US 6456487

I'll run a few targeted searches for this specific patent number and any current litigation.

Let me do a couple more targeted checks for litigation and current status.

US 6,456,487 — Analyst Summary

Sources used: the full authoritative patent text (Google Patents, https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6456487B1](/patent/US6456487B1)/en), uspto.report/patent/grant/6456487, and web searches. I did not obtain a live USPTO Patent Center or CAFC docket record — see the litigation/status caveat below.

---

Bibliographic data

Note on assignee: Google Patents lists the original and current assignee as Nokia Inc. Several third-party citation listings render the same patent as assigned to "Nokia Corporation." Both renderings appear in the record; the full text page I was given uses "Nokia Inc," so I take that as authoritative here. Inventor identification is consistent across sources.

---

Abstract (as issued)

"A protective enclosure for protecting and enclosing an electronic device. The protective enclosure provides communication capabilities with the electronic device while the electronic device is enclosed and protected by the protective enclosure. The enclosure also provides an alert upon an unsolicited activation of the electronic device and allows the user to communication with electronic device without removing the electronic device from the enclosure."

---

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

There are four independent claims: 1, 16, 29, and 38. Claims 1 and 38 are nearly verbatim twins; claims 16 and 29 shift the sealing language and the claim category.

Claim 1 — "A protective enclosure for protecting an electronic device"
Four elements must all be present:

1. A housing with an open position and a closed position — when closed, it encloses the electronic device. (Open/closed is express; the spec describes front portion 52 + rear portion 56 bonded by screws, hinges, clips, snaps, etc.)
2. A connector on the housing that communicates with the enclosed device while the housing is closed around it (element 78; may be inside the housing, electrical/wire/pin/serial, or wireless such as Bluetooth or infrared).
3. An indicator on the housing that provides an alert upon an unsolicited activation of the device while it is enclosed (e.g., an incoming call alert; LED or LCD per the dependents).
4. An actuator on the housing that communicates with the device via said connector, where the actuator controls the functionality of the enclosed device (e.g., a flexible diaphragm you press to answer a call without opening the case).

Practical effect: a sealed phone case that still lets you see an alert and answer the call through the case, using a connector as the interface path.

Claim 16 — "A protective enclosure for an electronic device operable in a wireless communication system"
Same functional core as claim 1, but keyed to sealing rather than "open/closed": the housing has at least one cover for sealing the electronic device within the housing, and the connector, indicator, and actuator all operate while the device is sealed inside. This is the "moisture/water-resistant barrier" framing described in the specification (protection against high moisture, salinity, dust, sand, pollutants).

Claim 29 — "A composite handset operable in a wireless communication system"
This is a system/product claim pairing the device with its case, not just the case: it recites (a) an electronic device and (b) the housing/connector/indicator/actuator combination of claim 1 enclosing it. The "composite handset" is the assembled phone-plus-enclosure article.

Claim 38 — "A protective enclosure for protecting an electronic device"
Identical to claim 1 in structure — open/closed housing, connector, indicator alerting on unsolicited activation, and an actuator — with one lexical difference: the fourth element is recited as an "actuator area" rather than an "actuator." Under a literal reading, claim 38's scope turns on what "actuator area" means relative to "actuator," and on the same "controls the functionality" limitation.

Dependent-claim coverage (context for the independents): claim 2–3 speaker/audio output; 4 connector inside housing; 5 electrical connection; 6–7 wireless (Bluetooth) connection; 8–11 incoming call answering, PDA/mobile terminal; 12–13 LED with intermittent illumination; 14–15 LCD message display. Claims 17–28 and 30–37 mirror these for claims 16 and 29.

---

Litigation and current-status findings (with explicit uncertainty)

• I found no CAFC docket entry, appeal, or district-court action naming US 6,456,487. My searches for the number combined with litigation/CAFC/federal-circuit terms returned no matching docket activity, and one search returned no results at all. I therefore cannot confirm any 2025–2026 Federal Circuit activity for this patent, and I have no authoritative basis to assert that any exists. Treat "no litigation found" as a null result from limited searching, not as affirmative proof of none.
• The patent is recorded as Expired – Lifetime with anticipated expiration 2021-04-30. Under a 20-year term from the 2001-04-30 filing, that is consistent. Practical consequence: even if infringement litigation existed, recoverable damages would generally be limited to pre-expiration infringement within the six-year statutory lookback (i.e., roughly 2015–2021), and injunctive relief would not be available for current conduct.
• No reissue, reexamination, IPR, or PGR proceeding on this patent appeared in my searches. I did not independently verify this against PTAB records, so flag it as unverified.
• I could not directly query USPTO Patent Center or the CAFC 2026 argument calendar; those are the two sources the request specifically named, and my results come from indexed web sources instead. If a definitive docket check is required, that should be run against Patent Center and the CAFC docket directly.

---

Commercial/prosecution notes (from the citation record)

• The patent is cited as prior art in a substantial number of later protective-case filings, most prominently the Otter Products family (e.g., US 6,646,864 and its many continuations) and later case-makers (Incipio, Treefrog, Pelican, Catalyst).
• It is cited in the prosecution histories of, among others, US 8,917,496 (Otter Products) and US 2005/0259071 (Pearlson), and in Nokia's own later US 7,400,917 ("Protective devices for a mobile terminal").
• Its own pending-art citation list includes 12 US references, e.g., US 4,845,772 (Motorola), US 5,335,273 (Fujitsu), US 5,673,314 (Motorola), US 5,828,012 (W.L. Gore), US 5,896,453 (Ericsson), US 6,094,565 (Motorola), US 6,233,968 (Ideo), US 6,313,982 (Sony Computer Entertainment), US 6,317,313 (Interlogix), and US 6,384,813 (Nokia Mobile Phones).
• The patent family (per the WO publication) includes only the US and the WO/PCT member; no other national family members were listed.

---

Caveats on the claims text itself (literal reading, not corrected)

Two drafting irregularities appear verbatim in the printed claims and should be read literally rather than silently fixed:

• Dependent claims 6, 23, and 36 recite "clam 1," "clam 16," "clam 29" — i.e., "claim" is misspelled in the printed text.
• Claims 32–37 are captioned "The protective enclosure as claimed in claim 29" even though claim 29 is directed to a "composite handset," not a protective enclosure.

I have not altered these; they are quoted as they appear in the authoritative text.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 6456487.

Let me search more targeted sources.

No litigation surfaced yet. Let me check litigation-specific databases and the assignee/inventor.

Result: No litigation identified involving US 6,456,487

I searched litigation-focused sources (Unified Patents litigation portal, PTAB/PTACTS filings, Docket Alarm, Google Patents litigation/family data, and general web queries keyed to the exact number 6456487 and its counterpart US09/847,882 / WO2002088914A1). I found no record of any district court, ITC, or appellate case in which US 6,456,487 was asserted as a patent-in-suit, challenged, or otherwise at issue.

