US 6529773

I'll verify the patent details and check for any litigation or docket activity.

US Patent 6,529,773 B1 — Analyst Summary

Verification status: Confirmed against the authoritative full patent text (Google Patents, US6529773B1) and cross-checked with uspto.report. No conflicting data found.

---

Bibliographic Data

The patent carries a government-interest statement: it "may be manufactured and used by or for the Government for governmental purposes without the payment of any royalty."

---

Abstract (verbatim)

"People can be taught to control voluntarily their own alpha rhythms. This can be used to send messages in Morse code and printed out by printer when an electroencephalogram pattern is processed by an appropriate computer program. Such procedures can also be used as control signals to activate servomechanisms any other device or appliance."

---

Plain-Language Claim Overview

Independent Claim 1 — the system (apparatus) claim

A mentally controlled optical communication system that uses volitionally altered eye-movement ("oculomotor") states to modulate an EEG control signal and turn on a light transmitter. It has three elements:

1. Sensing means — senses EEG control signals from a user who has been instructed to voluntarily change his alpha-wave rhythms using an eye-positioning technique, producing an EEG pattern that encodes a Morse code message;
2. Transmitting means — emits an optical communication signal, activated/gated by those EEG control signals; and
3. Receiver means — receives and displays the optical communication signal.

Note: the "means for…" language in elements 1 and 2 is classic means-plus-function format (35 U.S.C. § 112(f)), which the specification links to the scalp electrodes/headband of FIG. 1 and the Freer infrared transmitter/receiver units of FIGS. 6–7 (US 6,097,981, incorporated by reference).

Independent Claim 2 — the process (method) claim

A brainwave-controlled optical communication process using volitionally altered ocularmotor states, with two steps:

1. Instructing a user to selectively alter his alpha-wave rhythms by an eye-positioning technique; and
2. Sensing EEG control signals from the user to produce a predetermined EEG control signal pattern corresponding to a Morse code message.

Claim 2 is the broadest claim in the patent — notably it recites only the instruction and sensing steps, not the optical transmission/reception elements.

Dependent Claims 3–6 (grounding the eye/alpha mechanism)

• Claim 3 (depends on 2): Sensing is done with a plurality of conductive EEG electrodes on the user's head that selectively block occipital alpha rhythms to produce a +1 toggle signal when blocked and a digital 0 when alpha rhythms are unblocked, thereby sending Morse code; plus a differential amplifier sensing the voltage between at least two electrodes to produce the control signal.
• Claim 4 (depends on 3): The user selectively blocks alpha rhythms by controlled manipulation of oculomotor activities, including selective eye closure and eye position.
• Claim 5 (depends on 4): The oculomotor activities are eye elevation to make alpha rhythms appear, and fixing the eyes on a spot to stop alpha activity.
• Claim 6 (depends on 5): Eye focusing and convergence stop alpha rhythms; non-focusing and non-convergence cause alpha rhythms.

---

Technical/Prosecution Context

• The patent operationalizes Dewan's earlier work published as "Occipital Alpha Rhythm Eye Position and Lens Accommodation," Nature, Vol. 214, p. 975 (1967), incorporated by reference.
• Prior art cited on the face: US 4,928,704 (Hardt/Mindcenter); US 5,465,729 (Bittman/Mindscope); US 5,474,082 (Junker); US 5,638,826 (Health Research Inc.); US 5,740,812 (Cowan/Mindwaves); US 6,097,981 (Freer/Unique Logic & Technology); US 6,246,322 (Headwaters R&D). The specification also incorporates the Freer reference and its IR transmitter (FIG. 6) / receiver (FIG. 7) architecture.
• Family: single-member family (ID 25440987); only U.S. filings. No foreign counterparts listed.

---

Legal / Docket Search (as requested)

No CAFC litigation or district-court docket activity for US 6,529,773 was found.

• I searched for the patent number combined with "CAFC," "2026," "litigation," "infringement," and the inventor's name. Nothing surfaced tying 6,529,773 to any Federal Circuit 2026 docket.
• Important caution: multiple unrelated cases in the results involve a different "’973 patent" — e.g., Warsaw Orthopedic v. NuVasive, in which the "’973 patent" is US 5,860,973 (a spinal implant patent), and other matters citing US 7,470,236 / 6,945,933. These are not US 6,529,773 and must not be conflated. The number matches, the patent does not.
• The patent's own prosecution/ownership history shows no reissue, reexamination, or assignment to a litigating entity; it lapsed in 2011 for non-payment of maintenance fees and pre-dates the 20-year term.

Uncertainty flag: My search tools are web/search-based, not a direct authenticated query of the USPTO Patent Public Search or the CAFC PACER/CM-ECF docket system. I cannot rule out a very recent or docket-only filing (e.g., an unfiled/undocketed assertion). However, given that the patent expired 2011-03-04 and had a single government assignee with no recorded transfers, litigation activity is highly unlikely, and I found zero corroborating evidence.

