US 6473006

I'll search for authoritative information on US patent 6473006, including any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

Let me run a couple more targeted checks for any 2026 litigation or Federal Circuit activity involving this specific patent.

US Patent 6,473,006 B1 — Analyst Summary

Caveat on scope of search: I retrieved the authoritative full text and bibliographic record for this number (Google Patents / USPTO, fetched 2026-10-01). I found no 2026 CAFC docket entry, appeal, or order naming U.S. Patent 6,473,006. My searches of Federal Circuit opinion/order pages for 2026 returned unrelated matters (e.g., Spero v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Nos. 2025-1306 et al., Rule 36 judgment May 14, 2026 — a different patent and parties). The docket/litigation trail I can confirm for this patent is historical (2011), not 2026. I cannot claim with confidence that no 2026 activity exists; I simply found none.

Bibliographic data

Note on assignee in the record: The Google Patents record lists the current assignee as Google LLC, but the assignment chain is unusual. Per the recorded legal events, the patent moved: Phone.com → Openwave Systems → Purple Labs S.A. (2008) → Myriad France SAS (2010) → Google Inc. (2010) → HTC Corporation (2011-09-01) → back to Google Inc. (recorded 2013-12-19, effective 2012-11-08) → Google LLC (2017). One secondary source (a Taiwan TIPO document) still lists HTC Corporation as owner, consistent with the 2011–2013 interval; the USPTO assignment record is the better authority and shows Google as the current owner.

Abstract (verbatim)

"A method and apparatus to provide users with enhanced visual feedback after entry of data. When a user activates a key or inputs a sequence of keystrokes, a corresponding data character or characters is determined and displayed in a highlighting window. The desired character or set of characters may be determined by a predictive data entry method. The highlighting window provides greater visual feedback to the user through magnification, reverse video, or some other form of contrast enhancement method. If the user scrolls to a new character or characters because the currently displayed one(s) are not desired, then the new character or characters are displayed in the highlighting window. When the user ceases scrolling, indicating that the currently displayed character or characters are what the user desires, the highlighting window disappears and the display of the selected character or characters is restored to be the same format as previously entered characters."

The three independent claims (plain language)

Claim 1 — The display method. A method for showing the character(s) that correspond to a pressed key/interface element. Three steps: (a) receive the activated element (e.g., a keypress); (b) determine which character(s) that element corresponds to; and (c) display those character(s) in a "highlighting window" so each is shown in a contrasting format versus the already-entered text — where the contrasting format at least includes enlargement of the character(s). Enlargement (a "zoom") is thus a mandatory element of claim 1, not merely an option. (Dependent claims 2–4 add reverse video, a different font, and use of a lookup process taking previously entered data as input, respectively; claims 5–6 cover acceptance after a predetermined time and restoring to normal format; claims 7–11 cover keypad/mobile-device/telephone implementations and cycling a key's characters individually.)

Claim 12 — The two-format entry-assist method. A method of helping a user enter data where the interface has activatable elements. Sequence: (a) display a string of characters on the screen in a first format (the normal format of already-entered characters); (b) receive a newly activated element; (c) display the character(s) for that newly activated element in a second format that at least is an enlargement relative to the first format and contrasts with it; and (d) restore the second format to the first format after a predefined time. The key distinction from claim 1 is the express recitation of an automatic timed revert (e.g., the 0.5-second example in the specification) rather than user-driven acceptance. (Dependent claims 13–16 add a different font, soft keys, keypad, and telephone.)

Claim 17 — The apparatus. A device for displaying character(s) corresponding to an activated input element, comprising: a display screen; an input interface; a screen driver driving the screen; memory storing application-module instructions; and a processor coupled to all three that executes the instructions to (i) display a string of characters corresponding to an activated element in a first format; (ii) receive a newly activated element; (iii) display its character(s) in a second format that at least is an enlargement relative to, and contrasts with, the first format; and (iv) restore the second format to the first format after a predefined time. (Dependent claims 18–20 specify the device class — telephone, two-way pager, hand-held computing device, PDA — and keypad/soft-key input interfaces.)

Common thread across the independent claims

All three independents require the enlargement limitation and the contrast with previously entered text. They are differentiated mainly by claim type (method of display vs. method of entry-assist vs. apparatus) and by claim 12/17's explicit automatic timed restoration versus claim 1's allowance of user-driven acceptance.

Litigation / docket history I can confirm (historical, not 2026)

Per the Google Patents record, this patent was asserted in:

• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-808 (International Trade Commission)
• D. Del. Case No. 1:11-cv-00715 (Delaware District Court)

These correspond to the 2011 HTC v. Apple campaign, in which HTC asserted 6,473,006 (among others) against Apple's iPhone, having acquired it via the Google → HTC transfer. I found no indication of any 2026 CAFC appeal involving 6,473,006; consistent with the patent's own record, it expired 2015-12-11, which makes current appellate activity unlikely though not impossible (e.g., a collateral validity challenge). If a 2026 CAFC docket is material to your analysis, I would verify directly against the Federal Circuit's PACER/CM-ECF docket rather than rely on this summary.

Uncertainty flags

• Assignee discrepancy: the TIPO document showing "HTC Corporation" conflicts with the more current USPTO assignment record ("Google LLC"); I treat USPTO as authoritative.
• No 2026 CAFC record found: absence of a search hit is not proof of no activity; searches for "6473006" plus litigation/2026 returned no relevant results.
• Minor typographical errors exist in the patent's own text (e.g., "mannner," "specifially," and a reference to "lookup process 416" where the specification earlier defines 414). These are reproduced as-is in the source and do not affect claim scope.

I'll research known litigation involving US patent 6,473,006. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig into the specific cases referenced and HTC/Apple litigation.

Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 6,473,006

I searched the Unified Patents litigation portal, USITC releases/Federal Register notices, and secondary litigation summaries, using the exact identifier 6473006 (the '006 patent). I did not substitute any similar numbers. Based on what I found, the '006 patent was asserted in a single global patent dispute — the 2011–2012 HTC v. Apple campaign — which appeared in two fora: a Section 337 investigation at the ITC and a parallel district court action in Delaware. Both were resolved by the November 2012 global settlement. Key facts (per the patent record and the sources cited):

1. ITC Section 337 Investigation

• Investigation: In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices with Communication Capabilities, Components Thereof, and Related Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-808
• Plaintiff/Complainant: HTC Corporation (Taiwan)
• Defendant/Respondent: Apple Inc. (a/k/a Apple Computer, Inc.), Cupertino, CA
• Jurisdiction: U.S. International Trade Commission
• Filing date: Complaint filed August 16, 2011; amended complaint September 7, 2011; supplements Sept. 2 and 19, 2011; investigation instituted September 27, 2011
• Relevance of the '006 patent: The amended complaint asserted infringement of eight patents, expressly including U.S. Patent No. 6,473,006 ("the '006 patent"). The other asserted patents were U.S. 7,765,414; 7,417,944; 7,672,219; 6,708,214; 7,289,772; 6,868,283; and 7,020,849.
• Outcome / status: Closed — settled. The investigation terminated in January 2013 (Unified Patents lists a termination date of 2013-01-10; one secondary source states January 14, 2013). This followed the parties' joint announcement on November 11, 2012 of a global settlement and a 10-year cross-license.
• Notable procedural point: Apple moved to terminate the investigation as to the patents HTC had acquired from Google (the "Google Patents" — which included the '006 patent, one of the patents HTC obtained by assignment effective Aug. 29, 2011), arguing HTC lacked standing as a non-exclusive rights holder. The ITC Staff largely agreed with Apple; HTC opposed. The dispute was mooted by the overall settlement. (Order No. 15, public version.)
• ALJ: One source (the ITC institution notice/portal) identifies Administrative Law Judge Thomas B. Pender; a Finnegan case-experience page instead lists Judge Gildea. I could not conclusively reconcile these two, so treat the ALJ attribution as uncertain.
• Counsel of record (per secondary sources): HTC — Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP (Thomas L. Jarvis, et al.); Apple — Fish & Richardson P.C. (Michael J. McKeon).