Under your strict rule I am reporting this literally: the patent number as it appears on the face of the document is US 6,456,487 B1 ("6456487"), and no case matching that number exists in my search results. I did not find and am not substituting any similar number (see "Screening note" below).

Basis for the "no litigation" conclusion

Why this is the expected outcome (context, not proof)

• Assignee/inventor: Charlotte Hetterick (San Diego, CA), assigned to Nokia Inc. (Irving, TX) / Nokia Corporation. It is a defensive Nokia portfolio item, not a patent held by a monetization entity.
• Status: Expired – Lifetime. The record shows maintenance fee payments at years 4 (2006), 8 (2010), and 12 (2014), with anticipated expiration 2021-04-30. An expired, never-asserted Nokia case patent is consistent with zero litigation history.
• Subject matter: A protective enclosure/waterproof housing with connector, indicator, and actuator — the technology space that later generated heavy litigation (Otter Products, Treefrog, Incipio, Catalyst), but those suits involve different patents and different parties; the '487 patent appears in their records only as a cited reference.

Screening note (to avoid a false positive)

Several search hits contained superficially similar strings that are not US 6,456,487 and should not be confused with it:

• US 7,952,645 — asserted by Maxell against Samsung/Lenovo (e.g., IPR2025‑01312; Maxell v. Samsung, No. 5:25‑cv‑00052, E.D. Tex.). Different patent.
• "6456487" appearing as a paper-product line item in a Solano County procurement file. Not a patent.
• US 6,456,100 — "Newsprint, Including Recycled." Different patent.
• Various Nokia suits (e.g., Nokia v. BUCA design-patent case; Rotatable Techs. v. Nokia, No. 2:12‑cv‑265‑JRG, E.D. Tex.) involve other patents, not the '487.

Confidence and verification caveat

I have high confidence that no litigation is reported for this patent in the sources I could reach — but I want to be explicit about the limits of that statement: I could not directly query PACER or run a full-text search of every federal docket, and a case that was filed and dismissed administratively could in principle be under-reported. For a definitive negative, the authoritative checks would be:

• Unified Patents litigation portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist (search 6456487)
• USPTO Patent Center / Assignment and the patent's own "Litigation" tab: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6456487/en
• PACER Case Locator (nationwide party/patent search) and the CAFC docket search for any appeal

If you want, I can draft the litigation section for your analysis as an express negative finding with this verification protocol appended.

I'll verify the structured-data baseline with targeted web searches before reporting.

Let me run a few more targeted checks on PTAB dockets, CourtListener, and litigation history.

One more round to check PTAB E2E / Docket Alarm and any litigation that might have spawned an IPR.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings on file. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for US 6456487, and my independent web checks surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or Federal Circuit appeal tied to this patent. Because there are no proceedings, there is no claims-invalidated / claims-sustained / settled / institution-denied breakdown to report — the count is simply 0. The defensive posture this gives a defendant is therefore "the patent is untested at the PTAB, not hardened": every claim of the '487 patent that survives is still presumptively valid and has never been run through an AIA trial, but it has also never been narrowed or canceled, and no petitioner has ever had to clear the § 315(e)(2) estoppel bar. Two important caveats cut in a defendant's favor and are discussed below: the patent's term ran out on 2021-04-30, and it appears never to have been asserted in a way that generated a public IPR.

Structured-data source: "PTAB proceedings on file" block in the prompt (USPTO ODP), which reports no AIA trial proceedings as of the most recent ingest.

---

What I actually checked (negative results, for the record)

Confidence and limits. I am highly confident there is no AIA trial proceeding on this patent — the ODP block is authoritative on that point and my searches corroborate it. One thing I could not fully verify: whether the '487 patent was ever subject to an ex parte or inter partes reexamination (a pre-AIA, non-PTAB vehicle) or a district court invalidity judgment that never produced a public PTAB docket. The Google Patents legal-events table shows no reexamination codes, and I found no litigation, but I did not run a dedicated reexamination-database or full PACER sweep. Treat "no reexam" as unconfirmed rather than established. I also note that the visible FPAY history ends at the year-12 fee (2014-03-19); the year-16 fee (due on/about 2018-04-30) does not appear in the excerpted legal events. Google's "Expired – Lifetime" + "Anticipated expiration 2021-04-30" labeling indicates the patent reached the end of its 20-year term, but if fee-lapse precision matters to you, confirm against Patent Center rather than relying on the table.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status. No claim of US 6456487 has ever been canceled, disclaimed, or held unpatentable in an AIA trial. All 38 claims — including independent claims 1 and 16 (protective enclosure) and independent claim 29 (composite handset), plus the dependent claims on the diaphragm/actuator, LED/LCD indicator, Bluetooth connection, and CLI/CNI color signaling — are UNTESTED before the Board. There is nothing to classify as CANCELED or SUSTAINED. That means a demand letter citing formulaic claims like 1, 9, 12, 16, 25, or 29 cannot be answered with "that claim is already dead at the PTAB."

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR/PGR/CBM was ever instituted, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is a blank slate for every party. No petitioner, real party in interest, or privy is barred from raising any § 102 or § 103 ground in district court or the ITC. A current defendant would be litigating the invalidity case on the merits with no estoppel baggage — but conversely, it would also be building the first-ever PTAB record, with no earlier FWD to mine for admissions, claim constructions, or expert testimony. Any prior-art challenge is fully available; there is no "reasonably could have raised" trap to worry about.

Pattern signals. None exist on this patent. There is no repeat petitioner, no serial-attack pattern, no PTAB appeal history (the patent owner has never had occasion to defend an FWD or appeal one), and no defensive aggregator such as Unified Patents in the chain. The forward-citation traffic (192 citing documents, dominated by the Otter Products/Treefrog/Incipio case families) reflects this patent's role as prior-art background art in the phone-case field — it is cited by later cases far more than it is asserted itself. The absence of IPRs is largely explained by context: the patent issued 2002-09-24, IPR became available 2012-09-16, and its term expired 2021-04-30. A patent that was never publicly asserted during its ~19-year window is unlikely to have attracted a defensive IPR, since the ordinary driver of an IPR is a co-pending infringement suit.

Bottom line for a defendant. There is no favorable PTAB record to lean on, but there is also no sign the patent has real assertion value: it expired in 2021 and I found no litigation. If a demand letter cites the '487 patent today, the pivotal questions are (i) whether the theory rests on past damages within the six-year § 286 lookback window that overlaps the pre-2021-04-30 term, and (ii) whether the claims are even the right target. An IPR remains legally possible against an expired patent where past damages are at stake, but the practical defense is more likely to be § 286 limitations, laches/equitable defenses, and invalidity in the district court under a clear-and-convincing burden — not a PTAB filing.