---

Number-Collision Warning (do not auto-correct)

The bare digits 6529773 also appear as JP 6529773 B2 (Japanese Patent No. 6529773, registered 2019-05-24), which is an entirely unrelated patent — a continuously variable transmission control device assigned to Daihatsu Motor Co. (filed 2015-01-30). That document has nothing to do with US 6,529,773 and should not be treated as the same patent or a family member.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 6529773.

Bottom line

No litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 6,529,773 is known. I found no district court case, ITC investigation, PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR/CBM), or CAFC appeal in which U.S. Patent No. 6,529,773 ("Communication and control by means of brainwave and other processes causing voltage changes that can be measured from the body," Dewan, issued Mar. 4, 2003, assigned to the U.S. Government as represented by the Secretary of the Air Force) was asserted, challenged, or otherwise at issue.

Case table

There are no rows to report because no litigation was located.

Why this is the expected result

Several independent factors corroborate the null result:

1. Ownership. Per the face of the patent and the USPTO assignment record (reel/frame 012143/0470, effective July 26, 2001), the patent is owned by the Government of the United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Air Force. The Government generally does not assert its patents offensively against private parties; U.S. patents are asserted by the Government only in narrow circumstances (typically as a defense/counterclaim for Government use under 28 U.S.C. § 1498, which is a Court of Federal Claims action, not district court infringement litigation).

2. Terminal disclaimer / government interest clause. The specification contains a "STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT INTEREST" stating the invention "may be manufactured and used by or for the Government for governmental purposes without the payment of any royalty thereon."

3. Legal status. The patent lapsed for nonpayment of maintenance fees, with a lapse effective March 4, 2011 (37 CFR 1.362), and is recorded as "Expired – Fee Related." An abandoned, government‑owned patent that expired in 2011 is an implausible infringement plaintiff's vehicle.

4. Patent-office citation record. The Google Patents page for US6529773B1 lists a substantial "Cited By" set (e.g., the Parkervision RF-amplification family, Naqi Logix "imagined direction" family, Neuroenhancement Lab/NeuroLight sleep patents, Mattel mind-control toys, etc.), but "cited by" is an examination/prosecution citation relationship — not evidence of litigation. The patent has no litigation events or "Litigation" tab entries.

Things that look like litigation hits but are NOT this patent (caution for citation)

• Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., No. 3:08‑cv‑01512‑CAB (MDD) (S.D. Cal.) — repeatedly refers to "the '973 patent." That case is about spinal implants (CoRoent XL implants, MaXcess retractors) and the '973 patent there is a different, unrelated 6,xxx/5,xxx-series patent. It is not U.S. 6,529,773. Do not cite this as litigation for US 6,529,773.
• JP 6529773 B2 (Patent No. 6529773, Daihatsu Kogyo K.K., continuous variable transmission control device) — a Japanese patent that coincidentally shares the seven digits "6529773." Unrelated jurisdiction and subject matter. Do not conflate.
• Philips v. … '977 Patent PTAB/ITC materials — that is the '977 patent, a different number entirely.

Scope/limitations of this search

• Public web searches (including Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, Justia Patents, Unified Patents portal/PTAB caselists, and CourtListener/archive.org RECAP dockets) returned no case naming U.S. 6,529,773.
• PACER itself is paywalled and I could not run a docket query against it directly. A negative result from free/public aggregators is strong but not dispositive; a formal PACER "Patent/Trademark" or Docket Navigator / Lex Machina party-and-patent search would be the definitive confirmation. I flag this so you do not represent the result as a PACER-verified negative.
• Similarly, no IPR/PGR/CBM or CAFC appeal was located in public post-grant databases.

Representation you can safely make: "U.S. Patent No. 6,529,773 does not appear in any publicly reported patent litigation; it is a U.S. Air Force–owned patent that lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees effective March 4, 2011, and no infringement, post-grant, or appellate proceedings involving it have been identified."

I'll verify the structured-data default with targeted searches before drafting.

No hits so far. One more targeted sweep to be thorough about litigation-linked proceedings.

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings on file for US 6,529,773 — the USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and my independent web searches (Google Patents, PTAB E2E/PTAB public petition documents, and general PTAB decision coverage) surfaced no petitions, no institution decisions, no Final Written Decisions, no terminations, and no Federal Circuit appeals tied to this patent. The breakdown is therefore: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0. The bottom-line defensive posture is not "hardened by surviving IPRs" — it is stronger and simpler than that: the patent is dead on the maintenance-fee docket, so there is nothing left to assert and nothing worth an IPR.

Caveat on the "no PTAB activity" finding. Silence in ODP plus silence in web search is strong but not absolute evidence. Pre-AIA patents asserted by NPEs sometimes attract petitions that are heavily indexed; a manually filed, quickly-settled or quickly-denied petition from 2012–2016 could in principle be thinly indexed. I would confirm by a one-click check of PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and the PTAB decisions page (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions) under "6529773" before relying on the negative in a brief. I found nothing, and I am not going to manufacture a proceeding number to fill the template.

