or original printed patent.
3. No abstract exists for this patent; any "abstract" attributed to it elsewhere is reconstructed specification text.
4. Claim 3's independence is my reading of a claim that begins "In combination, …" rather than "The machine of claim 1…". Its numeral is absent from the supplied text.
5. Assignee. The record shows no assignment to any company — it is an individually owned 1899 patent. I found no evidence of any corporate or successor ownership.

I'll search for litigation records involving US patent 630606.

Let me try more specific searches.

A few more targeted checks to be thorough.

Litigation Search Report — U.S. Patent No. 630,606

Patent identified literally as: US 630,606 — "Hair-Picker." Inventor: Johnathan W. Haines (New York, N.Y.). Application No. 687,775, filed August 5, 1898; granted August 8, 1899; anticipated expiration August 8, 1916. Original assignee: Individual (no corporate assignee of record).

Finding: No litigation is known.

I searched for litigation records involving this specific patent number and found no cases — no district court actions, no Federal Circuit appeals, no PTAB proceedings, and no ITC investigations. The following is the basis for that conclusion and the important caveats.

1. Cases identified

No plaintiff–defendant pair, jurisdiction, case number, or filing date can be supplied, because no suit involving US 630,606 appears in any accessible record.

2. Why the absence is expected (and why it is not merely a search failure)

• The patent expired August 8, 1916. Under the law in force at the time — and consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 154, whose term provisions today run 20 years from filing — a patent granted in 1899 had a term of 17 years from grant. Per the Google Patents record, the legal status is "Expired – Lifetime," with anticipated expiration on 1916-08-08. A patent that expired in 1916 cannot be the subject of a live infringement suit today, and no remedies under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 283–285, or 289 are available for conduct after expiration.
• The patent predates every modern litigation index. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was created in 1982 and did not exist as a court (it succeeded the CCPA and the appellate jurisdiction of the regional circuits). PACER/CM-ECF electronic dockets generally do not extend back before the late 1980s–1990s, and in many districts not before the 2000s. A suit litigated in 1899–1916 would not appear in PACER, the Federal Circuit docket, or in typical commercial litigation databases such as the Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) or Docket Alarm, whose coverage begins with the modern electronic-filing era.
• No corporate or NPE chain of title is evident. The record lists the assignee as "Individual," with no recorded transfers. There is no assertion-entity history that would generate modern litigation.
• Pre-AIA validity challenges had no analog to IPR/PGR/CBM. Inter partes review, post-grant review, and covered business method review were created by the America Invents Act of 2011 and could never have applied to a patent that expired in 1916. So there are properly no PTAB proceedings to report.

3. False positives to avoid — these are different patents

My searches surfaced several unrelated matters that share only the "'606" shorthand. None involve US 630,606:

• Noco Company v. Shenzhen Xinshengfeng Trading Co., Ltd., No. 1:21-cv-01191 (N.D. Ohio) — design patent infringement, default judgment entered April 27, 2022. The "'606 Patent" referenced there is a design patent belonging to Noco, not US 630,606.
• The Sony/Logitech–related '606 patent discussed in the E.D. Tex. litigation transcript (e.g., Case No. 9:2006-cv-00158) — this is a 1990s-era flexible-membrane / game-controller patent with a "‘606" short form (also referenced alongside the '525 and '700 patents). Not US 630,606.
• Various IPR/PTAB filings by Unified Patents, LLC retrieved in my searches reference patents such as the '508, '991, '228, and '409 patents — none is US 630,606.
• A Google Patents family-listing hit for an AU 630606 B patent family member is an Australian document number, not the US patent.

Each of these was excluded as a non-match, per your instruction not to return results for similar numbers.

4. Confidence and limits of this report

• High confidence: No litigation involving US 630,606 is reflected in any modern, publicly indexed source. This follows necessarily from the patent's 1916 expiration and the absence of any litigation-era docket coverage.
• Stated limitation, not fabrication: I cannot verify the contents of 19th- and early-20th-century federal court records, which are not electronically indexed and would require archival research (e.g., National Archives holdings, regional circuit records, or contemporaneous reports such as the Federal Reporter volumes of that era). If a suit on this patent was ever filed between 1899 and 1916, it would have to be located through archival rather than database research. I did not find evidence of any such suit, and I am not asserting one existed.
• No contrary search results were found that would override this conclusion under your rule about prioritizing search results.

Bottom line: For US Patent No. 630,606 — Haines' hair-picker — there is no known litigation. No plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome can be reported, because no such case exists in any accessible litigation record.

I'll verify the structured data against live sources before writing.

Adding two more checks to make sure nothing is missed.

One more diligence pass on pre-AIA challenge avenues and appellate records.

PTAB Proceedings Report — U.S. Patent No. 630,606

Patent: US 630,606 — "Hair-Picker." Inventor: Johnathan W. Haines (New York, N.Y.). App. No. 687,775, filed 1898-08-05; granted 1899-08-08; anticipated expiration 1916-08-08. Assignee of record: Individual.

---

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0 — zero IPRs, zero PGRs, zero CBMs, zero derivations, zero institution decisions, zero final written decisions, zero settlements, and zero Federal Circuit appeals; the patent is not "hardened" by surviving PTAB scrutiny, it is simply outside the entire temporal and subject-matter jurisdiction of the AIA trial regime, which means a demand letter citing US 630,606 has no enforceable claim behind it at all.

This is not a "no one bothered to challenge it" finding. It is a structural one, and it is stronger for a defendant than any IPR outcome could be.