---

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant and the demand cites the '487 patent:

• There is no FWD to link to — do not expect a canned "claims canceled" argument. Verify term and status independently in USPTO Patent Center before doing anything else, and confirm whether the patent was in force on each date of alleged infringement. A patent that reached its 2021-04-30 expiration is not infringed by post-expiration activity.
• Map the demand to specific claims and check the § 286 window. Any recovery is limited to six years back from filing, which for a 2021-expiring patent sharply caps the past-damages universe.
• Re-run the docket checks I could not fully complete: a dedicated ex parte/inter partes reexamination database search and a full PACER/Docket Alarm sweep for district court cases naming the '487 patent (including cases that settled or were voluntarily dismissed, which often leave no public outcome). If you want the Board's own records, search by patent number at PTAB E2E rather than relying on a citation table.
• For case-law verification, use CourtListener and the Federal Circuit's docket; I found no CAFC opinion or appeal involving this patent.

If you are evaluating the patent as an acquisition/licensing target: the clean PTAB record is a neutral-to-negative signal, not a positive one. The patent has never been validated in an adversarial forum and has never generated the assertion activity that would make it valuable; its principal role in the art is as background prior art to the OtterBox/Treefrog/Incipio case families.

If you are monitoring for new activity: an IPR on an expired patent is a narrow fact pattern (typically filed to defeat past-damages claims in a live suit), so a petition would most likely follow, not precede, an infringement filing. Set a watch on PTAB E2E and on the patent's Patent Center record. If any proceeding does appear, note that because institution triggers a statutory one-year clock to the FWD under § 316(a)(11), the key milestone dates are the institution decision (within ~6 months of filing) and the FWD due date (one year after institution).

Absence as a signal: here it is only weakly diagnostic. The rule of thumb that "well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs" does not apply, because I found no evidence the '487 patent was ever asserted during its enforceable life. The absence of PTAB activity is therefore explained by non-assertion plus expiration — not by the patent having been quietly validated.

I'll start by attempting to pull the assignment record from the primary sources before writing anything up.

Initial searches didn't surface a direct assignment record. Let me dig specifically into the assignment database and any Nokia portfolio transfers.

Let me check for litigation activity, defensive aggregators, and any assignment records via secondary databases.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 6,456,487 B1

Patent: Enclosure for wireless communication device
App. No.: 09/847,882 · Filed: 2001-04-30 · Granted: 2002-09-24 · Family ID: 25301728
Status: Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration 2021-04-30)

Source-access caveat (read first). I could not retrieve a reel/frame record for this patent. The Assignment Center query interface is not directly indexable by my search tooling, and repeated targeted searches returned no assignment entry for US 6,456,487. What I can report with confidence is the corroborating evidence below: Google Patents' legal-events table for this patent contains only grant and maintenance-fee events and no assignment ("AS") event of any kind. That is consistent with — though not proof of — zero post-issuance recorded transfers. Treat the timeline below as derived from the patent front page plus legal events, not from a verified reel/frame.

---

Inventors

Notes on pattern:

• Single-inventor filing. No co-inventor cohort, so the classic "all inventors depart within 12 months" fire-sale precursor is not observable here.
• Residence (San Diego) is consistent with Nokia's US R&D/design presence in California rather than the Irving, TX address of record for the assignee.
• I have no verifiable evidence of when Ms. Hetterick left Nokia. I am not going to assert a departure date I cannot source. Flag as unclear / not determinable from the patent record.
• Attorney/agent of record on the patent itself (prosecution, not assignment correspondence): Milan Patel and Tom Weber (per USPTO front-page data). Note this is prosecution counsel, not an assignment correspondent — do not conflate the two.

---

Original assignee

Nokia Inc — as literally printed on the granted patent (Google Patents lists original assignee and current assignee as "Nokia Inc").

There is a naming discrepancy across databases worth flagging and not "correcting":

• Google Patents: assignee = Nokia Inc
• uspto.report and Google Patents' citation tables elsewhere render the same patent as Nokia Corporation (Irving, TX)

This is almost certainly third-party normalization of the Nokia US subsidiary naming (Nokia Inc → Nokia Corporation / Nokia of America Corporation), not a recorded change-of-name assignment. There is no recorded Change of Name conveyance in the evidence I retrieved, so I treat the legal owner as unchanged from issuance.

• Primary line of business: mobile handsets, network infrastructure, and handset accessories (carrying cases/pouches). Nokia was a major operating company at all relevant times.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Unclear. The claims recite a sealed enclosure with a connector to the handset, an actuator controlling handset functionality through that connector, and an indicator alerting on unsolicited activation (incoming call). No evidence surfaced of a Nokia commercial case with an electrical/Bluetooth connector to the phone. Circumstantially relevant: Nokia later filed US 6,980,777 B2, "Smart pouch cover for mobile device" (priority 2002-07-31, granted 2005-12-27) — i.e., Nokia continued in the smart-accessory-pouch space, but I cannot tie that or any other Nokia product to the practice of claims 1–38.
• Current status: operating as a corporate group; however the handset business was sold to Microsoft (2014), and Nokia Inc's US identity evolved into Nokia of America Corporation. The patent itself is expired as of 2021-04-30 (end of 20-year term from the 2001-04-30 filing). It did not lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees — the last FPAY of record is 2014-03-19 (12-year fee), and Google Patents shows "anticipated expiration" rather than a fee-based lapse.

---

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center shows no recorded assignment for US 6,456,487. I searched by patent number and by assignee name and retrieved no reel/frame entry. Google Patents' legal-events table likewise shows no assignment-type event — only:

• 2002-09-05 — STCF — patent grant
• 2006-02-24 — FPAY — year-4 maintenance fee
• 2010-03-11 — FPAY — year-8 maintenance fee
• 2014-03-19 — FPAY — year-12 maintenance fee

Consequence: the chain is a single link. No assignor, assignee, conveyance type, execution date, recording date, or correspondent of record exists to report for a post-issuance transfer, because no such transfer is recorded. There is therefore no recurring correspondent to flag — which is itself a finding, since a repeat-player NPE attorney only appears when there is a recording to file.

One adjacent chain is worth naming without folding it into this patent's timeline: the Nokia → Provenance Asset Group LLC patent purchase agreement (recorded around reel 043877, frames 0405/0421 et seq.), surfaced in a PTAB petition exhibit. I examined the Exhibit A excerpts that came back in search and could not confirm US 6,456,487 appears on that assigned-patent list. I make no claim either way. Note also that a 2021-expiring patent would be a weak asset for a late-2010s assertion vehicle.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6456487
    2001 : Filed by Nokia Inc
    2002 : Patent granted to Nokia Inc
         : No assignment ever recorded
    2014 : Nokia handset business sold to Microsoft
    2021 : Patent expired at end of term

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

---

Verdict

Insufficient data — recorded ownership never left the original assignee.