2. Parallel District Court Action

• Case: HTC Corp. v. Apple Inc.
• Case number: 1:11-cv-00715
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
• Filing date: 2011 (filed contemporaneously with the ITC action; I was not able to retrieve the PACER docket directly to confirm the exact day/month, so I state the year only rather than guess a date)
• Outcome / status: Resolved as part of the November 2012 global HTC–Apple settlement (dismissed). I could not independently confirm a separate final judgment on the '006 patent.

3. Other/Related Noted Activity

• The patent's Google Patents page flags this family as having "first worldwide family litigation" (Darts-IP family ID 26988221), consistent with the HTC–Apple disputes above.
• No appellate (CAFC) decision specifically addressing the '006 patent surfaced in my search.

Bottom line

The only litigation I can confirm involving U.S. Patent No. 6,473,006 is the HTC Corp. v. Apple Inc. dispute, in two fora:

• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-808 (instituted Sept. 27, 2011; terminated/settled Jan. 2013), and
• D. Del. No. 1:11-cv-00715 (filed 2011; resolved via the global settlement).

I found no patent-assertion suits by non-practicing entities, and no other defendants. The patent is now expired (anticipated expiration Dec. 11, 2015; Google Patents status: "Expired – Lifetime").

Caveats / confidence: The ITC case identity, patent list, and settlement are well corroborated (USITC press release and Federal Register notice; Unified Patents portal). The Delaware case is corroborated as to case number, parties, and jurisdiction by the patent record and a secondary litigation summary, but I could not pull the primary PACER docket in this session, so the exact Delaware filing date and any docket-level disposition remain unverified. Where sources conflicted (e.g., the ALJ identity), I have flagged rather than resolved the conflict.

I'll verify the structured "no PTAB activity" default against public sources before drafting.

PTAB proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 6,473,006: 0. The structured USPTO Open Data Portal block reports no AIA trial proceedings on file, and my independent web checks returned no IPR, PGR, or CBM docketed against the '006 patent — so there are zero claims invalidated, zero claims sustained, zero settlements, and zero institution denials in a PTAB context. For a defendant today, that means no PTAB-driven claim cancellations and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel to inherit — but also no PTAB rulings to exploit. The real defensive picture is driven by two other facts: (1) every claim standoff on this patent (the 2011–2012 HTC v. Apple ITC/Delaware campaign) ended for lack of standing as to the '006 patent, never on the merits of validity, and (2) the patent expired on 2015-12-11 per the Google Patents record, with no live maintenance fee after the 12-year payment in 2014.

No proceedings to list

There is nothing to enumerate. One caveat on method: the ODP ingest is described as the canonical source, and it reports none. My web searches (Google Patents family/litigation tab, PTAB/Docket Alarm result pages, ITC and litigation coverage) surfaced no petition number for this patent. I cannot affirmatively rule out a petition that was filed and denied institution without a public decision, or a proceeding indexed only under a sibling family member, but nothing of the sort surfaced — so the working conclusion is no PTAB activity on file, as the block states.

What the record does show is litigation history, which is where an asserting party's expectations would have been settled:

• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-808, Certain Electronic Devices with Communication Capabilities — HTC Corp. v. Apple Inc. Complaint 2011-08-16; amended complaint 2011-09-07 added the '006 patent. The Commission's notice of investigation asserted claims 1, 3, and 7-11 of the '006 patent. Federal Register notice.
• ALJ Order No. 15 granted Apple's motion to terminate the investigation as to the '006 patent (and four others) for lack of standing — HTC, as assignee of Google-sourced patents, did not hold "all substantial rights." Order No. 15 (public version). The Commission declined review of that ID in July 2012.
• The parallel D. Del. case No. 1:11-cv-00715 (HTC v. Apple) is the district-court companion. Unified Patents docket.
• The whole dispute settled globally in late 2012; ALJ Pender issued Order No. 26 on 2012-12-14 terminating 337-TA-808 in its entirety based on the HTC–Apple settlement (terms confidential). Oblon summary of Order No. 26.

Because the termination was jurisdictional, no tribunal ever reached the validity of any claim of the '006 patent on the merits — not the ITC, not the district court, and not the PTAB.

Strategic summary

Claim status: 1–20 are all formally UNTESTED and all formally EXPIRED. No claim was canceled, narrowed, or confirmed by any PTAB final written decision, because no FWD exists. The only claim-level event in the public record is the ITC's institution of an investigation on claims 1, 3, and 7-11 — a pleading-stage assertion, not an adjudication. If a demand letter today cites claims 1–20, the strongest immediate response is not an IPR-style invalidity attack but the calendar: the patent's anticipated expiration was 2015-12-11, so any recovery is limited to pre-expiration infringement, further bounded by the 35 U.S.C. § 286 six-year damages lookback. An expired patent also removes injunctive relief from the table.

Estoppel landscape: essentially empty. § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only to a petitioner that reaches a final written decision. There is no such petitioner here. That cuts both ways: no one is barred, so every prior-art ground remains available to a future defendant — but it also means there is no PTAB record, no Board claim construction, and no institution decision to cite. A defendant would be litigating validity from scratch (or relying on the expiration and the ITC standing ruling, which is not a merits ruling and should not be characterized as one). Note that the ITC's "lack of standing" holding concerned HTC's title, not the patent's scope; a later owner with clean title would not be bound by it.

Pattern signals. There is no serial petitioner on this patent, no PTAB appeal history (nothing to appeal), and no defensive aggregator in the chain — Unified Patents appears only as a litigation-data source in the Google Patents record, not as a party. The ownership trail is a roll-up: Phone.com → Openwave → Purple Labs → Myriad France → Google (2010-10-22) → HTC (2011-09-01) → back to Google (2013-12-19) → Google LLC (2017-10-06). The '006 patent was ammunition in a 2011 cross-licensing war, was bounced out of the ITC on a title technicality, and then sat out the rest of its life — which is precisely why it never attracted an IPR. Well-asserted patents attract IPRs; this one stopped being asserted on the merits before the AIA trial regime was even a year old.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant: the absence of PTAB activity is not a hardening signal — it is a "never adjudicated, now expired" signal. The expiration date (2015-12-11) and the § 286 damages window are your first defenses. If the asserted claims are 1, 3, or 7-11, note that those exact claims were the ITC-petition claims and were never construed by any tribunal.
• Do not represent to a court that any claim was "invalidated." It was not. Conversely, do not let opposing counsel claim the patent "survived" anything — it has no FWD, no reexam certificate, and no merits validity finding of any kind.
• If you were served recently and want to confirm the block: verify directly at PTAB E2E and via the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions page for any pre-institution denial that may not be in the ODP ingest. Nothing I found suggests you will find a proceeding, but a pre-institution denial would not leave a public FWD and is the one gap in this analysis I could not fully close.
• If active proceedings are pending: none are, per the structured data and my searches — so there are no institution deadlines, oral hearing dates, or statutory one-year FWD due dates to track.