Structured source (canonical)

Cross-check against the prior sections of this analysis

The earlier Litigation summary concluded "No litigation is known" and the PTAB proceedings on file section said the default should be "no PTAB activity on file." My independent searching confirms both, and I found no contradiction between the supplied full patent text, the structured ODP block, and live search results. One nuance worth stating precisely: the prior sections leaned on the 1916 expiration as the reason no litigation exists. That is correct for litigation, but for AIA trials the stronger and independent reason is that the AIA trial regime did not exist until 2012-09-16 — the patent's enforceability and its AIA eligibility window never overlapped. Either rationale alone is sufficient; both apply here.

---

Per-proceeding detail

There are no proceedings to detail. Rather than fabricate case numbers, panels, or dispositions, here is the negative finding with its legal basis and the false positives I excluded.

Why the count is necessarily zero — four independent bars

1. Temporal impossibility for PGR and CBM. Post-grant review (§§ 321–329) and covered-business-method review (§ 18 of the AIA) became available only for patents subject to the AIA's first-inventor-to-file provisions, with a 9-month window from grant for PGR. For US 630,606 that window would have run in 1900 — 112 years before the AIA existed. CBM review was in any event transitional and sunset on 2020-09-16, and a 1899 mattress-hair-picking machine is not a "covered business method patent" under § 18(d)(1).

2. No IPR could predate 2012-09-16. Inter partes review (§§ 311–319) replaced inter partes reexamination, which itself only began in 1999 — 83 years after this patent expired. There is no mechanism in the AIA by which an IPR could have been filed on this patent.

3. Both IPR statutory clocks expired long before the remedy existed. Under § 315(b), a petition is time-barred if filed more than one year after the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement. Under § 311(c), a petition must be filed after the later of 9 months from grant or termination of any PGR — i.e., from 1900-05-08. Any pre-2012 infringement action would have been brought (if at all) between 1899 and 1922, so any § 315(b) clock closed no later than 1923. Since no litigation on this patent is known to exist at all (per the litigation section), no defendant was ever served, so no clock ever started — but the practical consequence is the same: no defendant exists who could have standing to file.

4. No live controversy remains to support a trial. Damages for infringement of US 630,606 are time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 286 (six-year lookback), which closed at the latest in 1922 for a patent that expired 1916-08-08. With no available § 284 damages and no § 283 injunction available for post-expiration conduct, there is no economically rational petitioner, and the Board has no controversy to resolve.

Pre-AIA challenge avenues — also empty

Because the structured block covers AIA trials only, I checked the adjacent historical avenues a PTAB practitioner would ask about:

The Google Patents record shows no reexamination certificate, no certificate of correction, and no disclaimer for US 630,606 — consistent with an unchallenged, unamended patent that simply ran its 17-year term.

False positives excluded (do not treat these as this patent)

The "630606" string is heavily overloaded, and at least three live search hits are guaranteed to mislead a practitioner who greps by number alone:

• AU 630606 B — an Australian document number appearing in a PCT family listing (priority 1989-10-13). Not the US patent. A family-listing hit for "AU 630606 B" was specifically flagged as a non-match in the earlier litigation section, and I confirm it.
• US application Serial No. 630,606 — cited as a priority application in EP 0 455 426 A3 (RCA Licensing Corp., "Circuit having selectable transfer characteristics," priority 1990-12-20 US 630606). This is a 1990 application serial number, not a patent number, and has nothing to do with Haines.
• "606/87," "606/88," "606/80" appearing in patent-family tables — these are USPC Class 606 (surgery) subclass notations, not patent numbers.

I found no PTAB or E2E hit, no Unified Patents litigation-portal hit, and no CourtListener appellate hit tying US 630,606 to any proceeding.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: 100% UNTESTED — and 100% UNENFORCEABLE. US 630,606 issued with three claims (claim 1 to the portable picking-machine combination with vertically adjustable, forward-curved tracks; claim 2 to the combination of a staggered-tooth lower picker with an upper picker traveling between its teeth on curved tracks; claim 3 to the crooked-shank tooth locking arrangement). Unlike the usual PTAB posture, there is no "canceled vs. sustained" split to report: no claim of this patent has ever been canceled, narrowed, or confirmed in any AIA trial, because no AIA trial has ever been filed. The claims as they issued in 1899 are the claims as they expired in 1916. That distinction matters — a defendant cannot point to a Federal Written Decision invalidating claim 1, but does not need to, because § 286 and the 1916 expiration defeat the claim more completely than an IPR ever could.

Estoppel landscape: none, and § 315(e)(2) is a non-issue. Sections 315(e)(1) and (e)(2) estoppel attaches only to a petitioner that obtained a final written decision. With zero FWDs, there is no IPR estoppel, no § 325(e) PGR estoppel, and no estoppel-adjacent constraint on anyone. Consequently every prior-art ground that would otherwise be "reasonably could have been raised" remains theoretically available — but the far more useful point for a defendant is that the entire invalidity posture (anticipation by earlier hair-picking and carding machines, public use, on-sale activity in the 1896–1898 mattress trade, and the § 112/§ 102 defects visible on the face of the 1899 specification) is untouched by any administrative adjudication. There is no record to rebut, no deference to an agency finding of patentability, and no claim-construction ruling to argue around. A defendant's invalidity case starts from a blank slate and is, if anything, simpler than in a modern IPR.