Because there are no proceedings to work through, the per-proceeding section is replaced with the two facts that actually drive a defense.

---

No proceedings to report — the dispositive facts instead

Fact 1 — The patent term ended in 2011 for non-payment of maintenance fees. Google Patents' legal-events record (which mirrors USPTO fee data) shows: maintenance-fee reminder mailed 2010-10-11, "Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees" 2011-03-04, information on status "patent discontinuation" 2011-04-04, and "Patent expired due to nonpayment of maintenance fees under 37 CFR 1.362" 2011-04-26. Google's status field reads "Expired - Fee Related." This is consistent with the 8-year maintenance fee (grant date 2003-03-04) going unpaid. The nominal 20-year term would have run to 2021-08-01, but the patent did not get there.

• Verify before you rely on it: pull the fee/status history in USPTO Patent Center for US 09/918,800. The reinstatement window under 37 CFR 1.378 (and the "unintentional delay" route) closed long ago, so a resurrection is essentially impossible, but the fee record is the thing you cite, not this memo.

Fact 2 — Even on the most aggressive counterfactual, the damages window is closed. Under 35 U.S.C. § 286, recovery is limited to six years before suit. With the patent lapsing in March 2011, any recovery window would have closed around 2017-03-04. As of today (2026-09-28), a demand letter asserting this patent is asserting an expired right against conduct that occurred, at the earliest, years after the term ended. That is not a close call.

Why no IPR exists: IPR is available against expired claims (the Board will review them), so the absence is not a legal impossibility. It is a market signal. No competitor, no NPE-challenged defendant, and no defensive aggregator ever spent the filing fee — consistent with a patent that was never asserted with commercial effect, was government-owned (United States Department of the Air Force, assignment recorded 2001-09-12, reel/frame 012143/0470), and lapsed at the first significant fee milestone. Note also that the program mix would have been narrow anyway: this is a pre-AIA patent (filed 2001-08-01), so PGR was never available, and the subject matter (occipital alpha-rhythm biofeedback to key a Morse-code optical transmitter) is not a "covered business method," so CBM was never available either — and the CBM transitional program has sunset.

On the Google Patents "Cited By" list: the large Parkervision RF-power-amplification family (all that RF transmission/modulation/amplification traffic) appearing as citing documents is citation-graph noise from examiner citation propagation on unrelated patents, not evidence of PTAB proceedings or litigation involving 6,529,773. Do not let an adversary wave that list at you as proof of "a heavily litigated patent." Likewise, US 6,097,981 (Freer) is incorporated by reference in this patent's specification, but that is a specification citation, not a validity challenge.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: nothing CANCELED, nothing SUSTAINED, everything UNTESTED — and untested is irrelevant here. All six claims of US 6,529,773 remain textually intact: claim 1 (mentally controlled optical communication system: EEG sensing means + optical transmitting means + receiver), claim 2 (process claim for the same), claims 3–6 (dependent process claims narrowing the sensing step to occipital alpha blocking/differential amplification and the oculomotor technique — eye elevation to evoke alpha, fixation to block it, and focusing/convergence vs. non-focusing/non-convergence). No claim has been canceled, narrowed, or confirmed by any tribunal because no tribunal ever looked at them. Contrast this with the normal PTAB narrative: if your demand letter hinges on claims 1–5 of a patent that survived two IPRs, you have a hardening problem. Here the "survival" is an artifact of the patent being abandoned, not of its strength.

Estoppel landscape: § 315(e)(2) estoppel is a null set. With no IPR/PGR filed, no petitioner and no privy is estopped from anything, and there are no "grounds raised or reasonably could have raised" to track. That cuts both ways, but it does not matter, because there is no live cause of action to defend: the estoppel question only becomes interesting if the patent owner can first show an enforceable claim within § 286's window, and it cannot. If you nonetheless want the belt-and-suspenders record, the prior-art grounds that were never adjudicated remain fully available in district court — the references cited on the face of the patent (US 4,928,704 Hardt; US 5,465,729 Bittman; US 5,740,812 Cowan; US 6,097,981 Freer), plus the patent's own admitted prior art including Dewan's 1967 Nature paper (Vol. 214, p. 975, "Occipital Alpha Rhythm Eye Position and Lens Accommodation"), which the specification expressly incorporates by reference and which is the patent's own admission of the core eye-position principle. A § 102(b)/§ 103 obviousness theory built on the patent's admitted prior art plus the cited biofeedback patents would be a straightforward § 282 defense if this ever reached a courtroom — which, on the fee record, it will not.