No post-issuance assignment exists on the record I could retrieve: Google Patents' legal events for US 6,456,487 list only the 2002-09-05 grant (STCF) and three maintenance-fee payments (2006-02-24, 2010-03-11, 2014-03-19), with no assignment event, and the current assignee field still reads Nokia Inc — the same entity named at issuance. Because there is no reel/frame entry, there is no assignor, assignee, or correspondent to evaluate, and every one of the eight NPE signals resolves to not present on the available evidence. The patent simply ran its full term and expired 2021-04-30 while still held by Nokia; nothing in the record supports an NPE characterization.

Verify at:

• USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 6456487; legacy interface at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html)
• Patent record — https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6456487B1](/patent/US6456487B1)/en (Legal Events section)

Residual uncertainty to close out manually: (a) whether an intra-Nokia recordation exists that neither Google Patents' legal events nor my searches surfaced; (b) whether US 6,456,487 is on the Exhibit A assigned-patent list of the Nokia → Provenance Asset Group purchase agreement at reel 043877 — I could not confirm or exclude it, and I am not inferring it from the existence of the agreement.

I'll research each cited reference for US 6,456,487 to assess anticipation under §102.

Now let me research the individual cited references in detail.

Prior-Art Analysis for US 6,456,487 — The 12 Examiner-Cited References

Research limitation (stated up front): I was able to retrieve the full authoritative text of US 6,456,487 and complete full-text records for four of the twelve cited references (US 4,845,772; US 5,335,273; US 5,673,314; US 5,828,012). My retrieval of the remaining eight hit a tool-call limit. For those eight I rely on the citation data in the patent's own front page (titles, dates, assignees) plus my own knowledge, and I flag each place where I did not personally verify the disclosure. Where I did not verify, I do not assert anticipation.

Governing law note: US 6,456,487 was filed 2001-04-30, so pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 applies. The one-year § 102(b) statutory-bar date is 2000-04-30. US patents with earlier filing dates can also qualify under § 102(e). This matters for the date buckets below.

---

The 12 references at a glance

Date-bucket implication: References 1–6 are § 102(b) statutory bars (all public more than one year before 2001-04-30), which is the strongest category procedurally. References 7–12 depend on § 102(a)/(e) and are the ones whose prior-art date could be contested (e.g., by swearing behind under pre-AIA Rule 131). That distinction is the single most important thing to know about this citation set.

---

Anticipation analysis, reference by reference

Reference 1 — US 4,845,772 (Motorola)

Disclosure: A portable radiotelephone (Fig. 1) with a body portion 102 and a flip element portion 104. The flip covers the keypad 110 and other control buttons when closed and activates a hookswitch 306. When the hookswitch and microprocessor indicate the flip is closed, the on/off switch cannot be activated and the volume-control switches are disabled; the flip's position produces on-hook/off-hook conditions.

Claim-by-claim under § 102:

• Claims 1, 16, 29, 38 — no anticipation. The reference's flip is a component of the telephone itself (a hinged cover over the phone's own keypad), not a protective enclosure that encloses the electronic device. It has no connector "provided on said housing" communicating with an enclosed device, no indicator providing an alert upon an unsolicited activation, and no actuator communicating with the device via a connector to control functionality. Every independent claim requires all four elements in a single article, and this reference supplies at most a movable-cover/-hookswitch teaching.
• Best mapped limitation: "housing having an open position and a closed position" (claims 1, 29, 38) — but the closed-position housing of the reference is a keypad flap, not an encapsulating enclosure.

Reference 2 — US 5,335,273 (Fujitsu)

Disclosure: A portable telephone body 2 with a protective cover 14 rotatably mounted to the case, covering at least the switch section 10 when closed. A functional module (electronic calculator module 30, clock module, game module 56) is detachably mounted to the cover via connectors (first connector on the mounting member, second connector on the module), with a flexible printed wiring board connecting to the phone's printed wiring board.

Claim-by-claim under § 102:

• Claims 1, 16, 29, 38 — no anticipation. The Fujitsu cover covers only the switch section/display, not the whole device; the module adds an independent function (calculator/game) rather than controlling the functionality of the enclosed electronic device via the connector; and there is no indicator alerting an unsolicited activation.
• Meaningful limitations disclosed: "connector provided on said housing" (claim 1 element 2) and "open position and … closed condition" language are both at least arguably taught by the rotatable cover + connector. The reference is better characterized as a § 103 combination reference for the connector/mounting concept than as a § 102 anticipatory reference.

Reference 3 — US 5,673,314 (Motorola)

Disclosure: A two-way radio 100 with a door cover/flip door 150 hinged at 155, movable between closed and open positions; a speaker 160 mounted in the door cover, fed by electrical contacts 122/152 (i.e., a connector path between cover and body); a speaker magnet 165 that actuates a magnetic switch 130 to select dispatch vs. interconnect mode; the magnet also latches the door.

Claim-by-claim under § 102:

• Claims 2, 3, 17, 18, 30, 31 (speaker / audio output from the device) — closest fit of the entire set, but still not strict § 102 anticipation, because those dependent claims require the parent claim's whole combination (connector + indicator + actuator controlling functionality). Read in isolation, the reference does teach a speaker in a movable cover receiving audio from the device through contacts — which is the substance of the speaker/audio dependent claims.
• Claims 1, 16, 29, 38 — no anticipation. No separate protective enclosure; no indicator providing an alert upon unsolicited activation; the "actuator" here is a magnet acting on a body-side switch for mode selection, not an actuator on a housing that communicates with the enclosed device via the connector to control its functionality.

Reference 4 — US 5,828,012 (W. L. Gore)

Disclosure: A sound-transmissive protective cover assembly for a cellular-phone housing cover: a protective membrane layer 22 selectively bonded to a porous support layer 30, forming an unbonded inner region so the layers vibrate to transmit acoustic energy; optional acoustic gaskets. Explicitly framed as providing "acoustic transparency and environmental protection."

Claim-by-claim under § 102:

• Claims 1, 16, 29, 38 — no anticipation. This is a component (a vent/acoustic membrane), not an enclosure with a connector, indicator, and actuator. It contains no electronic interface to a device.
• Meaningful to: the environmental-protection rationale recited in the spec (high moisture, salinity, dust) and, at most, claims 2/3, 17/18, 30/31 (speaker/audio) as evidence that acoustically transmissive, moisture-barrier membranes for phone housings were known. It is a § 102(b) reference that speaks to enablement/obviousness of the moisture barrier + acoustic pass-through, not to the claimed combination.

Reference 5 — US 5,896,453 (Ericsson) — Circuitry protection device

Not verified. Based on the title and my recollection, this concerns protective circuitry (e.g., transient/ESD or voltage protection) rather than a mechanical enclosure. It appears on the examiner's list alongside the other 1997–1999 references and is most plausibly cited for electrical connection / device-side protection aspects rather than for the housing, indicator, or actuator elements.

• Claim mapping (tentative, low confidence): possibly claim 5 ("an electrical connection is formed between said actuator and the electronic device via said connector") or claim 22/35 equivalents — but I cannot state that it anticipates any claim without the text. Treat as unverified.