Pattern signals: all negative. No petitioner has filed anything, let alone multiple IPRs. No patent owner exists to appeal — Haines' patent was assigned to "Individual" with no recorded transfers, and after 1916 there was no owner with standing to appeal anything to the Federal Circuit (which did not exist until 1982 in any event). There is no defensive aggregator, no NPE, no PAE, and no Unified Patents involvement anywhere in the chain; the earlier section's finding of "no corporate or NPE chain of title" is confirmed and is dispositive of the pattern analysis. The only historical parallel in the search results — the Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. Mischke line of 1899 S.D.N.Y. fur-unhairing cases litigating Sutton Patent No. 383,258 — concerns a different patent, a different inventor, and a different machine (a rotary-brush skin-unhairing device), and I flag it explicitly as a non-match that shares only the era and the "hair-removing machinery" subject matter.

---

Recommended next steps

1. There is no PTAB activity on this patent — and that absence is not the usual weak signal. Ordinarily, "no IPRs filed" would suggest a patent that has never been asserted at sufficient scale to attract a challenger. Here the absence is a function of three things that cannot be cured: the patent expired on 1916-08-08; § 286's six-year damages lookback closed no later than 1922; and the AIA trial regime did not begin until 2012-09-16. There is nothing for a defendant to petition against and nothing to reach the PTAB docket.

2. If you have received a demand letter citing US 630,606, treat the letter itself as the problem, not the patent. Because no claim of this patent has ever been adjudicated but the patent's term and damages window closed more than a century ago, there is no Federal Written Decision to link to and no disposition to quote. My recommendation is to respond with the expiration and limitation facts directly: cite the Google Patents record at https://patents.google.com/patent/US630606/en for the 1899-08-08 grant and 1916-08-08 anticipated expiration; cite 35 U.S.C. § 286 for the closed damages window; and note that no proceeding exists on the USPTO PTAB E2E docket (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and that nothing appears on CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/) for this patent. A threat grounded in a 1916-expired patent is not a licensing opportunity; consider whether it triggers Rule 11 or state-law unfair-competition exposure, and escalate internally accordingly.

3. Milestone note (not applicable, but stated for completeness): the usual trial-stage milestones — a three-month preliminary response window, a six-month institution deadline, a twelve-month statutory FWD deadline under § 316(a)(11) — have no application because no petition was ever filed. If someone proposes to file one, the threshold question is whether any petitioner could satisfy § 315(b) standing and identify a live controversy; on this record, no.

4. Do not conflate the number. Before relying on any "630606" hit in litigation or patent databases, confirm you are looking at US 630606 A and not AU 630606 B, RCA's US application Serial No. 630,606, or a USPC Class 606/xx classification. Each of these shares the digits and none of them is this patent.

Limitation on this report: I cannot search archival federal records from 1899–1916, so I cannot rule out that a suit on this patent was filed and never captured in any electronic index. What I can state with high confidence is that no AIA trial proceeding has ever existed on US 630,606, that no such proceeding could have existed under the statutory framework, and that no PTAB, PGR, CBM, reexamination, or Federal Circuit record for this patent is retrievable from any public source.

I'll verify the assignment record against live sources before writing.

I ran targeted searches against the identifier and the inventor, plus false-positive checks. Findings and the requested output follow.

Search layer (what I could and could not reach): my web searches returned no assignment records, no reel/frame entries, and no correspondent data for US 630,606. The searches that did return "630,606" hits were serial-number collisions on unrelated later applications (detailed in the caveats below). I do not have authenticated access to Assignment Center, so I am reporting absence-of-record on the evidence available, not certifying a negative PACER/Assignment-Center query. This is consistent with, and does not contradict, the earlier sections of this analysis.

---

Inventors

Patterns: none of the usual red flags apply, because there is only one inventor and no employment relationship is on the record.

• No multi-inventor team, no co-assignment, no corporate co-owner. A single named inventor filing "No model." with no assignor line is the classic independent-artisan profile — the opposite of the "all inventors departed the original assignee within 12 months" fire-sale precursor you asked me to watch for. That precursor is literally unavailable here: there was no assignee to depart from.
• Inference flagged as inference, not finding: the specification is written for "small establishments—as, for example, in making mattresses from hair, cotton, or other fibrous material," which is consistent with Haines being a New York mattress/carding tradesman or a job-shop machinist. I have no documentary basis for that and am not treating it as a finding.
• Name-collision warning: a Justia inventor page exists for "Jonathan W. Haines" (modern applications, e.g., Ser. Nos. 11/036,584 and 11/075,552, filed 2005; medical/surgical-era filings). That is a different spelling, a different century, and a different technology. I found no evidence of any continuity between the 1899 inventor and any modern "Haines" filer, and I am not asserting one.

---

Original assignee

There is no assignee. The patentee is the inventor, individually.

Why "no assignor line" is affirmative evidence and not just silence. Contemporaneous practice cut both ways, and the record itself supplies the control. Compare the false-positive I retrieved during searching: US 1,538,631 (Annie Francis, filed 1923) prints in its heading "ASSIGNOR TO FREDERICK STEARNS & COM[PANY], A CORPORATION OF MICHIGAN." When a pre-issuance assignment existed in this era, the printed patent said so on its face. US 630,606 says nothing of the kind, and its only ownership-related text is the specification's silence. That is consistent with an unassigned, individually owned patent that simply ran its term.

---

Assignment timeline

The USPTO has no recorded assignment for this patent in any source I could reach — and I am stopping at that finding rather than manufacturing reel/frame entries.

There is nothing to list: no reel, no frame, no conveyance type, no assignor, no assignee, no correspondent, no execution date, no recording date. I will not invent a Reel NNNNNN/NNNN, because doing so would be fabrication of the exact artifact you asked me to capture most carefully.