I'll attempt to verify the assignment record details (especially correspondents of record) against live sources before writing the analysis.

US Patent 6,473,006 B1 — Assignment Chain Reconstruction

Source discipline note (read first). The reel/frame numbers, conveyance types, execution dates, recording dates, and assignor/assignee names below are taken from the authoritative full text/bibliographic record for this patent (Google Patents legal events, fetched 2026-10-01), which mirrors the USPTO assignment record. The one field I could not retrieve is the correspondent of record (the attorney/firm that filed each recording). Google Patents' legal-events view does not expose correspondent data, and targeted searches for the reel/frame strings returned no correspondent names. I searched the USPTO Assignment Center indirectly and could not confirm names without fabricating them. I have therefore marked every correspondent entry "Not retrievable from my source — verify at Assignment Center" rather than guess. This materially limits signal #3 (repeat correspondent), which is marked unclear. Everything else below is grounded in recorded data.

Inventors

• The application (09/447,927) was filed 1999-11-23 as a CIP. Its parent chain runs back to US 08/570,384, filed 1995-12-11 and issuing as US 5,911,485 to Unwired Planet, Inc. Unwired Planet became Phone.com and then Openwave Systems.
• Both inventors are "home-grown" corporate inventors — the rights were assigned to the employer by the standard pre-issuance assignment (reel 010592/0357). There is no evidence in the record of either inventor departing within 12 months of filing, and no evidence of inventor-held or university-held rights. I cannot confirm departure timing from available data — treat the "departure before fire-sale" pattern as not evidenced, not as affirmatively absent.

Original assignee

Phone.com, Inc. held the rights at issuance-related assignment (executed 2000-02-15); by the issue date (2002-10-29) the record assignee was Openwave Systems Inc. (Google Patents lists Openwave as the "Original Assignee," consistent with the Phone.com→Openwave merger/name change).

• Primary line of business: mobile/wireless internet client software — WAP/mobile browser and messaging clients (the "mobile client software business" that included "browsers, SMS, EMS and MMS and email messaging clients, java clients, UI, widgets, graphics engines"). It was a genuine, revenue-generating operating company (Nasdaq: OPWV).
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes — the asserted-prior-art and prosecution record (per 1999-era mobile-browser activity) is consistent with the predictive/keypad-entry clients Openwave shipped on handsets; the later litigation record confirms the patents were "practiced in those mobile phone products." (Careful: the 2010 Openwave v. Myriad order discusses whether particular patents "cover" client products and expressly declined to require actual implementation in existing products — so the "ship" claim is strong for the portfolio as a whole but was itself contested in that litigation.)
• Current status: Openwave Systems was acquired (later folded into what became Openwave Mobility / a private-equity-owned IP-monetization entity). It did not go through a Chapter 7/11 patent fire-sale in this chain — it sold the client business and patents in a negotiated asset deal (June 2008).

Assignment timeline

Every entry below is a recorded assignment. Reel/frame values are as recorded in the legal-events record.

1. 2000-02-15 (executed) / recorded 2000-03-06 — Reel 010592/0357

   • Conveyance: Assignment (assignment of assignors' interest)
   • Assignor: Francis H. Yu; Alain S. Rossmann (inventors)
   • Assignee: Phone.com, Inc. (California)
   • Correspondent: Not retrievable from my source — verify at Assignment Center.
   • Context: Standard inventor→employer assignment at formation of the corporate portfolio.

2. 2000-11-17 (executed) / recorded 2002-09-16 — Reel 013290/0636

   • Conveyance: Merger and Change of Name
   • Assignor: Phone.com, Inc.
   • Assignee: Openwave Systems Inc. (California)
   • Correspondent: Not retrievable from my source — verify at Assignment Center.
   • Context: Internal reorg — the Phone.com/Software.com combination that formed Openwave; note the ~22-month recording lag (executed Nov 2000, recorded Sep 2002), consistent with the issuance date and a cleanup recording.

3. 2008-06-27 (executed) / recorded 2008-06-30 — Reel 021172/0131

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: Openwave Systems Inc.
   • Assignee: Purple Labs S.A. (France)
   • Correspondent: Not retrievable from my source — verify at Assignment Center.
   • Context: Portfolio/asset sale — the "Openwave client business" divestiture (~$30M cash + warrants, closing ~June 27, 2008). This is the transfer that put 6,473,006 into the Myriad lineage.

4. 2009-07-28 (executed) / recorded 2010-10-22 — Reel 025202/0494

   • Conveyance: Merger
   • Assignor: Purple Labs SA
   • Assignee: Myriad France, SAS (France)
   • Correspondent: Not retrievable from my source — verify at Assignment Center.
   • Context: Internal reorg — Purple Labs was acquired by Esmertec AG (Feb 2009 business-combination agreement); Esmertec renamed itself Myriad Group AG and Purple Labs SA became Myriad France SAS. (The record's execution date is slightly later than the Feb 2009 announcement; the parties' own litigation acknowledged the paperwork trail was imperfect.)

5. 2010-07-16 (executed) / recorded 2010-10-22 — Reel 025182/0754

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: Myriad France SAS
   • Assignee: Google Inc. (California)
   • Correspondent: Not retrievable from my source — verify at Assignment Center.
   • Context: Portfolio sale — Myriad sold all U.S. patents/applications from the 2008 Openwave deal to Google (per the 2010 Openwave v. Myriad briefing). Same recording date as entry 4, suggesting the two were filed together as a chain-of-title cleanup.

6. 2011-08-29 (executed) / recorded 2011-09-01 — Reel 026846/0473

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: Google Inc.
   • Assignee: HTC Corporation (Taiwan)
   • Correspondent: Not retrievable from my source — verify at Assignment Center.
   • Context: Transfer-to-asserter / proxy assertion funding — Google transferred nine patents, including 6,473,006, to HTC so HTC could assert them against Apple (Google's Android OEM ally). Widely reported (FOSS Patents, Sept 8, 2011).

7. 2012-11-08 (executed) / recorded 2013-12-19 — Reel 031820/0699

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: HTC Corporation
   • Assignee: Google Inc. (California)
   • Correspondent: Not retrievable from my source — verify at Assignment Center.
   • Context: Reversion after the assertion campaign — the patent returned to Google when the HTC/Apple dispute wound down. Note the ~13-month recording lag (executed Nov 2012, recorded Dec 2013).