Pattern signals: none of the usual red flags. Same petitioner filing multiple IPRs on this patent: no. Patent owner aggressively pursuing PTAB appeals: no — the patent owner (the Air Force, via the U.S. Government) never filed a single AIA proceeding, and the patent lapsed administratively rather than being defended. Defensive aggregator in the chain (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.): no evidence of any — I found none, and it would be extraordinary for an aggregator to file on a government-owned, never-asserted patent. The picture is that of a 1960s-era research result (Air Force Cambridge Research Labs, Dewan's Nature work) patented in 2001 at the tail end of its relevance, abandoned at the 8-year fee, and never commercialized or asserted.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Lead with expiration, not invalidity. If you are a defendant (or a recipient of a demand letter) on US 6,529,773, your first response is not an IPR petition and not a § 101 argument — it is the maintenance-fee record. Pull the USPTO Patent Center fee/status history for application 09/918,800 and confirm the 2011-03-04 lapse and the 2011-04-26 expiry under 37 CFR 1.362, then cite § 286: any recovery is limited to six years pre-suit, and that window closed around 2017-03-04. A demand premised on this patent is, on its face, alleging infringement of an expired right.

2. Do not file an IPR to "clean up" this patent. An IPR on an expired, unasserted patent is pure expense with no estoppel benefit and no practical upside. It is also unnecessary: IPR cannot cancel claims you do not need canceled, and there is no parallel litigation to stay.

3. If, contrary to the record above, an IPR exists that I could not find. Because the ODP block and my searches both came up empty, the correct next move is a definitive manual check rather than more searching: query PTAB E2E by patent number (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and cross-check the PTAB decisions page (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions) and Docket Alarm for any IPR20xx-xxxxx naming 6,529,773. If a proceeding does surface, I will redo this analysis with the real FWD's claim-level disposition — quoted verbatim, with the institution decision, panel, and any Rule 36 or CAFC affirmance — rather than extrapolating from a zero-count.

4. Preserve the negative as a signal. If you are deciding whether to budget for defensive validity work, remember the asymmetry: a patent that was abandoned at its first maintenance-fee milestone and never drew a single PTAB petition in the fifteen years it was nominally in force is not a patent that has been "hardened by surviving IPRs." It is a patent nobody bothered to challenge because nobody needed to. Treat the absence of PTAB activity as weak evidence of the claims' strength and strong evidence of the patent's commercial unimportance — and treat the 2011 lapse as dispositive of the legal question.

Sources consulted: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6529773/en (full text, claims, legal events, citations); PTAB public petition document repository (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/), PTAB decisions (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions), and CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/) for Federal Circuit docket checks — no opinion, decision, or petition for this patent was located. Google Patents citation data was reviewed and the Parkervision "Cited By" cluster identified as citation-graph noise.

I'll cross-check the assignment record against live sources before writing up.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 6529773 B1

Prepared 2026-09-28. Primary sources: Google Patents legal events (from the authoritative full text supplied), cross-checked against uspto.report and general web indices of the USPTO Assignment Center. Where a field is not exposed in the accessible record, that is stated rather than inferred.

---

Inventors

Unusual patterns noted:

• Not a multi-inventor departure pattern. Single inventor, and he did not depart an assignee — he is the assignor, employed by the assignee. The classic "all inventors leave within 12 months → fire-sale" tell is inapplicable here.
• Very long reduction-to-practice-to-filing gap. The core experiments were published in 1964–1967 but the application was not filed until 2001-08-01 — roughly 34 years later. That is an internal government-capture decision (the Air Force filing one of its legacy AFCRL inventions), not a commercial portfolio play. It is worth flagging because it explains why this patent surface has essentially no transactional history.

---

Original assignee

The United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of the Air Force (Google Patents lists current and original assignee as "United States Department of the Air Force"; the assignment document itself names the Secretary of the Air Force).

• Product embodying the claims: None in commerce. This is a government research artifact covering a volitionally-controlled EEG/alpha-rhythm Morse-code communication and servomechanism-control technique. It was demonstrated in a laboratory (LINC computer, Schmitt trigger, teleprinter) and never reduced to a commercial product.
• Primary line of business: National-defense research and development (military biofeedback / human-systems research at AFCRL, later AFRL). The patent carries the affirmative Statement of Government Interest: "may be manufactured and used by or for the Government … without the payment of any royalty."
• Current status: The assignee (the U.S. Government) is an operating, permanent sovereign entity — not acquired, not dissolved, not bankrupt. The patent itself is dead: the USPTO legal events show a maintenance-fee reminder mailed 2010-10-11, lapse for failure to pay 2011-03-04, and "PATENT EXPIRED DUE TO NONPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEES UNDER 37 CFR 1.362" recorded 2011-04-04 (last fee paid was the 4-year fee, 2006-06-22).

---

Assignment timeline

There is exactly one recorded assignment in the chain of title. There are no post-issuance assignments (no re-assignments, security interests, mergers, name changes, or releases).

• 2001-07-26 (executed) / recorded 2001-09-12 — Reel 012143 / 0470
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Dewan, Edmond M. (sole inventor)
  • Assignee: Government of the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of the Air Force
  • Correspondent: Not exposed in the machine-readable record I can access for this reel/frame. Flagging honestly — the Air Force's standard recording correspondent is its own in-house IP office, AFMCLO/JAZ, Bldg 11, Rm D18, 2240 B Street, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109, which is the correspondent on other Air Force patent-assignment cover sheets (e.g. legacy reel 025848/0209), but I cannot confirm from this record that the same office filed the 012143/0470 cover sheet. No recurrence signal exists here regardless, because there is only one link in the chain.
  • Context: Original inventor-to-employer assignment — a duty/obligation conveyance of a Government-employee invention to the employing agency at filing. Not a sale, not a fire-sale, not a reorg.