What supports this finding:

1. Google Patents legal events for US630606A list exactly three events — Application filed (1898-08-05), Application granted / Publication of US630606A (1899-08-08), and Anticipated expiration (1916-08-08). No assignment, security agreement, merger, change of name, license, release, or correction event appears.
2. Both assignee fields read "Individual" — Google Patents resolves that label when the patent is held in the inventor's own name with no recorded transfer.
3. The printed patent carries no assignor notation, per the comparison above.
4. No reexamination certificate, certificate of correction, or disclaimer appears on the record — consistent with a patent whose ownership never moved.

Coverage caveat — the honest limitation on this negative. My understanding is that the online Patent Assignment Search is populated from the electronically indexed reel/frame record, whose practical coverage begins in the modern era (roughly 1980 forward), with pre‑1955 assignments existing primarily on microfilm/liber volumes rather than in patent-number-searchable electronic form. I want to state this carefully: I have not verified the exact coverage cutoff for Assignment Center in this session, and I could not execute a live query against it at all. If that cutoff is as I understand it, then for a patent that expired in 1916, any post-issuance assignment would necessarily have been recorded in the 1899–1916 window — i.e., in the non-searchable historical layer. So the correct characterization is:

No assignment is discoverable from any electronic source I searched, and the printed patent on its face shows no assignment. A pre-1916 assignment recorded on microfilm cannot be ruled out without archival retrieval of the original assignment volumes — but nothing in the printed document suggests one existed.

Because the rule you set is to stop after this section where there are no records, the remainder of the format is completed below only in the abbreviated form needed to close the analysis, with signals marked accordingly.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 630606
    1898 : Filed by Johnathan W Haines
    1899 : Issued to Haines as individual
    1916 : Patent expired
         : No assignment ever recorded

No assignment nodes exist to plot; the diagram is deliberately ownership-flat because that is the record.

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Signals are assessed against a chain that is empty. "Not present" below means no evidence exists in any source I searched, with the microfilm coverage caveat applying uniformly to all eight.

Cross-reference layer — all empty, and one category is structurally impossible:

• SEC filings: impossible. The SEC was created by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; US 630,606 expired 1916-08-08.
• RPX / Unified Patents asserter directories: no entry. Those directories catalog modern assertion activity; a patent with a 1916 expiration and zero recorded transfers cannot appear.
• USPTO PEDS / ODP: the application (Ser. No. 687,775) and patent records are retrievable, but PEDS/ODP do not supply assignment chains for this era in searchable form — same microfilm caveat.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data — specifically the "only the original assignment" branch of that category, with the "no records" branch applying to everything post-issuance.

Justification: the issued patent names no assignee and carries no assignor notation on its face, and both Google Patents assignee fields resolve to "Individual" for original and current owner, with legal events limited to filing (1898‑08‑05), grant (1899‑08‑08), and anticipated expiration (1916‑08‑08) — there is no reel/frame entry, no conveyance type, no correspondent, and no execution or recording date to cite, because no assignment is discoverable. All eight NPE signals are not present, but I am deliberately not upgrading that to a stronger verdict: absence of a recorded chain on a patent that expired in 1916 is heavily confounded by the pre-modern coverage gap in the online assignment index, so "not present" here means no evidence located, not affirmatively proven absent. There is no shell entity, no asserter, no repeat correspondent, and no product-owning operating company to analyze — only an individual New York inventor whose patent ran its 17-year term and lapsed.

Verification link: USPTO Assignment Center (search Patent Number 630606); the indexed mirror is assignment.uspto.gov. The ownership posture is corroborated at https://patents.google.com/patent/US630606/en.

---

Do not conflate — serial-number collisions confirmed during this pass

The string "606" and even the full serial "630,606" are overloaded, and I retrieved two fresh confirmations that a number-only grep will mislead:

1. US 1,538,631 — "Container for Perfumes, Etc.," Annie Francis, filed 1923-04-07 under Serial No. 630,606, assigned to Frederick Stearns & Company (Michigan corporation), granted 1925-05-19. A reused application serial number, not a patent number, and unrelated.
2. US 2,445,387 — "Amusement Device," Lawrence G. Davis, filed 1945-11-24, also under Serial No. 630,606. The serial number was used again in a later era — a second collision worth knowing about.
3. AU 630606 B — an Australian document number in a PCT family listing (priority 1989-10-13). Not the US patent.
4. US application Ser. No. 630,606 (1990) — priority application cited in EP 0 455 426 A3 (RCA Licensing Corp.). Not this patent.
5. USPC Class 606/xx — surgical-instrument classification notation. Not a patent number.

Bottom line for an ownership-chain reviewer: US 630,606 was never assigned. It was Haines' personal property from grant to lapse, it is 109 years past expiration, and there is no chain of title to trace, no correspondent to profile, and no NPE pattern to score. If a demand letter invokes this number, the correct response is not a chain-of-title analysis — it is the expiration and § 286 posture set out in the earlier sections of this analysis.

I'll verify the citation record for US 630,606 before writing anything, since the task hinges on identifying its cited prior art.

The citation picture is unusual, so let me verify a few specific data points before writing.

Prior-Art Report — U.S. Patent No. 630,606 ("Hair-Picker")

Analyst note on the framing of this task: The instruction assumes US 630,606 carries a list of cited patent references to be worked through. It does not. I verified this before writing, and the negative finding is the single most important thing in this report, so I state it first rather than burying it under a list of references that were never cited.

---

1. Headline finding: US 630,606 has zero patent citations of record

There is no "Patent Citations" block, no "References Cited" block, and no "Cited By" block on the record for this patent. Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US630606](/patent/US630606)/en (the authoritative full text supplied, which contains a "Similar Documents" table but nothing in the nature of a citation list).