8. 2017-09-29 (effective) / recorded 2017-10-06 — Reel 044144/0001

   • Conveyance: Change of Name
   • Assignor: Google Inc.
   • Assignee: Google LLC (California)
   • Correspondent: Not retrievable from my source — verify at Assignment Center.
   • Context: Change of name only — Google's 2015/2017 reorganization into Google LLC; no change in beneficial ownership.

9. 2017-09-29 (effective) / recorded 2024-03-04 — Reel 068092/0502

   • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment (change of name)
   • Assignor: Google Inc.
   • Assignee: Google LLC (California)
   • Correspondent: Not retrievable from my source — verify at Assignment Center.
   • Context: Housekeeping correction to the reel 044144/0001 change-of-name record — it removes two incorrectly recorded application numbers (14/149,802 and 15/419,313) that were erroneously swept into the change-of-name frame. Those two numbers are unrelated to 6,473,006; this entry is administrative only.

Note on the patent's terminal status: Anticipated expiration 2015-12-11 (20 years from the 1995-12-11 priority date). The patent is Expired – Lifetime. Any post-2015 "ownership" is therefore of a spent right; there is no assertion runway.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6473006
    2000 : Inventors assign to Phone.com
         : Phone.com becomes Openwave
    2008 : Openwave sells client unit to Purple Labs
    2009 : Purple Labs merges into Esmertec
         : Renamed Myriad France SAS
    2010 : Myriad France sells portfolio to Google
    2011 : Google gives patent to HTC
         : HTC sues Apple at ITC and D Del
    2012 : HTC returns patent to Google
    2015 : Patent expires
    2017 : Google Inc renamed Google LLC
    2024 : Corrective change of name recorded

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. Every recorded assignee is an operating company with products and employees: Phone.com/Openwave (mobile client software), Purple Labs SA (Linux handset software), Myriad France SAS (mobile software subsidiary of Swiss-listed Myriad Group AG), Google, HTC. There is no "IP / Holdings / Ventures / Licensing" LLC, no registered-agent-only address, and no single-purpose Delaware/Texas shell anywhere in reels 010592/0357 through 068092/0502. The transfers are portfolio-level, not entity-layering.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT (with one caveat). None of the named assignees matches the supplied NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation, Spangenberg entities). Caveat: Openwave itself later announced "programs to monetize certain assets in its intellectual property portfolio" (2011-era press), which is a monetization pivot — but it is the seller here, not a listed NPE, and the patent left Openwave in 2008 before that pivot. No RPX/Unified high-frequency-plaintiff match surfaced.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (data gap). I could not retrieve the correspondent of record for any of the nine recordings. I therefore cannot determine whether one attorney/firm shepherded the Openwave→Purple→Myriad→Google sprint (the classic repeat-player tell). This is the single highest-value field still to verify; run the nine reel/frame entries through the Assignment Center's "Correspondent" column. If reels 021172/0131, 025202/0494, 025182/0754, 026846/0473 and 031820/0699 share one correspondent, that would upgrade the "orchestrated chain" reading for the 2008–2013 window. I will not infer it from names.

4. Cascading transfers — PRESENT (but explained by M&A, not NPE layering). Five recorded transfers between 2008-06-27 and 2012-11-08, including three consecutive assignments inside ~25 months (Openwave→Purple Labs Jun 2008; Purple Labs→Myriad Jul 2009; Myriad→Google Jul 2010), two of which share the same recording date, 2010-10-22 (reels 025202/0494 and 025182/0754) — a strong tell that the intermediate links were papered as a chain-of-title cleanup. However, each transfer maps to a documented corporate event (asset sale, merger, portfolio sale), not to a chain of serially-created shells. Signal present; NPE inference not supported.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT (strong). Assignment 6 executed 2011-08-29 and recorded 2011-09-01; HTC's assertion of 6,473,006 in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-808 and D. Del. No. 1:11-cv-00715 followed within days (early September 2011). That is ~9 days from execution to suit — far inside the 6-month window. The transfer was purpose-built to create standing for assertion against Apple.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 sale. Openwave's June 2008 transfer was a negotiated asset sale of its client business (~$30M cash plus warrants); Myriad/Esmertec were Swiss-listed operating companies. The closest analogue is a divestiture, not a distressed sale.

7. Privateering — PRESENT (moderate-to-strong). Google transferred 6,473,006 (plus eight others) to HTC, an operating-company ally, so HTC could assert against a common competitor, Apple — then took the patent back in the 2012 reversion (reel 031820/0699). This is the "patents-as-ammunition" pattern; it is privateering in form but conducted between two operating companies, not through an NPE shell. There is no evidence Google retained a revenue share or enforcement right.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at Google LLC (reels 044144/0001 and 068092/0502), an operating company. The patent has not been neutralized by a defensive aggregator — it is simply expired.

(Contextual value note, not a signal: the patent is cited by 63 later documents including Apple's "Highlighting icons for search results" family, Cisco, Microsoft, Samsung and BlackBerry/Neary — which explains why Google paid for the Myriad package and weaponized this particular reference.)

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification: every recorded assignee in reels 010592/0357 → 013290/0636 → 021172/0131 → 025202/0494 → 025182/0754 → 026846/0473 → 031820/0699 → 044144/0001 → 068092/0502 is a shipping, revenue-generating operating company, and the decisive assertion event — HTC's ITC 337-TA-808 and D. Del. 1:11-cv-00715 suits against Apple, filed days after the 2011-08-29 / 2011-09-01 transfer at reel 026846/0473 — was made by an operating company against a genuine competitor, funded by an allied operating company (Google) that later reacquired the patent at reel 031820/0699. The two strongest signals (pre-litigation transfer, privateering) are real but point to operating-company patent warfare over Android, not to NPE monetization; there is no shell LLC, no listed NPE, and no bankruptcy in the chain.

Caveat on completeness: I could not retrieve the correspondent of record for any link; if those correspondents recur across reels 021172/0131–031820/0699, that would only reinforce the "orchestrated chain" reading, not convert this into an NPE. Also note the patent expired 2015-12-11, so it is non-assertable today.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (legacy mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) — search patent number 6473006; cross-check Google Patents legal events at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6473006](/patent/US6473006)/en; litigation links from the same record: ITC 337-TA-808 (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/International%20Trade%20Commission/case/337-TA-808) and D. Del. 1:11-cv-00715 (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A11-cv-00715).

Cross-reference / contradiction check against the previously generated sections: No contradictions to flag. The prior summary's assignee chain (Phone.com → Openwave → Purple Labs → Myriad France → Google → HTC → Google → Google LLC) matches the reel/frame timeline above, and its note that a Taiwan TIPO document still lists HTC is consistent with the 2011-09-01 → 2013-12-19 interval during which HTC was the record owner. One refinement: the prior summary described the earliest date as the priority date only; the first recorded assignment executes 2000-02-15 (reel 010592/0357), which is the anchor for the "original assignee" analysis.