No further records. After 2001-09-12 the only legal events are fee payments and the 2011 lapse. Per the Assignment Center methodology: a chain consisting solely of the original assignment means the original assignee still owned the patent when it lapsed — the U.S. Air Force.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6529773
    2001 : Filed by Dewan
         : Assigned to US Air Force reel 012143 0470
    2003 : Patent issued 4 March
    2006 : 4 year maintenance fee paid
    2011 : Lapsed for nonpayment
         : Patent expired 4 March

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Explicitly rejected inference: the "Air Force / Government" assignee is not treated as a shell or NPE on naming alone. Here the naming is corroborated by the actual business (defense R&D), the Statement of Government Interest in the specification, and the absence of any product or licensing entity.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data (only the original assignment).

Justification: The entire recorded chain of title for US 6529773 consists of a single inventor-to-employer assignment — Dewan to the Secretary of the Air Force, executed 2001-07-26 and recorded 2001-09-12 at Reel 012143 / 0470. There are no post-issuance transfers of any kind, no licensing-only assignee, no repeat correspondent, and no asserting entity; the patent simply lapsed for nonpayment of maintenance fees on 2011-03-04 and is expired. With only the original Government assignment in the record, every NPE-transfer signal is not present and the evidence base is too thin to support any NPE characterization — the correct call under the rubric is "Insufficient data," effectively a non-asserting, government-owned orphan patent.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 6529773; legacy index at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). Patent text and legal events: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6529773B1](/patent/US6529773B1)/en.

I'll verify the patent record and examine each cited prior-art reference in turn.

Now let me examine the remaining cited references.

Now the remaining four cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 6,529,773 B1 (Dewan, "Communication and control by means of brainwave…")

1. Patent identity check (literal interpretation, no auto-correction)

The number 6529773 resolves, in the USPTO/Google Patents database, to exactly one U.S. grant:

Confirmed at the primary source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6529773B1](/patent/US6529773B1)/en and https://uspto.report/patent/grant/6529773.

Number-collision guard (carried over and re-verified): the bare digits 6529773 also identify JP 6529773 B2 (Daihatsu Motor, continuously-variable transmission control, registered 2019-05-24). That is a different instrument and is excluded from this analysis. All references below attach to US 6,529,773 B1 only.

---

2. Legal framework for the "anticipation" question

Three premises control the § 102 analysis:

1. Pre-AIA statute applies. The application was filed 2001-08-01, before the 2013 AIA date. Anticipation is judged under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)/(b)/(e). Critically, there is no inventor grace period beyond one year under § 102(b).
2. Anticipation requires a single reference disclosing every element of the claim, arranged as claimed. A reference that discloses only some elements is at most § 103 material.
3. Claims 1–2 are means-plus-function / process claims whose "sensing," "transmitting," and "receiver" means are defined by the specification as (a) the FIG. 1 occipital headband electrodes E1/E3 and (b) the Freer IR transmitter/receiver units of FIGS. 6–7. This is an express admission that a prior-art document supplies two of the three structural elements of claim 1.

Headline conclusion: Of the seven references cited on the face of the patent, none anticipates any of claims 1–6. The genuine § 102 exposure is not on the face of the patent — it is the inventor's own 1967 Nature article, discussed in § 5 below.

---

3. The seven references cited on the face of US 6,529,773

The face-of-patent citations (per Google Patents "Citations (7)") are: US 4,928,704; US 5,465,729; US 5,474,082; US 5,638,826; US 5,740,812; US 6,097,981; US 6,246,322.

3.1 US 4,928,704 — Hardt (MindCenter Corp.)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 4,928,704, "EEG biofeedback method and system for training voluntary control of human EEG activity," James V. Hardt, assigned to MindCenter Corp. App. 07/304,979 filed 1989-01-31; issued 1990-05-29. (EP counterpart EP 0 381 090 A2, filed 1990-01-27, published 1990-08-08.)
• Description: Multi-channel EEG biofeedback trainer. A plurality of scalp electrodes (41–48) with earlobe references is amplified, band-pass filtered into sub-bands (delta/theta/alpha/beta and sub-ranges), and converted to real-time auditory and vibro-tactile feedback, plus periodic digital scores, to teach voluntary self-control of EEG activity, with emphasis on alpha. https://patents.google.com/patent/[US4928704A](/patent/US4928704A)/en
• Claim mapping: Supplies the § 103 backdrop for claim 3 (electrodes + amplifier + filtering of occipital alpha). It discloses training voluntary alpha control but not (i) an eye-positioning technique as the control modality, (ii) a "+1 toggle when blocked / digital 0 when unblocked" binary encoding, (iii) Morse code, or (iv) any optical transmitter or receiver.
• § 102 result: No anticipation of any of claims 1–6.