This is not a data gap or a fetch failure. It is the expected state of affairs for the era:

• Front-page reference lists did not exist in 1899. The USPTO only began routinely printing an examiner's "References Cited" block on the front page of issued patents in the 1940s. My searches confirmed the boundary: later patents in the same string-space — e.g. US 2,445,387 (Amusement device, filed 1945-11-24, granted 1948-07-20) and US 2,982,217 (granted 1961) — carry explicit blocks reading "REFERENCES CITED — The following references are of record in the file of this patent." An 1899 patent carries no such block, because the practice had not begun.
• No backward citations were recorded for Haines' application in the surviving text, and the specification cites no prior patent or publication by number anywhere. Its only prior-art characterizations are generic ("relates to an improvement in picking-machines") and the file-wrapper notation "No model."
• No forward citations ("Cited By") exist either — unsurprising for a hand-operated mattress-fiber machine that expired in 1916.

Consequence for this task: there is no set of cited references against which to run a § 102 anticipation analysis. Any report that handed you a tidy list of "references cited in US 630,606" would be fabricated. What I can legitimately provide — and do below — is (a) the closest prior art that the classification and similarity record actually surfaces, clearly labeled as not a citation list, and (b) an honest element-by-element assessment of whether any of it reads on claims 1–3.

---

2. What I searched, and a records-integrity warning

Sources queried: Google Patents (the patent page and its citation/similarity tables), general web search on the literal string 630606, and targeted searches on the specific "Similar Documents" entries and on 1890s hair-picking/combing prior art.

Critical warning — the string 630606 is severely overloaded, and three classes of hit are guaranteed to mislead:

These are serial numbers and foreign numbers that happen to share the digits. Per the strict rule, I am not reporting any of them as results for US 630,606. (Note also that RCA's EP 0 455 426 A3 cites a 1990 US application serial number 630,606 — a fourth serial-number collision.)

---

3. The closest retrievable art (NOT citations — similarity-ranked, not cited)

Google Patents surfaces a "Similar Documents" table for US 630,606. I want to be precise about what this is: it is an algorithmic similarity ranking, driven by shared CPC classification — the patent sits in D01G19/00, D01G19/06, D01G19/08 (combing machines; details; feeding apparatus) — and by text-similarity matching against 19th-century claim language. It is not a citation list, it is not an examiner's search, and it is not evidence that anyone considered these references against Haines' claims. It is the only prior-art-adjacent record that exists for this patent, so I work through it, but treat it as a lead-generation list with a high noise floor.

The critical dates for this patent are:

• Filing date / § 102(b)-type statutory-bar critical date: the application was filed 1898-08-05, so the one-year bar date is 1897-08-05.
• Grant: 1899-08-08. Expiration: 1916-08-08.

3.1 Full table — every entry in the similarity record

Filing dates: the record supplies publication dates only; verified filing dates are available for none of these in the material I retrieved. Where § 102(e)-type analysis would turn on a filing date (notably US 612,334), I have flagged the gap rather than assumed one.

3.2 Honest bottom line on anticipation

• Claims 1 and 2: No reference in the retrieved set is a facially complete § 102 anticipation. The only reference that even engages the interleaving-comb geometry is US 612,334 (Combing-Machine), and it fails the essential limitation of claim 1 — vertically adjustable tracks curved at their forward ends away from the lower picker to guide the upper picker — and it is a floor-mounted, crank-driven power machine, not the "hand or portable" machine of claim 1's preamble. Under old-law practice this would be an obviousness / lack-of-invention attack, not anticipation.
• Claim 3: the only plausible anticipation candidate is US 145,891 (Curry-Combs, 1873) — and only if its teeth are mounted with out-of-true shanks. I could not verify this. A curry-comb is the right structural genus, so this is a real lead, not a dismissal.
• Everything else in the table is similarity noise — saws, drills, planes, looms, planters, stretcher-keys, millstone-dressing tools, weeders, and a cigar-bunching machine. Their presence reflects CPC co-classification and 19th-century boilerplate claim phrasing ("a supporting-frame," "in combination"), not technical correspondence.

---

4. Legal framing — the statute that actually governs

A precision point that matters for how any of this would be pleaded:

35 U.S.C. § 102 did not exist in 1899. The statute in force when Haines filed and when his patent issued was the Patent Act of 1870's novelty provision, Rev. Stat. § 4886 (a patent is void if the invention was "known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in any printed publication in this or any foreign country, before his invention or discovery thereof"), together with Rev. Stat. § 4920 (defenses in equity) and the "invention" requirement distinct from mere novelty. Section 103 likewise did not exist; the non-obviousness-type inquiry was the judicially administered "invention" standard. The modern § 102(a)/(b)/(e)/(g) framework you asked me to apply is the 1952 codification, and its pre-AIA subdivisions map onto the 1870 Act only loosely.

So the translation to the categories you asked for is:

And a reality check that overrides all of it: this patent expired 1916-08-08 and its damages window closed no later than 1922 under the six-year lookback now codified at 35 U.S.C. § 286. Any § 102 analysis here is academic — it can support a historical or defensive-publication argument, but it cannot support an invalidity counterclaim in a live case, because there is no live case and no enforceable claim. This is consistent with — and reinforces — the litigation and PTAB findings already in the file; I found no contradiction between those sections and anything in this search.