I'll verify the cited references against authoritative sources before mapping them to the claims. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me pull details on the remaining examiner-cited references and verify the USPTO record.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 6,473,006 B1

Scope / sourcing note: I was asked to search the USPTO database for the specific number 6473006. The authoritative full text and front‑page record for US 6,473,006 B1 (filed 1999‑11‑23; issued 2002‑10‑29; priority 1995‑12‑11) was supplied in the analysis and is the ground truth here (its Google Patents mirror of the USPTO front page is at https://patents.google.com/patent/US6473006/en; USPTO materials are linked from the record's "USPTO PatentCenter / Assignment" links). I hit a step limit before I could pull an independent PatentCenter page for 6473006 specifically, so the claim/limitation mappings below are grounded in (a) that authoritative 6473006 record and (b) the fetched text of the individual cited references. Where I relied only on a title/date from the 6473006 front page and did not fetch the reference itself, I say so explicitly.

Because 6473006 has a 1995 priority date and was filed in 1999, pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)/(b)/(e) governs. A reference anticipates a claim only if it discloses every limitation. As explained at the end, no single cited reference discloses the full combination of the independent claims; most are § 103‑type references.

A. The definitive citation list appearing on US 6,473,006's face

The record lists 14 U.S. patent citations (13 in the "Citations" block plus a second entry for 4,427,848). Examiner‑cited references are marked (Ex.).

B. Reference‑by‑reference analysis and § 102 mapping

Group 1 — References that disclose the display‑contrast / enlargement limitation (the core of the independent claims)

US 5,963,671 A (Ex.) — "Enhancement of soft keyboard operations using trigram prediction"

• Citation: Int'l Business Mgmt. Corp.; filed as CIP 1995‑06‑22, priority 1991‑11‑27; issued 1999‑10‑05. Inventors Comerford, Karidis, Strohm. (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5963671A](/patent/US5963671A); https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a5/88/b2/b30510abf8c79b/US5963671.pdf)
• Description: Determines the most‑likely‑next characters from trigram tables and graphically enhances those characters on a soft keyboard: "six of the letters are emphasized by means of size, line weight, and the character of their border"; "an attractant, such as color, intensity, or size, is used to make it easier … to find the location of the subset of characters"; the cursor is placed near the most likely letter "to add additional emphasis."
• Potentially anticipates: Claim 1 — the "contrasting format … at least comprising an enlargement" (size emphasis) plus emphasis of characters; claim 2 (intensity/color ≈ contrast enhancement); claim 3 (differing "line weight … and border" ≈ a different font); claim 4 (prediction/lookup process using previously entered characters as input — trigram prediction).
• Strength/notes: This is the strongest § 102 reference against the enlargement/contrast element and against claim 4; its 1991 priority clearly predates 6473006's 1995‑12‑11 priority. The gap: 5,963,671 emphasizes predicted candidate keys, not the character corresponding to the just‑activated key, and has no timed restore. Anticipation of the full independent claims is therefore not clean; it is best used as a § 103 primary reference.

US 5,625,375 A (Ex.) — "Method and apparatus for a multiple font display"

• Citation: Lucent Technologies Inc.; filed (continuation) 1993‑12‑07; issued 1997‑04‑29. (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5625375A](/patent/US5625375A); https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[5625375](/patent/5625375).html)
• Description: On small monochrome dot‑matrix LCDs, provides custom fonts of different size and background attributes to highlight information: a reduced 4×6 matrix vs. the standard 5×7 ("the character of a custom font should differ in size from the standard font by at least twenty percent"), plus reverse‑video, underline, and boxing fonts; used to set off a selected option/softkey label from other displayed text.
• Potentially anticipates: Claim 1 (characters shown in a contrasting format, differing in size); claim 2 (express reverse [video] font); claim 3 (expressly a different font); and the display‑screen/screen‑driver architecture of claim 17 (drives a small LCD to render stored fonts). The "boxing" teaching is also relevant to the "highlighting window" language.
• Strength/notes: Strong on the format/contrast limitations. Weak/absent on the "character or characters corresponding to the activated element" determination (its emphasis is on highlighting a menu option), and it has no timed restore. So it does not, alone, anticipate the independents; it is a § 103 reference pairing with a predictive‑entry reference.

US 6,157,323 A (Ex.) — "Button‑key/cylindrical‑key alphabetizer"

• Citation: Tso, Kevin H. K.; filed 1998‑02‑25; issued 2000‑12‑05. (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6157323A](/patent/US6157323A); https://uspto.report/patent/grant/[6157323](/patent/6157323))
• Description: A multi‑contact key; "a key is depressed and thus a choice of characters is displayed on a display … the key is manipulated to highlight a desired character on the display … the key is released to input the desired character." Claims include "inputting the character highlighted upon detecting … breaking contact," and displaying successive characters for a multi‑character key.
• Potentially anticipates: Claim 1 (displaying, in a highlighted manner, the character corresponding to the key); claims 5–6 (accepting/detecting a subsequent action and restoring/committing the character); claim 11 (presenting each character of a key individually and successively); claims 9–10 (a key that represents a group of characters).
• Strength/notes: Directly relevant to the "character corresponding to an activated element + highlighting + input‑on‑action" limitations. But its filing date (1998‑02‑25) is after 6473006's 1995‑12‑11 priority, so it can only reach 6473006 as pre‑AIA § 102(e) art, and only for subject matter not entitled to the 1995 priority date. It does not appear to teach enlargement, so it is not a clean § 102 reference against independent claim 1's mandatory enlargement.

Group 2 — References that disclose the determination/lookup of character(s) limitation (claim 4 and claim 11)

US 5,797,098 A (Ex.) — "User interface for cellular telephone"

• Citation: Pacific Communication Sciences, Inc. (inventors Schroeder et al.); filed 1995‑07‑19; issued 1998‑08‑18. (https://patents.google.com/patent/US5797098; divisional US 6,032,053 at https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e0/97/7f/2451ae13e7b4fb/US6032053.pdf)
• Description: A cellular‑phone UI with (1) a predictive keyboard input method that "initially displays … the most commonly used characters … then a next set of characters … most likely to occur after the character previously input," and (2) a word‑completion method that displays candidate words matching initial characters and assigns them to soft keys. Its Figs. 2/5 show displaying the input character and then the next most likely subset.
• Potentially anticipates: Claim 4 (lookup/prediction using previously entered data); claim 11 (successive presentation of a key's characters); claim 14 / claim 20 (soft‑key interface); claims 7–8 / 15–16 (keypad of a cellular telephone). Notably its filing (1995‑07‑19) precedes 6473006's priority date, making it available § 102(a)/(b)-type art.
• Strength/notes: Strong on the prediction/soft‑key elements; discloses displaying entered/predicted characters but does not enlarge or otherwise contrast the newly entered character in a highlighting window, and has no timed auto‑restore. Not a full anticipation of the independents.

US 5,911,485 A — "Predictive data entry method for a keypad"

• Citation: Unwired Planet, Inc.; filed 1995‑12‑11; issued 1999‑06‑15. (cited in the 6473006 record; also the incorporated‑by‑reference patent named in 6473006's own specification.)
• Description: The character‑frequency‑table predictive data‑entry method for a keypad — the very lookup process 6473006's spec says may be used.
• Potentially anticipates: Nominal relevance to claim 4 (lookup taking previously entered data as input).
• ⚠ Status caveat: US 5,911,485 is not § 102 prior art against US 6,473,006. It is the priority document / parent family member (6,473,006 is a CIP of 09/332,436, now US 6,150,962, which is a continuation of 08/570,384 = 5,911,485), and it shares the 1995‑12‑11 priority date. It is properly treated as the inventive source, not as anticipating art. (See the earlier summary in this analysis, which already flagged the 09/332,436 → 6,150,962 → 5,911,485 chain.)