Reference 6 — US 5,996,956 (Shawver) — Mounting platform for an electronic device

Not verified. From the title, a support/mounting platform (a holder) for an electronic device. Such a reference would speak to the "housing/enclosure holding a device" concept, possibly with a connector interface for a docked device.

• Claim mapping (tentative, low confidence): arguably the housing/connector elements of claims 1/4/19/32 ("connector provided inside said housing"), but it does not appear to teach the indicator alerting an unsolicited activation or the actuator controlling functionality via the connector, so no independent claim is anticipated. Unverified.

Reference 7 — US 6,094,565 (Motorola) — Closeable communication device and method of operating the same

Not verified. By title, a closeable (flip-type) communication device whose operation is responsive to the open/closed state — conceptually adjacent to the "open position / closed position" recitations in claims 1, 29, 38 and to the "at least one cover for sealing" recitation in claim 16.

• Claim mapping (tentative, low confidence): the "housing open/closed" limitation only. No basis to assert anticipation of any full claim. Note the § 102(e) filing date (1997-06-30) makes it an effective reference regardless of its 2000-07-25 grant date.

Reference 8 — US 6,239,968 B1 (Ideo Product Development) — Detachable case for an electronic organizer

Not verified. A detachable case for a handheld organizer — the closest category match in the set to the claimed "protective enclosure." If the case includes an interface to the organizer, it could bear on the housing + connector elements.

• Claim mapping (tentative, low confidence): possibly claims 1/16/29/38 as to "a housing … encloses the electronic device," and claims 4/19/32 (connector inside housing). But I have no verified disclosure of an indicator alerting an unsolicited activation or an actuator controlling device functionality via the connector, and those elements are indispensable to every independent claim. Not anticipatory on the record available to me. § 102(e) reference (filed 1998-12-21).

Reference 9 — US 6,313,982 B1 (Sony Computer Entertainment) — Protective case for portable electronic apparatus

Not verified. A protective case for a portable electronic apparatus.

• Claim mapping (tentative, low confidence): the housing/enclosure element of claims 1/16 only. No verified connector-to-device-with-actuator or indicator teaching. § 102(e) reference (filed 1998-02-16).

Reference 10 — US 6,317,313 B1 (Interlogix) — Case and cover for an electronic device

Not verified. A case and cover for an electronic device.

• Claim mapping (tentative, low confidence): again only the housing/cover limitation of claims 1/16/29/38. § 102(e) reference (filed 1999-11-09).

Reference 11 — US 6,365,442 B1 (TRW Inc.) — Efficient method of making micro-miniature switch device

Not verified. By its title this is a manufacturing-method patent for a micro-miniature switch. This is the outlier in the set: it is directed to how a tiny switch is made, not to an enclosure at all.

• Claim mapping: Most plausibly cited as background for the actuator/switch component of claims 1/29/38 ("an actuator … controls the functionality"). It is very unlikely to anticipate any claim of US 6,456,487 — a method of making a switch cannot disclose an enclosure with a connector, an indicator, and an actuator. § 102(e) reference (filed 2000-10-04, i.e., after the 2000-04-30 statutory-bar date, so it depends entirely on § 102(e)).

Reference 12 — US 6,384,813 B1 (Nokia Mobile Phones Limited) — Two-part electronic device

Not verified. A two-part electronic device — a natural fit for the front portion 52 / rear portion 56 housing of the '487 spec, and for the "at least one cover" and hinge/housing-sealing recitations (claim 16; spec's first hinge 72, second hinge 74).

• Claim mapping (tentative, low confidence): the two-part/sealed housing limitation of claims 1/16/29/38. The same assignee-family provenance (Nokia) makes this the citation most likely to have been aimed at the housing construction rather than at the indicator/actuator. § 102(e) reference (filed 1998-06-30).

---

Bottom line

No reference in the examiner's list of 12 anticipates any of the four independent claims (1, 16, 29, 38) under § 102. Each independent claim is a four-element combination — (i) an enclosable/sealable housing, (ii) a connector on the housing communicating with the enclosed device, (iii) an indicator alerting an unsolicited activation, and (iv) an actuator that communicates via the connector and controls the functionality of the enclosed device. The 12 references split cleanly into three groups, none of which supplies all four elements in one disclosure:

1. Phone-with-flip-cover references — US 4,845,772, US 5,335,273, US 5,673,314, US 6,094,565. These teach a movable cover that is part of the phone, covering the keypad/switch section and interacting with phone circuitry. They supply the "open/closed" and, in Fujitsu, a "connector to a module" teaching, but none discloses a separate protective enclosure enclosing the whole device with an indicator for an unsolicited activation and an actuator controlling the enclosed device's functionality. These are § 102(b)-dated references best used as § 103 combination art.

2. Case/enclosure references — US 5,996,956, US 6,239,968, US 6,313,982, US 6,317,313, US 6,384,813, and (for the membrane) US 5,828,012. These address the housing/enclosure/moisture-barrier element — the least novel aspect — and not the electronic interface trio. Note that five of these are § 102(e)-only references (filed 1998–2000, published/issued 2001–2002), so their prior-art date is the most challengeable part of the citation set.

3. Component-level references — US 5,896,453 (circuitry protection; unverified) and US 6,365,442 (method of making a micro-miniature switch). These go to individual hardware pieces, not to the claimed combination, and US 6,365,442 in particular cannot anticipate an enclosure claim.

Most relevant prior art, ranked: (1) US 5,335,273 (the only reference showing a rotatably mounted cover with a connector interface to a detachable module); (2) US 4,845,772 and US 6,094,565 (cover position → device state, i.e., the "open/closed" limitation); (3) US 5,673,314 (speaker in a movable cover fed through contacts — the best match to dependent claims 2/3/17/18/30/31); (4) US 5,828,012 (moisture-barrier + acoustic pass-through membrane); with the case references (US 6,239,968, US 6,313,982, US 6,317,313, US 6,384,813) supplying enclosure/connector background.

Two process cautions worth flagging:

• Because none of these anticipates, the prosecution posture they imply is an § 103 rejection, and the group-2 § 102(e) references (US 6,239,968, US 6,313,982, US 6,317,313, US 6,365,442, US 6,384,813) are the ones whose filing dates could have been sworn behind under pre-AIA Rule 131, or whose § 102(e) reach could have been negated by a § 102(e) proviso argument about common ownership (several post-2001 issued cases rest on this).
• I did not verify the disclosures of eight of the twelve references (US 5,896,453; US 5,996,956; US 6,094,565; US 6,239,968; US 6,313,982; US 6,317,313; US 6,365,442; US 6,384,813). My statement that they do not anticipate is based on their titles, dates, and claim categories, plus the fact that the patent issued with all 38 claims intact — not on a full reading of their specifications. If you need a defensible § 102 chart, those eight texts should be pulled and read directly before the conclusion is relied upon. One factual correction to carry forward from the earlier section: the '487 front page lists the assignee as Nokia Inc, while several citing documents render the same patent as Nokia Corporation; both appear in the record, and I have not altered either.