---

5. What a real prior-art search would require

If the objective is genuine prior-art coverage rather than working the (empty) citation list, the productive channels are:

1. CPC D01G19/00–19/08 full-population pull for grant dates 1840-01-01 through 1898-08-05 — this is the class the examiner would have searched, and it is where any true anticipation of claims 1–2 will be found.
2. Mattress- and upholstery-fiber "picking" art specifically — the specification names the intended use ("making mattresses from hair, cotton, or other fibrous material"), so contemporaneous hair-picking, wool-teasing, and cotton-opening machines are the highest-value search space, and they do not all sit in D01G19.
3. Curved/tramway track guides for reciprocating carriages — the distinguishing element of claim 1 is the curved forward-end track, not the combs. A search of 1870s–1890s carriage-track and cam-track art is the most direct route to an anticipation of claim 1.
4. Tooth-to-socket fastening art circa 1860–1898 — for claim 3, including curry-comb, card-clothing, harrow, and rake art, where bent-shank/spring-tooth mounting was common.
5. Non-patent prior art — the 1896–1898 mattress-trade literature, which the file's earlier invalidity discussion already flagged as an unexplored channel (public use / on-sale activity). These predate the patent and are not in any patent database.

I did not complete items 1–4 within this session; I exhausted my search budget after confirming the citation record and the key reference. I flag them as the correct next steps rather than presenting the similarity table as a substitute for them.

---

6. Limitations of this report — stated plainly

1. Zero citations exist; the table in § 3 is not a citation list. It is a CPC-driven similarity ranking. Do not represent it as "references cited in US 630,606."
2. Four references I could not substantively verify (#1, #6, #7, #11) because the record carries only OCR-mangled inventor strings and no retrievable text. I have marked them "cannot assess" rather than guess.
3. US 612,334 is the one reference with real technical bite, but it is post-filing and I could not verify its filing date; without that, no § 102(e) conclusion is defensible.
4. Claim 3's best (and only) lead, US 145,891, is unverified on the single dispositive fact — whether its tooth shanks are bent out of true.
5. Filing dates are unavailable for the entire similarity set; publication dates only.
6. A minor housekeeping discrepancy: the task header states the current date as April 26, 2026, while my operating instructions state October 1, 2026. Neither affects this analysis, which turns on 1898–1916 dates, but I am flagging it rather than silently reconciling it.

Bottom line: You asked me to analyze each patent citation for US 630,606. The correct answer is that there are none — this 1899 patent has no cited references and no citing references in any index I can reach, which is normal for its era. Of the similarity-ranked art that does exist, only US 612,334 (Combing-Machine) rises to genuine technical relevance, and it does not appear to anticipate claims 1 or 2 on its face; US 145,891 (Curry-Combs) is the only candidate touching claim 3, pending verification.

I'll ground the obviousness analysis by checking what these listed prior-art references actually disclose, rather than reasoning from titles alone.

Strong hit: US612,334 (Gunerman & Schacht) is itself a hair-combing machine filed June 29, 1897 — before Haines' filing. Let me pull a few more of the listed references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 630,606 (Haines, "Hair-Picker") under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Note on the "Prior Art" material actually on this page. The Google Patents record for US 630,606 contains no examiner-cited references and no "Patent Citations" block — consistent with 1899-era practice, when US patents were issued without any citation list. What the page offers as prior art is (a) four machine-generated "Prior art keywords" — picker, teeth, hair, tracks, machine — and (b) a "Similar Documents" table. That table is a similarity list, not an examiner's prior-art list, and — critically for a § 103 analysis — a large fraction of it postdates the Aug. 5, 1898 filing and therefore is not prior art to US 630,606 at all. I treat dates as a gate before treating disclosures as art.

---

1. Legal framing (and a threshold caveat)

§ 103 did not exist in 1899. US 630,606 was examined under Rev. Stat. §§ 4886/4920 as amended in 1870, and the courts of that era applied a heightened "invention" standard, not § 103's "obvious" standard — Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. (11 How.) 248 (1851) ("the work of the skilful mechanic, not that of the inventor"); Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U.S. 192 (1883). Any analysis under § 103 is therefore a modern, retro-applied hypothetical (useful for a validity opinion, a defensive publication, or historical study). The practical consequence is favorable to a challenger: anything obvious under KSR-era § 103 would a fortiori have lacked "invention" in 1899, when the bar was higher. See also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (motivation may be inferred from design incentives, market forces, and "a finite number of identified, predictable solutions"); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).

Reference-date gate (pre-AIA). Under R.S. 4886 a reference must predate the applicant's invention, and a printed publication must predate the application by more than two years. Haines' application was filed Aug. 5, 1898, so the printed-publication bar date is Aug. 5, 1896. A US patent granted after Haines' invention date is available, if at all, only as of its own filing date under the doctrine later codified at pre-AIA § 102(e).

PHOSITA. A millwright or mechanic of ordinary skill in 1898 in the mattress/upholstery and fiber-preparing trades — a builder and repairer of carding, combing, and picking machinery, familiar with the 1870–1898 US patent literature in D01G (combing machines) and with wire-goods fastening practice. No formal engineering degree; the patent is a "No model" filing of plainly simple construction.

Field of the invention. Haines' own specification frames it as a "portable or hand picking-machine for general use in small establishments—as, for example, in making mattresses from hair, cotton, or other fibrous material," classified D01G19/00–08 (combing machines). That framing is what makes the reference below the centerpiece.

---

2. References: verified vs. not verified, and availability

Two precision flags:

• US 264,546 A must not be conflated. My search for it returned George Protasoff's 1952 bottle stopper (US 2,672,999), whose application Serial No. was 264,546. A serial number is not a patent number. The 1882 "matteson" entry remains unverified.
• Nine entries in the Similar Documents table postdate the patent. Treating that table as a prior-art section would badly overstate the art. Google Patents similarity ≠ § 102 art.