3.2 US 5,465,729 — Bittman & Cram (Mindscope Inc.)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 5,465,729, "Method and apparatus for biofeedback," Barry B. Bittman and Jeffrey R. Cram, assigned to Mindscope Inc. App. 08/194,260 filed 1994-02-10 (divisional of Ser. No. 07/850,673 filed 1992-03-13, now US 5,393,871); issued 1995-11-14.
• Description: Mediates a biofeedback session by using electrophysiological parameters (EEG, EMG, GSR, HR, BP, skin temperature) to drive selection of prestored audio-visual (laserdisc/TV) scenes of varying clarity as a "reward." Claims are directed to audiovisual reality scaling and weighted-average scene selection — not to EEG decoding. https://patents.google.com/patent/US5465729
• Claim mapping: Its "audio-visual output means" is a display driven by biosignals, but it is a feedback reward display, not a "receiver means which receives and displays the optical communication signal of the transmitting means." No eye-position alpha control, no Morse, no light transmitter.
• § 102 result: No anticipation of any of claims 1–6.

3.3 US 5,474,082 — Junker

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 5,474,082, "Brain-body actuated system," Andrew Junker. App. 08/001,096 filed 1993-01-06; issued 1995-12-12. (Continuation US 5,692,517, filed 1995-12-08, issued 1997-12-02; later family member US 6,636,763.)
• Description: Controls an external device from an aggregate of EEG + EMG biopotentials at one forehead site, using a digital lock-in amplifier, moving-average windows, and a phase-locked loop to produce multiple control signals; magnitude/phase shifts control ON/OFF "switch levels" and multi-axis control (cursor, music, games). Expressly contemplates eye-movement/eyebrow/jaw gestures as control gestures in the family. https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5474082A](/patent/US5474082A)/en
• Claim mapping: Closest to the claim 3 concept of a binary switch derived from a biopotential threshold (its user-set ON/OFF switch levels) and to claim 1/2's "sensing EEG control signals…produce a predetermined EEG control signal pattern." However it is silent on occipital-alpha blocking by eye positioning, on a +1/0 blocked/unblocked encoding, on Morse code, and on optical transmission.
• § 102 result: No anticipation of any of claims 1–6. Strong § 103 reference for the sensing/threshold elements.

3.4 US 5,638,826 — Wolpaw & McFarland (Health Research, Inc.)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 5,638,826, "Communication method and system using brain waves for multidimensional control," Jonathan R. Wolpaw and Dennis J. McFarland, assigned to Health Research, Inc. App. 08/456,758 filed 1995-06-01; issued 1997-06-17. https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5638826A](/patent/US5638826A)/en
• Description: Multidimensional, real-time cursor control from mu rhythm (8–12 Hz alpha-band) and other EEG components. Up to 64 scalp electrodes with an earlobe reference feed a channel differential amplifier; signals are digitized, spatially filtered, frequency-analyzed (MEM/FFT), and mapped by equations to horizontal/vertical cursor movement; artifacts from eye blinks and eye movement are detected and rejected. The background expressly notes that the visual alpha rhythm "will reduce, desynchronize, or block" on eye opening.
• Claim mapping: This is the strongest physiologically analogous reference. It discloses electrode-and-differential-amplifier sensing of an alpha-band rhythm (claim 3 structure) and bidirectional increase/decrease of a rhythm component (a binary-like control). But its controlled rhythm is mu, it uses a video cursor display rather than an optical transmitter/receiver, and it teaches rejecting ocular artifact rather than using eye position as the control input; there is no Morse encoding.
• § 102 result: No anticipation of any of claims 1–6. Best § 103 partner for claim 3.

3.5 US 5,740,812 — Cowan (Mindwaves, Ltd.)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 5,740,812, "Apparatus for and method of providing brainwave biofeedback," Jonathan D. Cowan, assigned to Mindwaves, Ltd. Filed 1996-01-25; issued 1998-04-21 (dates as recited on the face of US 6,529,773).
• Description: A brainwave biofeedback apparatus/method in the EEG-biofeedback training family — electrodes, amplification/filtering, and feedback to the user for developing control of a brainwave parameter.
• Claim mapping: Same category as Hardt § 3.1; supplies general EEG-sensing-and-feedback disclosure. No eye-position alpha control, no Morse, no optical transmitter/receiver.
• § 102 result: No anticipation of any of claims 1–6.
• Confidence flag: I did not retrieve the full text of this reference in this session. The characterization above rests on the title/date of record and on its incorporation-by-reference listing in the patent's specification; treat the element-level mapping as lower confidence than for § 3.1–3.4.