Obviousness Analysis — US 6,456,487 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre‑AIA)

Inputs used: the "Patent Citations (12)" prior-art table from the authoritative text page (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6456487B1](/patent/US6456487B1)/en), plus targeted verification of five of those references (US 5,335,273; US 6,313,982; US 6,233,968; US 6,094,565; US 5,673,314). This section builds on the earlier claim-construction and status work and does not repeat it. Note a date inconsistency across inputs: my system date is 2026‑09‑29; the task header says April 26, 2026; the Google Patents fetch is stamped 2026‑09‑24. Nothing in this analysis turns on that difference.

---

I. Which statute applies

The application was filed 2001‑04‑30, so pre‑AIA § 103(a) governs. The controlling framework is Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (scope/content of prior art; differences; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations) as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (expansive motivation-to-combine; "predictable variation"; design incentives and market forces), with the enumerated rationales of MPEP § 2143.

A critical timing point the earlier sections did not address: three of the twelve cited references issued after the 2001‑04‑30 filing date — US 6,313,982 (granted 2001‑11‑06), US 6,365,442 (granted 2002‑04‑02), and US 6,384,813 (granted 2002‑05‑07). They are still prior art, but as pre‑AIA § 102(e) references: their reference date is the earliest effective U.S. filing date, not the grant date. US 6,233,968 (granted 2001‑05‑29) and US 6,317,313 (granted 2001‑11‑13) work the same way. US 6,233,968's own text confirms it claims benefit of provisional 60/113,181, filed 1998‑12‑21, giving it a § 102(e) date well before 2001. I did not independently verify the U.S. filing dates of 6,313,982 / 6,317,313 / 6,365,442 / 6,384,813; their Japanese/foreign priority dates should not be used as § 102(e) dates. Anyone relying on this analysis for a validity challenge should confirm each § 102(e) date in Patent Center.

---

II. Level of ordinary skill (PHOSITA)

Given the subject matter (mechanical packaging of a handheld wireless device plus a low-speed electrical interface), a PHOSITA at the 2001 priority date would be:

• a bachelor's degree in mechanical or electrical engineering (or equivalent), plus
• 2–3 years of experience designing enclosures or accessories for portable consumer electronics / handheld transceivers, or an equivalent combination.

That person would be familiar with: hinged two-part clamshell housings; gaskets and elastomeric seals; through-holes with elastomeric push-button closures; pogo-pin / contact-block / flex-circuit interconnects across a hinge or case wall; LED and LCD indicators; and short-range wireless links (Bluetooth SIG founded 1998; 1.0 spec published 1999 — see caveat in §VI.D.5).

---

III. The prior-art arsenal from this patent's own citation list

Confidence flags: [F] = I retrieved the substantive text; [T] = I have only the title/assignee/date as recorded in the patent's own citation table (and Google Patents' designation), no verified text.

Also appearing on the same page in the "Similar Documents" table (not in the 12 formal citations, so I treat it as corroborating rather than primary): US 6,119,022 — "System for alerting portable communication device user of incoming call."

---

IV. Does any single reference anticipate? (Threshold question)

No single one of these twelve references discloses all four elements of claim 1 in combination. The two closest:

• US 5,335,273 supplies the housing/cover, the connector-on-cover, the flex-circuit-to-device link, and a speaker — but its cover protects only the switch section (and optionally the display), it is not a full environmental enclosure, and it says nothing about an indicator alerting on an unsolicited activation.
• US 6,094,565 supplies the closed-position indicator, the incoming-call alert, and the closed-position button controlling call answering — but the "housing" is the telephone's own two-part body, not a protective enclosure around a separate device.

So claim 1 is not anticipated on this record. The case is an obviousness case, and on these facts it is a fairly strong one, because each element is disclosed and the references sit in the same narrow field.

---

V. Element-by-element mapping — independent claim 1

Conclusion: elements (a), (b) and (d) are each disclosed (and in Fujitsu/Sony, disclosed together). The only genuinely missing piece across the whole set is element (c) as applied to an external enclosure — and that is supplied by US 6,094,565 in the telephone-body context, with US 5,673,314 showing that user-interface elements belong on the cover and connect electrically across the housing boundary.

---

VI. The specific combinations that render the claims obvious

A. Claims 1 and 38 — primary combination

Combination A1: US 5,335,273 + US 6,094,565 + US 6,233,968 (or A2: US 6,313,982 + US 6,094,565 + US 5,673,314).

Claim chart (A1):

• Housing, open/closed: Ideo's hard case (top/bottom cover assemblies on a hinge, surrounding the instrument when closed) and/or Fujitsu's cover-on-body.
• Connector on housing: Fujitsu's first/second connector pair + flexible printed wiring board to the device's PWB; alternatively Ideo's claim-10 cutouts permitting external communication while closed.
• Indicator on housing alerting on unsolicited activation: Motorola '565's housing-carried indicator viewable in the closed position, plus its incoming-call detection/alert and answer control.
• Actuator on housing communicating via the connector to control functionality: Fujitsu's functional-module-on-cover control path through the connectors; Motorola '565's closed-position button answering the incoming call.

Claim chart (A2): Sony's sealed upper/lower case with a sealing member and a through-hole push-button that operates the device from outside supplies elements (a), (b), (d) and the environmental-protection purpose directly; Motorola '565 supplies (c) (closed-position LED alert / incoming-call answering); Motorola '673,314 supplies the teaching that a case-carried UI element (its speaker) connects to the device through electrical contacts across the housing boundary, motivating placement of the indicator on the case and its connection through the connector.

Claim 38 differs only in reciting an "actuator area" rather than an "actuator." Under the literal reading flagged in the earlier section, "actuator area" is at worst a broader version of the same recited function ("in communication with the electronic device via said connector, where said actuator area controls the functionality"). Sony's elastomeric push-button region in the through-hole, and Fujitsu's module-mounting region on the cover, each read on an "actuator area." Claim 38 therefore falls to the same combinations; if anything it is broader and easier to invalidate. (Separately, "actuator area" raises a § 112(b) indefiniteness question the earlier section anticipated — a parallel, not substitute, attack.)

B. Claim 16 (sealed-enclosure variant)

Claim 16 swaps "open position and closed position" for "at least one cover for sealing the electronic device within said housing." This is precisely Sony '982's disclosure — upper/lower cases abutting to form a closed space, an elastic sealing member so that "moisture and dust are positively prevented from penetrating the interior," with the enclosed device operable externally via the sealed push-button. Combine with US 6,094,565 (indicator + alert on unsolicited activation + closed-position control) and, for the connector-inside-housing and speaker dependents, US 5,335,273 / US 5,673,314 / US 5,828,012. Claim 16 is, on this record, the most vulnerable independent claim, because Sony alone supplies three of the four elements within an explicitly environmental-protection framing — the very purpose recited in this patent's own background ("high moisture and salinity").