---

3. Claim-by-claim obviousness

Claim 1 — portable machine; fixed lower picker; cooperating upper picker; vertically adjustable tracks; forward-curved track ends

Differences and why they are obvious. The two genuine differences are (i) where the height adjustment lives (Haines adjusts the upper picker's tracks; Gunerman adjusts the lower comb) and (ii) the curvature of the track ends.

As to (i), the function is identical — setting the relative gap between two cooperating gangs of teeth to suit the material — and the two arrangements are a reversal of parts / design choice. The range of permissible alternatives is tiny and the design pressure is explicit: Gunerman's own 612,334 puts the adjustment on the lower member and must add a locking device and rocking linkage to do it, whereas adjusting the lighter, top-side, operator-accessible member is the mechanically simpler expedient. Haines also requires the lower picker "permanently fixed," but a lower comb that is stationary during operation and adjusted only for setup (554,265) or lockable stationary (612,334) is a difference of degree, not of kind. A PHOSITA optimizing for simplicity and cost in a small-shop machine had every reason to move the adjuster to the top member.

As to the motivation to combine: the two references are not merely analogous art, they are the same field of endeavor and the same stated problem. US 554,265 is headed "Combing-machine… especially adapted for combing hair, moss, fiber, tow, tampico," and 612,334 is the same inventors' improvement of it directed to "effective separation of the hair or other article under treatment." Haines' stated purpose — a portable hand machine for picking hair in small mattress establishments — is the same market. Combining a portable hand-cranked combing frame (554,265) with the slide-mounted, vertically adjustable upper comb and lockable adjustment of 612,334 requires no change in the references' principles of operation.

Claim 2 — supporting frame; lower picker with teeth in staggered order; upper teeth traveling between them; curved tracks

This claim's distinguishing limitation over claim 1 — the staggered lower tooth order — is the part the prior art meets most squarely and most explicitly:

• US 554,265: the lower comb bars 25 carry teeth 26 "arranged so as not to interfere with the teeth on the lower stretch of the comb-carriage," and the claim recites lower comb teeth "arranged out of alignment with those on the carriage." A combing machine cannot comb unless the upper teeth sweep between the lower teeth; "out of alignment" is staggering. This is a disclosure of elements (a), (b), and (c) of claim 2 in the patent's own words, in a machine expressly for combing hair.
• US 612,334 adds that the teeth of the lower comb "have a vibratory and combing movement during certain stages of the movement of the upper comb in order to bring about an effective separation of the hair or other article under treatment" — i.e., the same interleaved, relatively-moving two-picker architecture.

So claim 2 reduces to claim 1 plus the track curvature, with the staggered/interleaving feature fully disclosed. Under KSR, "[w]here a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious."

Claim 3 — crooked tooth shanks alternately impinging on opposite sides of their sockets

This is the strongest of the three claims and the one that needs a second reference. The bird-cage wire fastenings supply it:

• US 162,400 (1875): horizontal bands are solid wires with holes, through which upright wires pass, "held in place on the upright wires by short bends in the latter, forming shoulders above and below the horizontal wires, without solder or other fastening."
• US 218,758 (1879): "short bends in them within the hollow of the horizontal wire, which is flattened so as to lock them together."
• US 167,325 (Fisher, 1875): the same principle, with a wire key as an alternative.

The reported litigation over these patents discusses precisely the "shoulders formed by bends" and the "better mode of bringing the shoulders to bear." This is the claim-3 concept in another medium: deliberately deform the shank of a rod, drive it into a hole/socket sized close to the shank, and let the deformation bite into the wall so that the member self-locks without a separate fastener. The Queen anvil-like function performed by Haines' "winding or slightly curved out of true" shank c′ — compressing the wood alternately on opposite sides of the bore — is the same friction/compression lock, in wood instead of a hollow wire.

Motivation to combine. Both address one well-known problem: keeping a tooth/shank from working loose in a socket without screws, rivets, keys, or solder, and both solve it by the same mechanism — exploiting the spring of a deliberately bent shank against the socket wall. A PHOSITA in 1898 mattress-machinery work, faced with teeth loosening under reciprocating combing loads, would be led directly to the wire-goods and cage-making art, where bent-wire interlocks were ubiquitous. Haines himself claims nothing about the shape beyond "crooked," and does not tie the claim to wood as the socket material — a point worth pressing, since the specification's mechanism depends on wood's compressibility while the claim reads on any socket.

Also note the § 112 exposure: claim 3 is a "combination" claim whose only real content is the tooth, with the "upper and lower pickers arranged to coact" recitation doing no work — a vulnerability in the aggregation doctrine of the era (see § 6).

---

4. The one element I could not meet: the curved track ends

I want to be explicit rather than fill this gap with speculation. No reference I verified in this record discloses guide tracks "curved at their forward ends away from the position of the lower picker." The similar-documents list contains plausible candidates (US 328,774, cigar-bunching machine, 1885; US 562,733, millstone-dressing, 1896), but I did not verify their disclosures and will not attribute content to them.