US 4,866,759 A — "Packet network telecommunication system having access nodes with word guessing capability"

• Citation: Riskin, B. N.; filed 1987‑11‑30; issued 1989‑09‑12.
• Description: "Word guessing capability" at network access nodes — the dictionary‑lookup/word‑guessing origin of the Riskin/Fon‑Ex family (expressly incorporated by reference in US 5,200,988). (https://patents.google.com/patent/US5200988; https://patents.justia.com/assignee/fon-ex-inc)
• Potentially anticipates: Claim 4 (lookup process returning characters based on prior input); generally claims 7–9 (telephone/network).
• Strength/notes: Relevant to the lookup element only; no highlighting/enlargement.

US 5,031,206 A — "Method and apparatus for identifying words entered on DTMF pushbuttons"

• Citation: Fon‑Ex, Inc.; filed 1987‑11‑30 (CIP of 4,866,759); issued 1991‑07‑09.
• Description: Identifies words typed on DTMF pushbuttons by frequency (trigrams/digrams), searching forward/reverse dictionaries to "guess" word fragments — again the lookup/word‑identification teaching.
• Potentially anticipates: Claim 4 (lookup/prediction); claim 11 (identifying/displaying successive candidate letters). No display‑highlighting teaching.

US 5,128,672 A — "Dynamic predictive keyboard"

• Citation: Apple Computer, Inc.; filed 1990‑10‑30; issued 1992‑07‑07.
• Description: A predictive keyboard that dynamically displays the characters most likely to be entered next (as reflected by the title and the 6473006 record). (I did not fetch the full document within the step budget; description is at title/abstract confidence.)
• Potentially anticipates: Claim 4 (lookup/prediction using prior input). No enlargement/highlighting element.

US 5,200,988 A — "Method and means for telecommunications by deaf persons utilizing a small hand held communications device"

• Citation: Fon‑Ex, Inc. (Riskin, B. N.); filed 1991‑03‑11; issued 1993‑04‑06. (https://patents.google.com/patent/US5200988; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-[5200988](/patent/5200988)-A)
• Description: A small hand‑held device with a 20‑character LCD placed in line with a telephone; the user spells a word on the DTMF keypad, the code is sent to a remote dictionary, which returns the most frequently used matching word, displayed on the small screen; the user presses a positive‑match or negative‑match key to accept or to scroll to the next most frequent candidate word until a match is found.
• Potentially anticipates: Claim 4 (remote lookup with previously entered data as input); claims 5–6 (accepting the displayed character(s) upon a user action); claim 11 (successive presentation of candidate characters/words); claims 7–9 (small hand‑held/telephone device with limited display).
• Strength/notes: Good on lookup + accept/scroll; explicitly relies on a small display and visual verification but does not enlarge or contrast the newly displayed word, and there is no timed restore.

Group 3 — Keypad/telephone field references (mostly claims 7–10, 15–16, 19)

US 5,561,710 A — "Interactive voice communication terminal with alpha and numeric keypad." Helms, R. E.; filed 1992‑11‑17; issued 1996‑10‑01. A voice terminal with an alpha‑numeric keypad. Potentially anticipates: the keypad/telephone limitations of claims 7–9, 15–16, 19 (and generically claim 10's "key represents a group of characters"). No highlighting/zoom. (Title/date confidence.)

US 4,737,980 A (Ex.) — "Computer data entry method and apparatus." Amtelco; filed 1985‑07‑19; issued 1988‑04‑12. Examiner‑cited data‑entry method/apparatus. Potentially anticipates: only the generic "receiving an activated element / determining a character" steps of claim 1 and the keypad environment of claims 7–10; it does not disclose the contrast/enlargement. (Title/date confidence; examiner considered it against the generic entry steps.)

US 4,677,659 A — "Telephonic data access and transmission system." Dargan, John; filed 1985‑09‑03; issued 1987‑06‑30. Potentially anticipates: claims 7–9 (telephone data environment) at most.

US 4,427,848 A — "Telephonic alphanumeric data transmission system." Tsakanikas, P. J.; filed/priority 1981‑12‑29; published 1984‑01‑24. Potentially anticipates: claims 7–10 (telephone keypad mapping to alphanumeric characters).

US 4,427,848 B1 — same title, 1981‑12‑29 / 1994‑03‑29, "Telephone Lottery Company Inc." The later 1994 date and "B1" designation indicate a subsequent certificate/reexamination‑type record of the same 4,427,848 disclosure (same subject matter as item 1). Potentially anticipates: same as above (claims 7–10). (I flag the "B1"/1994 characterization as a record‑reading, not a verified reexamination citation.)

C. Cross‑cutting § 102 assessment (honest bottom line)

1. Enlargement is mandatory in every independent claim (claim 1: "contrasting format at least comprising an enlargement"; claim 12: "at least an enlargement … compared to the first format"; claim 17: "at least an enlargement compared to the first format"). Only US 5,963,671 (size/line‑weight emphasis) and US 5,625,375 (differing‑size fonts) squarely disclose enlargement/contrast on a small display. Neither ties the enlargement to the character of the just‑activated key, and neither discloses the timed restore of claims 12/17.

2. The lookup limitation (claim 4) is well supported by US 5,797,098, US 4,866,759, US 5,031,206, US 5,200,988, and US 5,128,672. But claim 4 is a dependent claim; its subject matter alone does not anticipate the independents.

3. The "activated‑element → highlighted character → input" limitation is best shown by US 6,157,323 (highlight the character, release to input) — but that reference is later‑filed (1998), reaching 6473006 only as § 102(e) art and lacking enlargement.

4. No cited reference, alone, discloses every limitation of claim 1, 12, or 17. Accordingly, on this record the best characterizations are: US 5,963,671 and US 5,625,375 as primary § 103 references for the enlargement/contrast element; US 5,797,098 and the Riskin/Fon‑Ex family as § 103 references for the predictive lookup; US 6,157,323 and US 5,200,988 for the highlight‑and‑accept interaction. An obviousness combination of, e.g., US 5,797,098 (predictive determination) + US 5,625,375 or US 5,963,671 (size/contrast highlighting) is the realistic challenge posture — not clean § 102 anticipation.

5. Priority caution (flagging a potential contradiction with a naive reading): US 5,911,485 is listed on 6473006's face but is the parent/priority document — it is not prior art to 6473006. Any analysis that treats it as anticipating art would be in error. This is consistent with the earlier summary in this analysis (which documented the 6,473,006 ← 09/332,436 (US 6,150,962) ← 08/570,384 (US 5,911,485) chain).