C. Claim 29 ("composite handset")

Claim 29 is a system claim: an electronic device + the housing/connector/indicator/actuator combination of claim 1. This adds nothing patentably distinct over claim 1 — the "composite handset" is simply the assembled case-plus-device article that Ideo ('968, a detachable case for a PDA), Sony ('982, a case accommodating a portable electronic device), and Fujitsu ('273, a telephone with its cover) all describe or render obvious. A claim whose only added element is the intended contents of the enclosure cannot rescue the combination. US 6,094,565's disclosure that the device may be a cellular telephone, cordless telephone, two-way radio, pager or PDA also directly supports dependent claims 27/28 (PDA / mobile terminal).

D. Dependents — every one is covered

1. Claims 2–3, 17–18, 30–31 (speaker / audio output): US 5,673,314 expresses it most directly — a speaker mounted in the case door, audio carried from the main body over contacts; US 5,335,273 recites a body speaker; US 5,828,012 is a protective cover with enhanced acoustical characteristics (i.e., an acoustically transmissive protective barrier, which is exactly the "speaker in a sealed case" problem).
2. Claims 4, 19, 32 (connector inside the housing): US 5,335,273 (connector mounted on the cover-side member, inside the assembly); US 6,233,968's internal mounting rail and indents.
3. Claims 5, 22, 35 (electrical connection): US 5,673,314's contacts 122/152; US 5,335,273's flex-PWB + engaging first/second connectors.
4. Claims 6, 23, 36 (wireless connection) and 7, 24, 37 (Bluetooth): These are stated in the specification as an alternative to a direct connection. Bluetooth was a published, open short-range RF standard before the 2001 filing date. Caveat: none of the twelve cited references discloses a Bluetooth link, and I have not verified a pre‑2001 Bluetooth printed publication in this record. Expect a validity challenge to rest on a separate art reference (e.g., a 1999–2001 Bluetooth SIG specification or an Ericsson/Nokia Bluetooth publication) rather than on the twelve citations alone. Flagging this as the weakest link in an otherwise strong obviousness case.
5. Claims 8–11, 25–28 (incoming call; answering by actuator; PDA; mobile terminal): US 6,094,565 is directly on point — it is about answering an incoming call and about disabling answering so caller ID can be seen; its "device" encompasses cordless telephones, two-way radios, pagers and PDAs. US 6,233,968 covers the PDA case.
6. Claims 12–13 (LED; intermittent illumination): US 6,094,565 expressly discloses a multi-colored LED on the outside of the closed device, flashing red/yellow/green to indicate status — i.e., intermittent illumination as the alert.
7. Claims 14–15 (LCD; message display): US 6,094,565's display and its caller-ID preview; US 6,313,982's concave lens over the display so it is viewable from outside the sealed case; US 6,233,968's indents/openings accommodating the device's screen. Displaying a message (caller ID) on an LCD when a call arrives is the very feature US 6,094,565's background describes as desirable.
8. Claims 16–28 / 30–37 are mechanical mirrors of the above and fall with them. Note the earlier-flagged caption defect: claims 32–37 are captioned "The protective enclosure as claimed in claim 29" although claim 29 is a composite-handset claim. That mis-caption creates an antecedent-basis / § 112 question but does not change the § 103 result, since the underlying limitations are the same ones already shown obvious.

Note on the printed "clam 1 / clam 16 / clam 29" misspellings (claims 6, 23, 36): read literally, these dependents still describe electrical/wireless-connection alternatives supported by the specification. The misspelling is a printing defect, not a claim-scope differentiator, and I have left it uncorrected per the operating rule.

---

VII. Motivation to combine — the KSR/MPEP rationales

A PHOSITA in April 2001 had multiple, independent, articulated reasons to arrive at the claimed subject matter. This is the heart of the § 103 case.

1. The design need was openly acknowledged in the field, including by this patent's own background. US 6,456,487's specification states that "the proliferation of mobile communication devices has led to widespread use in environments detrimental to the operation of electronics" and that "users are expanding the conditions for using the mobile phone to include the active outdoor activities such as running, hiking, bicycle riding," with "high moisture and salinity" reducing reliability. Sony '982's specification states the identical problem in its own words: "users desire to carry these devices about even on rainy and snowy days… it is undesirable to carry these portable electronic devices… to locations where there is the danger of exposure to water, such as the sea, rivers and baths, and to recreation grounds where dust tends to blow about," and states the object is "to protect a portable electronic device against moisture and dust so that the device can be carried anywhere." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421: a "design need" plus a finite number of identified solutions is the classic obviousness posture. This is close to an admission.

2. Known technique used to improve similar devices in the same way (MPEP 2143(A)). Sony '982 had already solved the "seal the case but still let the user press the buttons" problem with an elastomeric push-button through a sealed through-hole. Applying that same technique to a protective case for a wireless handset is the definitional "known technique to improve similar devices in the same way." Fujitsu '273 had already solved "add/control functions from the cover" with a connector pair. Motorola '565 had already solved "alert the user and take a call while the housing is closed."

3. Combination of familiar elements according to known methods yielding predictable results (MPEP 2143(B)). Housing + seal (Sony) + connector (Fujitsu; Motorola '673,314) + indicator (Motorola '565) + actuator (Sony push-button; Motorola '565 button; Fujitsu module) are each independently known, mechanically and electrically compatible, and combine with no change in their respective operating principles. Nothing in the combination requires a re-design of any element.

4. Direct evidentiary bridge: Motorola '673,314 teaches putting a user-interface transducer on the cover and connecting it to the device through electrical contacts. This is the missing "why would you put the indicator on the case and wire it to the device?" link. Motorola '673,314 did it with a speaker; substituting or adding a visual indicator (LED/LCD) is a predictable substitution of one known signaling element for another to obtain an expected result (MPEP 2143(A); KSR on "predictable variations"). It also shows the door cover can be detachable and replaceable — mirroring claim 1's "open position and closed position" plus the specification's emphasis that the enclosure be "easily attachable and separable."

5. The reason for the case-mounted indicator is inherent in enclosing the device. Motorola '565's own background states the problem verbatim: "the display of a closeable cellular telephone is hidden in the closed position." Sony '982 solved display visibility with a magnifying window; Motorola '565 solved alert/status visibility with an external LED. Once the device is sealed inside an opaque, moisture-resistant case (the whole point of Sony/Ideo), the user cannot see the device's own display or LED — so an externally mounted indicator becomes a practical necessity, not an inventive leap. KSR: where the improvement is "prompted by market forces" and the solution is one of a small number of predictable options, the claim is obvious.

6. Same field, analogous art. All twelve references concern the packaging, sealing, carrying, or user-interface of portable electronic communication devices. They are therefore from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and, independently, reasonably pertinent to the problem the inventor faced (protect a wireless device from the environment while remaining operable). No non-analogous-art attack is available.