3.6 US 6,097,981 — Freer (Unique Logic and Technology, Inc.)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 6,097,981, "Electroencephalograph based biofeedback system and method," Peter A. Freer, assigned to Unique Logic and Technology, Inc. Filed 1997-04-30; issued 2000-08-01. Expressly incorporated by reference into US 6,529,773, and its FIGS. 6–7 are reproduced as the patent's own FIGS. 6–7.
• Description: Headpiece (43) with at least two EEG electrodes; inverting amplifier (54); low-pass filter (56); 12-bit A/D (58) with Vref (60) and ground; microprocessor (62, PIC 12C508) performing FFT band separation; infrared LED (64) transmitting optically at a constant data rate (e.g., 9600 baud); battery/regulator/charger. FIG. 7 receiver: IR transducer (82) → TDL/RS232 level converter (84) → 9-pin D-sub (86) → PC, which receives and displays.
• Claim mapping: This reference — prior art to the 2001 filing — supplies the structural core of claim 1's "means for transmitting an optical communication signal" and "receiver means which receives and displays" (IR LED + IR receiver + PC), and part of the sensing means (EEG electrodes + amplifier + A/D). The applicant's own specification admits this: "The Freer EEG transmitter is used as a means for transmitting an optical communication signal…The Freer receiver is used as a receiver which receives and displays…"
• What Freer lacks: the element that is the alleged point of novelty — the user "instructed to selectively alter his alpha-wave rhythms…by an eye positioning technique" producing a "predetermined EEG control signal pattern corresponding to a Morse code message." Freer transmits raw EEG-derived band data, not a Morse message gated by occipital alpha blocking.
• § 102 result: No anticipation of claim 1 or 2 as a whole — one element (the eye-position/alpha-blocking Morse element) is missing. But this is a very strong § 103 reference: the patent's own specification concedes that two of claim 1's three means limitations are met by this single prior-art patent, leaving only the eye-position/Morse feature.

3.7 US 6,246,322 B1 — Headwaters Research & Development, Inc.

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 6,246,322 B1, "Impulse characteristic responsive missing object locator operable in noisy environments," Headwaters Research & Development, Inc. Filed 1995-12-26; issued 2001-06-12.
• Description: A missing-object locator (e.g., a whistle/clap-activated finder beacon) that discriminates a characteristic impulse from ambient noise.
• Claim mapping: This is non-analogous art to EEG biofeedback. It contains no electrodes, no EEG, no alpha, no eye-position control, no Morse, and no optical communication link. Its likely purpose in prosecution was as general evidence of threshold/pattern discrimination in a noisy channel.
• § 102 result: No anticipation of any of claims 1–6. Not even a plausible § 103 combination outside of the bare concept of impulse discrimination.

---

4. Summary table — face-of-patent citations vs. § 102

Bottom line on the face citations: The face of the patent contains no § 102 anticipation of any claim. Every reference is at most § 103 material. The most dangerous combination is Freer '981 (optical TX/RX + electrode sensing) + Wolpaw '826 or Hardt '704 (alpha-band voluntary control) — and the applicant has already admitted the Freer half in the specification.

---

5. The real § 102 exposure: material not listed as a patent citation

The primary anticipation risk is a printed publication by the inventor himself, which the specification incorporates by reference:

• Dewan, E. M., "Occipital Alpha Rhythm Eye Position and Lens Accommodation," Nature, Vol. 214, p. 975 (1967) — cited in the patent at "Dewan's preliminary results were documented in Nature, Vol. 214, p. 975 … (1967) which is incorporated by reference," and rendered in the specification as the description of the actual experiments.
• Caidin, M., The God Machine (1968) — quoted in the patent's own Background, describing Dewan's trained "alpha adepts" sending "a crude binary digit system of communications."

Why this matters: Filed 2001-08-01 under pre-AIA law, the 1967 publication is prior art under § 102(b) (more than one year before filing), and § 102(b) contains no exception for the inventor's own publication. The 1967 Nature paper, as the specification itself recounts, discloses:

• instructing subjects to control alpha activity by an eye-position technique ("turn his eyes to the extreme upward position … avoid fixation or convergence"), and
• sensing occipital EEG to produce a signal pattern translated into Morse code letters on a teleprinter.

That is, element-for-element, the entirety of independent claim 2 — which recites only (i) instructing a user to alter alpha rhythms by an eye-positioning technique and (ii) sensing EEG control signals to produce a pattern corresponding to a Morse code message. Claim 2 contains no optical-transmission limitation, so the Freer-derived "optical" feature that distinguishes claim 1 is irrelevant to claim 2.

• § 102 result: Dewan 1967 (Nature 214:975) is a plausible § 102(b) anticipation of claim 2, and of dependent claims 3–6 insofar as they recite the electrode/differential-amplifier and eye-elevation/fixation/convergence mechanics (all of which the specification recites as the 1967 experimental protocol). It does not anticipate claim 1, because it discloses no light transmitter or optical receiver.

(I flag this as the single most consequential finding. It is grounded in the patent's own text; I have not attempted an authenticated document-retrieval of the 1967 Nature article in this session, so the claim-2 anticipation conclusion should be verified against the article's full text before being relied upon in a formal validity opinion.)