D. Confidence flags

• Verified full text fetched for: US 5,963,671, US 5,625,375, US 5,797,098, US 5,200,988, US 6,157,323.
• Title/date/assignee only (not fetched): US 4,427,848 A, US 4,427,848 B1, US 4,677,659, US 4,737,980, US 4,866,759, US 5,031,206, US 5,128,672, US 5,561,710, US 5,911,485 — descriptions at abstract confidence.
• US 4,427,848 B1 characterization ("certificate/reexamination‑type record") is an inference from the "B1" suffix and 1994 date; verify directly if dispositive.
• I did not verify any 2026 litigation or rule the citations' cited‑by descendants relevant here; this task was limited to 6473006's own cited references.
• I could not complete an independent PatentCenter lookup for 6473006 before the step limit; the citation list above is taken verbatim from the authoritative 6473006 record supplied.

I'll ground the analysis by checking what the key cited references actually disclose before mapping them to the claims.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 6,473,006 B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analyst note on scope. This builds on the two previously generated sections (Patent summary; Litigation summary) and does not repeat them. Where I refine or qualify an earlier statement, I flag it explicitly in §2 below. All prior-art references are taken from the "Citations / Patent Citations" section of the authoritative Google Patents record for US 6,473,006 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6473006/en, fetched 2026-10-01). Patent numbers and identifiers are reproduced exactly as listed, including the record's own inconsistencies. Where I rely on the substance of a reference rather than merely its title, I retrieved the reference text in this session and cite it; where I map a reference only from its record-listed title/assignee/date, I say so.

1. Legal framework and the person of ordinary skill

• Governing law: The application was filed 1999-11-23 and the patent issued 2002-10-29, so pre-AIA § 103(a) applies. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), still governs: a claimed combination is obvious where the improvement is "the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions," and a motivation to combine may come from the nature of the problem, the ordinary creativity of a skilled artisan, or the interrelated teachings of the references.
• PHOSITA (proposed): An engineer or UI designer with 2–3 years of experience designing data entry and display software for hand-held, limited-keypad devices (cellular telephones, two-way pagers, PDAs), familiar with (a) predictive/disambiguating text entry on 12-key keypads and (b) monochrome dot-matrix LCD rendering, including font and character-cell programming.
• Claim type: All three independent claims (1, 12, 17) require enlargement of the newly determined character(s) relative to previously entered text, plus a contrast with that previously entered text. Enlargement is mandatory, not optional (claims 2, 3, 13, and the specification treat reverse video and multiple fonts as additional alternatives). Claims 12 and 17 additionally require automatic restoration to the normal format after a predefined time.

Critical timing issue flagged up front: The '006 is a continuation-in-part of US 09/332,436 (now US 6,150,962), which is itself a continuation of US 08/570,384 (now US 5,911,485). The parent disclosures (as confirmed by the search results at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5911485A](/patent/US5911485A) and the US 6,150,962 text retrieved from a court filing) are directed to predictive data entry — a table-index/key-frequency method for guessing a character from a keypress. The highlighting-window/enlargement subject matter appears to be new matter added in the 1999 CIP. If so, the effective filing date of claims 1–20 is 1999-11-23, not the 1995-12-11 priority date shown on the cover. As shown in §3, every combination below is prior art under either date, so the § 103 conclusion is priority-date robust. I cannot definitively resolve the priority question from the record alone, and I flag it as the single largest contextual uncertainty.

2. Threshold issue: the patent's own parent is not § 103 prior art

This refines (does not contradict) the prior Patent summary. The most natural primary reference for the predictive-entry element is US 5,911,485 (Rossmann, Unwired Planet) — the patent's own parent, expressly incorporated by reference and described in the specification as the "previously mentioned" lookup process. It cannot be used to render the '006 obvious:

• US 5,911,485 names Alain S. Rossmann as sole inventor, and Rossmann is a named co-inventor of the '006. A reference is 102(e) prior art only if it is "by another"; a reference sharing an inventive entity is not. It is therefore not available as 102(e) art.
• Its issue date (1999-06-15) is less than one year before the '006's 1999-11-23 filing and after the 1995-12-11 priority date, so it is not 102(b) or 102(a) art either.
• Even if it were 102(e) art, the common-ownership disqualification of pre-AIA § 103(c)(1) would exclude it (both are Phone.com / Unwired Planet / Openwave family applications subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person).
• The same analysis disqualifies US 6,150,962 (Rossmann; Phone.com).

Consequence for the analysis: the predictive-entry element must be supplied by references "by another." Fortunately, the record contains three strong ones: US 4,737,980 (Amtelco), US 5,797,098 (Pacific Communication Sciences / Schroeder et al.), and US 5,963,671 (IBM / Comerford et al.). This is the single most important correction to a naive obviousness analysis of this patent.

3. The operative prior-art references (confirmed content)

4. Claim 1 — obvious over Amtelco '980 in view of Lucent '375 (and alternatively over Schroeder '098 in view of '375)

Alternative primary reference — Schroeder '098 supplies elements (a) and (b) even more directly for a mobile device: a cellular telephone that receives a keypress, predictively determines the character(s) most likely intended based on previously entered characters, and displays them for acceptance — including display of a set of next characters ("a next set of characters is displayed that are most likely to occur after the character previously input"). Substituting '098 for '980 also captures the plural-character case recited in claim 1's "character or characters" and in FIGS. 3A–3C of the '006.

Claim 1 dependent claims:

• Claim 2 (reverse video) → '375 discloses a reverse-video font expressly.
• Claim 3 (different font) → '375 discloses multiple custom font sets as the core of its invention.
• Claim 4 (lookup process with previously entered data as input) → '098's predictive keyboard input and word-completion methods (and '980's "best guess" algorithm). Not '485/'962, for the reasons in §2.
• Claim 7 (keypad of a mobile device), 8 (telephone) → '098 (cellular telephone keypad) and '980 (standard 12-key telephone keyboard).
• Claim 9 (key activated by a user), 10 (key represents a group of characters) → '980 expressly: "each key carries four alphanumeric characters."
• Claim 11 (presenting each character individually and successively) → '980: "pressing the alphanumeric character key a second time causes the guesses to shift to the left such that … the alphanumeric character displayed in display 12 will be shifted to display 11." That is exactly individual, successive presentation of the characters of one key.

Motivation to combine (claim 1): Both references address the same problem in the same device class — giving a user reliable visual confirmation of a just-determined character/keypress on a small telephone-type display. '980 supplies the input→guess→display→cycle loop but is silent on how the guess is visually distinguished from the already-entered text; '375 supplies precisely that missing technique and states the need for it. A PHOSITA seeking to improve '980's or '098's readability on a 2–4-line LCD had a finite, identified set of known emphasis techniques (size, reverse video, font, boxing, blinking), and blinking was the one '375 expressly criticizes — pushing the artisan toward size/font/boxing emphasis. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 ("a finite number of identified, predictable solutions").

5. Claim 12 (two-format method with timed restoration)

Elements (a)–(c) track claim 1 and are supplied as above, with one important difference: claim 12 expressly recites displaying "a string of characters … in a first format" and, on a new activation, displaying "a character or characters … in a second format." That is precisely the word-completion scenario of FIGS. 3A–3C of the '006 — and its exact prior-art analogue is disclosed by Schroeder '098: candidate words ("matching initial characters input by a user") are displayed, associated with soft keys, and selected by the user. Visible characters that "may be used to complete a commonly used word" are thus old.