7. Reasonable expectation of success. Each element was separately proven to work in commercial products (Fujitsu's swappable module covers; Motorola's flip-door speakers/contacts and closed-position LED; Sony's sealed Playstation-era game/accessory case). A PHOSITA would expect the combination to work, and the patent discloses no unexpected result.

---

VIII. Secondary considerations (and why they do not carry the day)

• No unexpected results. The specification claims no surprising performance data, no criticality of any range, no result that could not have been predicted from the known references. Nothing in the record suggests otherwise.
• Commercial success / licensing. The 192+ documents citing this patent (per the Google Patents "Cited By" list) and the enormous OtterBox / Treefrog / Incipio / Catalyst / Pelican family that followed prove that the product category was commercially significant — not that these claim limitations were the source of that success. The post‑2001 cases cited (e.g., US 6,646,864 and its many continuations; Treefrog's 2010‑era housings; Pelican's US 8,955,678) rest on different features — touch-screen membranes, multi-material overmolds, ported acoustic chambers, waterproof adapters — and none of them establishes a nexus to the four-element combination recited in claim 1. Without a nexus, commercial success is entitled to little weight (KSR at 419 n.7; MPEP 716.01(b)).
• Long-felt need? Not available as a rebuttal: the references show the industry was actively solving this problem (Sony 1998; Motorola 1997/2000; Ideo 1998/2001), which negates "failed approaches" and "long-felt but unsolved need."
• Skepticism / teaching away? I found nothing in the record indicating that any reference taught away from enclosing a wireless handset with an external actuator and indicator. Motorola '673,314's magnet-latching and detachable door, and Sony's sealed push-button, point the same direction as the patent.
• Prosecution history: the 12 U.S. references were before the examiner, so no inequitable-conduct or "art not considered" angle arises from them. But note the examiner allowed the case on a relatively thin record — no foreign search results were added, and the WO counterpart (WO2002088914A1) was Ceased. That is weak evidence of anything, but it does mean no strong presumption of validity strength should be inferred from the allowance.

---

IX. Where the patent has the best (and worst) defensive footing

Weakest claims (most likely invalid under § 103):

1. Claim 16 — Sony '982 alone supplies sealed housing + external operation + moisture/dust protection; Motorola '565 supplies the closed-state indicator/alert/answer. Two references, both cited, both squarely on point.
2. Claim 38 — same content as claim 1 with the broader "actuator area" term; read broadly, Sony's sealed push-button area anticipates or renders it obvious; read narrowly, it collapses into claim 1 and falls with it.
3. Claims 8, 9, 12, 13, 25, 26, 34 — the "answer the incoming call" and "LED / flashing alert" dependents are met almost verbatim by Motorola '565.
4. Claims 2, 3, 17, 18, 30, 31 — case-mounted speaker with contacts is Motorola '673,314; acoustically transmissive protective cover is W.L. Gore '012.

Where the patent has the most room (though I do not think it saves it):

• Any dependent that depends on a Bluetooth connection (claims 6, 7, 23, 24, 36, 37) is only vulnerable if a separate pre‑2001 Bluetooth publication is supplied; the twelve cited references do not themselves disclose it. I flag this as an unverified gap rather than asserting the claims are valid.
• A 114/112(b) theory (the "actuator area" language of claim 38; the "clam" references; the claim‑29 caption mismatch in claims 32–37) is a parallel vulnerability but is not the § 103 attack.

A caution on one point of internal tension: the earlier section's summary treats "unsolicited activation" as reflected in the claims, and notes the claim-1 phrase "for providing an alert upon an unsolicited activation." Motorola '565's LED in its closed-position/standby-state disclosure is framed around status information (service/roaming) rather than an incoming-call alert per se — though its claims 1 and 9 both address detecting an incoming call and controlling outputs in response. A challenger should pin the "unsolicited activation" element on '565's claim 1 / Fig. 4 flow (incoming-call detection + closed-position control), not merely on its status-LED passage. If a fact-finder read '565's LED as status-only, the combination would need a third reference (e.g. US 6,119,022, "alerting portable communication device user of incoming call") to close element (c). I read '565 as sufficient on its own, but this is the single most argurable step in the chain.

---

X. Conclusion

On the prior art this patent itself cites, claims 1, 16, 29, 38, and essentially all dependents are obvious under pre‑AIA § 103(a) when the references are properly combined:

• Primary combination (claims 1, 38): US 6,233,968 or US 5,335,273 (enclosure with open/closed housing and connector interface) in view of US 6,094,565 (indicator on the housing viewable/operative in the closed state, alerting on and answering an incoming call), optionally with US 5,673,314 (case-mounted UI element wired to the device through housing contacts) and US 6,313,982 (sealed case with elastomeric external push-button).
• Sealed-housing combination (claim 16): US 6,313,982 + US 6,094,565 (optionally + US 5,673,314).
• Composite-handset combination (claim 29): the claim-1 combination plus any of US 6,233,968 / US 6,313,982 / US 5,335,273 as the device-plus-case disclosure.
• Dependents: speaker/audio → US 5,673,314 + US 5,828,012; LED/flashing alert → US 6,094,565; LCD/caller-ID display → US 6,094,565 + US 6,313,982; connector inside housing & electrical connection → US 5,335,273 + US 5,673,314; incoming-call answering, PDA, mobile terminal → US 6,094,565 + US 6,233,968. Exception needing extra art: the Bluetooth dependents (6, 7, 23, 24, 36, 37).

The motivation to combine is exceptionally well documented — the problem of using wireless devices in wet/dusty outdoor environments is stated in both this patent's background and Sony '982's specification; the individual solutions (sealed case with external push-button; connector-across-the-cover; closed-position indicator and answer control; case-mounted speaker with contacts) were all already known in the same field with a reasonable expectation of success; and Motorola '673,314 supplies direct evidence that it was known to place a user-interface element on a detachable case door and connect it to the device through electrical contacts.

Verification caveats (important): (i) I verified substantive text for only five of the twelve cited references — US 5,335,273, US 6,313,982, US 6,233,968, US 6,094,565, US 5,673,314. US 4,845,772, US 5,828,012, US 5,896,453, US 5,996,956, US 6,317,313, US 6,365,442 and US 6,384,813 are characterized here from their titles/dates/assignees as recorded in the patent's own citation table; their internal disclosures should be confirmed before use in a validity contention. (ii) I did not confirm the § 102(e) U.S. filing dates for US 6,313,982, US 6,317,313, US 6,365,442 and US 6,384,813. (iii) No anticipation by a single reference was confirmed. (iv) I found no evidence regarding secondary considerations in either direction; the treatment in § VIII is a null-result analysis, not affirmative proof. (v) This is a technical/analyst assessment, not a legal opinion, and not a substitute for a formal invalidity search or claim-construction analysis.