The § 103 case on this element is nonetheless strong on the problem–solution axis, and it is worth framing for a challenger:

1. The problem was known and unavoidable. Two interleaved gangs of teeth that comb fiber on the working stroke will drag the fiber back — and can foul each other — on the return stroke. Every reference in the field meets it some way: Shippey (US 130,755, 1872) reverses the inclination of the teeth on the two sides of the comb "so that the comb may be used with equal effect from whatever position"; US 554,265 inclines the teeth on the upper and lower stretches in opposite directions; US 612,334 vibrates the lower comb; Haines lifts the upper picker.
2. The solution set was small and predictable. Given a slide guided in a track, lifting it out of engagement at one end of the stroke is accomplished by the textbook mechanical expedients — a curved run-out on the track itself, a cam slot, or a rising cam face. Under KSR, "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way," the technique is obvious; and where the prior art discloses "a finite number of identified, predictable solutions," the chosen one is obvious.
3. Haines' own specification treats it as an adjunct. The specification simply states the curved ends are "for the purpose of carrying the movable picker away from and toward the lower picker as the latter is drawn backwardly and forwardly during its operation" — no mechanism is described beyond the curvature, and the curvature performs its apparent function as a track run-out. That is the profile of an obvious mechanical selection, not an unobvious one.

A challenger's most defensible § 103 formulation is therefore: US 554,265 in view of US 612,334, further in view of a cam/track run-out teaching, with the run-out supplied either by a verified reference not yet located or by the PHOSITA's knowledge of curved ways and cam slots.

---

5. What the patent does not claim — and why it matters

Haines' specification discloses several features that are nowhere in the claims: (a) alternating opposite slant of adjacent tooth gangs (already old — Shippey 1872 reverses tooth inclination on a single comb body; Morton's curry-comb US 145,891 assembles toothed plates into gangs), (b) removable, screw-held tooth sections (cf. Morton's plates held by rods through punched holes, and Trussell's US 145,033 riveted sections), and (c) the pitch-adjustment bolt through an elongated slot. Unclaimed subject matter is dedicated to the public and cannot rescue the claims; more usefully here, the disclosure is an admission of what the PHOSITA already had in hand, which supports the level-of-skill finding and cuts against any "unexpectedly simple machine" narrative.

---

6. Graham factor 4 — secondary considerations

There is no evidence of secondary considerations in this record, and the historical facts point the other way: no recorded assignment, no litigation, no reexamination, no reissue, no disclaimer, no certificate of correction, and a 17-year term that ran out unremarked on Aug. 8, 1916. Absent proof of commercial success, copying, licensing, or a long-felt unmet need, there is nothing to rebut the prima facie case above.

Two contemporaneous authorities reinforce rather than weaken the § 103 case, because they articulate the pre-1952 test in exactly these terms:

• National Progress Bunching-Machine Co. v. John R. Williams Co., 44 F. 190 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1891) — claim held invalid as an aggregation, not a patentable combination: "each element claimed was old, and… each performed the same function when acting separately as it performed in the article patented." Directly applicable to a two-picker combination assembled from known combing elements. (Note: the retrieved snippet did not display the patent number at issue; I characterize the holding only.)
• The Maier bed-bottom case, 95 F. 159 — "a mere duplication of old elements may be useful, but it does not produce a result differing from what would be produced by the elements separately"; the doubled-up structure was "an obvious mechanical suggestion, which required no inventive faculty." Applicable to the notion that adding a second toothed picker and a lifting track adds nothing beyond degree.

---

7. Bottom line

Practical note. For claims 1 and 2 a challenger should lead with § 102 anticipation by US 554,265 A (and, on the slide-mounted upper comb, US 612,334 A), not § 103 — the Gunerman & Schacht disclosures are closer to these claims than any combination analysis. § 103 is the fallback that reaches the curved track ends, and it is where the case is most contestable.

---

Caveats and uncertainty

1. Unverified references. I did not confirm the disclosures of US 328,774 A, US 264,546 A, US 562,733 A, US 601,561 A, US 167,855 A, US 354,625 A, US 372,594 A, US 534,402 A, or US 496,223 A. I have not attributed any content to them. Everything I have characterized as a disclosure was retrieved and quoted from the sources cited below.
2. US 612,334 A's date posture is conditional. It granted Oct. 11, 1898, after Haines' Aug. 5, 1898 filing. It is available only as of its June 29, 1897 filing date, which in turn requires Haines' invention date to fall after that date — an assumption, not an established fact. US 554,265 A has no such problem (granted Feb. 11, 1896, more than two years before the filing, and therefore prior art on any theory).
3. Number hygiene. US 264,546 A (the 1882 "matteson" entry) is not Protasoff's US 2,672,999, whose application serial number was 264,546; and the "RCA US Serial No. 630,606" and "AU 630,606 B" hits identified in the earlier sections of this analysis remain non-matches, as does USPC Class 606. Interpret each identifier literally.
4. No conflict with the earlier sections. The prior Litigation and PTAB sections concluded there is no litigation and no AIA trial activity; nothing in this analysis contradicts that. § 103 is presented here as a retro-applied hypothetical, since the patent expired Aug. 8, 1916 and no live validity contest exists.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US630606](/patent/US630606)/en (authoritative full text); https://patents.google.com/patent/[US554265](/patent/US554265) ; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/0b/f3/b4/e0624859435c09/US554265.pdf ; https://patents.google.com/patent/[US612334](/patent/US612334) ; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f2/da/d7/8bbc30af86b401/US612334.pdf ; https://patents.google.com/patent/[US145891A](/patent/US145891A)/en ; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/c0/2c/c7/6b9f09878fb4f4/[US145891](/patent/US145891).pdf ; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fb/55/de/be5853ecf51d35/[US145033](/patent/US145033).pdf ; http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/cd/a2/d3/4241c19971d3ee/[US130755](/patent/US130755).pdf ; https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F/0009.f1.hein.pdf (bird-cage patents 162,400 / 218,758 / 167,325) ; https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F/0044/0044.f.0190.pdf ; https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F/0095/0095.f1.0159.pdf