Element (d) — "restoring said second format to said first format after a predefined time." This is the weakest link in the § 103 case, and I state that candidly. No reference in the record expressly discloses a timer-driven auto-revert of an emphasis format. The available bases are:

1. Admission in the '006's own background. The specification states: "The '#' key entry or a pause may be used as the character-break flag in some applications." A pause-based (time-driven) transition from "being entered" to "entered" was therefore known and admitted in the field.
2. Claim 6's alternative is expressly taught. Dependent claim 6 recites acceptance upon "detecting … an activation of an element of the user interface" — which Amtelco '980 teaches outright (the control key accepts the guess and moves it into display 16). Choosing between user-confirmed acceptance and timeout acceptance is a routine design choice with predictable results, both being standard ways to terminate a transient UI state.
3. Timed state transitions of display emphasis were routine. '375's discussion of blinking characters (on/off over time) and of annunciators turned "on"/"off" shows that temporal modulation of a display characteristic on these exact LCDs was conventional.
4. '098/'671 both display a transient candidate set that is superseded on the next input; the remaining step — reverting the format automatically — is the "predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions" (KSR).

I would expect a § 103 challenge on claim 12/17 to succeed on elements (a)–(c) and to be contested on element (d), with the patentee arguing that a timed revert is not taught and the challenger relying on design choice + the '006's own pause admission. Confidence on claim 12 element (d): moderate, not high.

6. Claim 17 (apparatus)

7. Summary of the strongest combinations and the motivation to combine

Cross-cutting motivation (KSR "design incentive"): Every reference in the record arises from the same 1985–1999 design pressure — full alphanumeric entry and reliable visual confirmation on a 12-key, 2–4-line LCD device. The '006's own stated problem (visual exhaustion and loss of concentration from staring at a small screen) is the same problem '375 states ("a need for a means to more clearly highlight and display information presented on limited pixel displays") and the same problem '671 states ("entry of messages turns out to be tedious, tiresome and time consuming"). When multiple artisans in the field articulate the identical problem in the identical device class, the combination of their solutions is the expected, not the exceptional, result.

8. Anticipated rebuttals and how the analysis holds up

1. "Lucent '375 teaches smaller fonts, not enlargement — it teaches away."
   Response: '375's operative teaching is that a custom font "should differ in size from the standard font by at least twenty percent to be clearly distinguishable," and it notes annunciators are "typically of a different size" for emphasis. The direction of the size change is a function of '375's fixed 5×7 cell and its desire to free pixels for reverse video/boxing; it is not a teaching that emphasis by magnitude is inoperative. Moreover, '671 independently teaches size as an emphasis variable for predicted characters. Under KSR, choosing a larger rather than smaller character to improve legibility on a small display is at most a predictable variation. This is the patentee's best non-obviousness argument, and it is not frivolous — it should be expected to drive claim construction of "enlargement."
2. "The references are non-analogous (monochrome LCD fonts vs. predictive text entry)."
   Response: Both are display/UI arts applied to the same device class (telephone-type LCD appliances). '375's own field statement lists "telephones" among the products using such displays. Analogous art.
3. "'985/'485 must be considered because the specification incorporates it."
   Response: Incorporation by reference does not make a same-inventive-entity, commonly-owned family member § 103 prior art (pre-AIA 102(e) "by another"; § 103(c)(1)). The record's other references supply the same teachings from "another," so nothing turns on this — which is precisely why combinations A–C use '980/'098/'671 instead.
4. "The 'highlighting window' is a structural overlay at the cursor position and '980's separate one-character displays don't read on it."
   Response: This is a genuine claim-construction question and a plausible non-infringement/validity battleground. However, Lucent '375's box drawn around a word within the running display supplies the "window" concept directly in the same display medium, so combination B/C does not depend on '980's dedicated displays alone.
5. Secondary considerations. The record discloses no evidence of unexpected results, commercial success with nexus, copying, or industry praise, and I found none. The "long-felt need" is documented — but it is documented against the patentee, because '375 and '671 articulate the identical need years earlier. (I searched only the record and the references retrieved here; I make no representation that no secondary-considerations evidence exists in litigation files.)

9. Conclusion and confidence

• Claim 1 is likely obvious over US 4,737,980 + US 5,625,375, and alternatively over US 5,797,098 + US 5,625,375, with US 5,963,671 as a further alternative or additional secondary reference. Elements (a) and (b) are squarely disclosed; element (c)'s "contrasting format" is squarely disclosed by '375; the "at least comprising an enlargement" limitation is the only genuinely debatable sub-element, and it is met by '375's size-differentiation teaching combined with '671's explicit size-emphasis claim. Confidence: moderately high.
• Dependent claims 2–4, 6–11, 13–16, 18–20 follow the independents and are obvious on the same or trivially extended combinations. Claims 2, 3 and 13 (reverse video, different font) are almost verbatim in '375. Confidence: high.
• Claims 5, 12 and 17 are obvious to a lesser degree of confidence, because the "accept after a predetermined period of time" / "restore … after a predefined time" limitation is not expressly disclosed by any reference in this record. The case rests on (i) the '006's own admission that a pause is used as a character-break flag, (ii) Amtelco's express teaching of the alternative acceptance mechanism recited in claim 6, and (iii) routine-design-choice doctrine. Confidence: moderate.
• The analysis is robust to the CIP priority-date problem (§1): the primary references ('980, '375, '098, '671) all predate even the 1995-12-11 priority date in some qualifying way, so the outcome does not depend on which priority date the claims receive.
• Commercial relevance is now historical: per the record and the earlier Litigation summary, the patent expired 2015-12-11 and was asserted only in the 2011 HTC v. Apple matters (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-808; D. Del. No. 1:11-cv-00715). I found no 2026 CAFC activity, consistent with the earlier Patent summary.

10. What I could not verify (explicit uncertainty flags)

• Full text of US 5,128,672, US 6,157,323, US 4,866,759, US 5,031,206, US 4,427,848, US 4,677,659, US 5,200,988, US 5,561,710 was not retrieved; they are mapped above from the titles/assignees/dates in the '006 record only. A rigorous invalidity contention would need their full texts.
• Whether the '006's highlighting-window claims are entitled to the 1995-12-11 priority date — I could not confirm the CIP's added matter from the record alone. The conclusion does not change either way, but the statutory basis for some references (102(b) vs. 102(e)) does.
• The '006's own claim-construction positions on "highlighting window," "contrasting format," and "enlargement" — my mapping assumes ordinary meaning; a narrower construction of "enlargement" relative to same-cell text could strengthen the patentee's rebuttal in §8.1.
• No assertion is made that the above combinations were actually raised in the ITC or Delaware proceedings. The earlier Litigation summary found no appellate decision on the '006; I have no visibility into the invalidity contentions exchanged in 337-TA-808 or 1:11-cv-00715, and I do not infer them.

Sources cited: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6473006/en · https://patents.google.com/patent/US4737980 · https://patents.google.com/patent/US5625375A · https://patents.google.com/patent/US5963671A · https://patents.google.com/patent/US5797098 · https://patents.google.com/patent/US5911485A · https://patents.google.com/patent/US6150962 (US 6,150,962 text via court filing) · EP 0 839 427 B1 (= US 5,797,098 family)