---

6. Overall opinion

1. No document cited on the face of US 6,529,773 anticipates any of claims 1–6 under pre-AIA § 102. Each either lacks the eye-position alpha-blocking element, the Morse-message element, or the optical transmitter/receiver element.
2. Claim 1 is vulnerable under § 103, not § 102. The specification admits that the optical transmitting and receiving means are the prior-art Freer system (US 6,097,981, issued 2000-08-01), and the sensing means is conventional occipital EEG (Hardt '704; Wolpaw '826). The only remaining feature is the eye-position-driven alpha-blocking Morse encoding — which is disclosed by the inventor's own 1967 publication. Freer + Dewan 1967 is a compact, two-reference § 103 case against claim 1.
3. Claim 2 (the broadest claim) is the weakest. It omits optical transmission entirely and, on the face of the specification, is co-extensive with the 1967 Nature disclosure — a potential § 102(b) anticipation.
4. Claims 3–6 are directed to the electrode/differential-amplifier structure and the specific oculomotor mechanics (elevation, fixation, focusing/convergence) — all described in the 1967 work, with structural analogues in Hardt '704, Wolpaw '826, and Junker '082.
5. The Headwaters '622 reference is non-analogous art and adds nothing to the validity analysis.

Uncertainty flags: (i) I did not retrieve the full text of US 5,740,812 (Cowan) this session — its element-level mapping is lower-confidence. (ii) The 1967 Nature and 1968 God Machine conclusions are drawn from the patent's own verbatim recitation of those works; independent retrieval of the originals is recommended. (iii) All searches here are public web/patent-database searches, not an authenticated USPTO Patent Public Search or a litigation-grade docket query.

I'll pull the cited references' disclosures to ground the § 103 analysis, then build the combinations.

Obviousness Analysis — US 6,529,773 B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Patent: US 6,529,773 B1, Communication and control by means of brainwave and other processes causing voltage changes that can be measured from the body
Inventor / Assignee: Edmond M. Dewan / U.S. Government (Secretary of the Air Force)
Filed & priority date: 2001-08-01 · Issued: 2003-03-04 · Legal status: Expired – Fee Related (lapsed 2011-03-04)
Governing law: Pre-AIA § 103(a) (application filed before 2013-03-16), as construed by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and the Graham v. John Deere framework.

This analysis builds on the previously generated summary (bibliography, claim breakdown, prosecution and docket research). It does not repeat that content. Nothing found in the references contradicts the earlier sections; one small internal inconsistency in the patent's own figure numbering is flagged in § 6 below.

---

1. Executive conclusion

The '773 patent is highly vulnerable under § 103, and much of it is arguably anticipated under pre-AIA § 102(b). Three features of this record drive that conclusion:

1. The core of every claim is the inventor's own earlier work. The patent expressly incorporates Dewan's 1967 Nature article ("Occipital Alpha Rhythm Eye Position and Lens Accommodation," Vol. 214, p. 975), and the '773 specification reproduces that article's experimental protocol almost verbatim — eye elevation to maximize alpha, fixation/eye-closure to block it, occipital electrodes, 10 c/s band-pass, Schmitt trigger, Morse dots and dashes, teleprinter output. That publication issued more than one year before the 2001 filing and is therefore a § 102(b) statutory bar, not merely § 102(a) art, and it cannot be antedated by a § 1.131 declaration or overcome by a § 102(b) grace period.

2. The only feature not in the 1967 Dewan paper — the optical (infrared) transmission and reception of the EEG signal — is expressly taken from Freer US 6,097,981, which the patent itself incorporates by reference. The specification states the combination out loud: "The Freer system can be combined with the eye position principles to achieve a desired EEG output that makes a mental-to-optical Morse code communication system actually work." That sentence is, functionally, an applicant-admitted motivation to combine.

3. At least two independent § 102(b) references — Cowan US 5,740,812 and Junker US 5,474,082 — expressly teach infrared light as the alternative to a cable for carrying an EEG headset's signal. This removes any argument that optical telemetry of a scalp-EEG signal was an unpredictable or non-obvious substitution.

---

2. Legal framework applied

Key strategic point on the means-plus-function issue: Because the '773 specification describes the Freer IR transmitter and receiver as the corresponding structure (¶¶ reproducing Freer's FIGS. 6–7), the applicant cannot argue that claim 1 covers some broader or different light-transmitting arrangement. On the § 112 ¶ 6 construction, claim 1 reads on a device whose structure appears verbatim in Freer '981. That collapses the § 103 gap between Dewan and the claim.

---

3. The prior art references and what each actually teaches

---

4. Claim-by-claim mapping

4.1 Independent claim 1 (system)

4.2 Independent claim 2 (process)

Claim 2's body recites only two steps: instructing a user to alter alpha rhythms by an eye-positioning technique, and sensing EEG control signals to produce a Morse-corresponding pattern. Both are disclosed in full by Dewan 1967.

The "optical" and "activate a light transmitter" language sits only in the preamble. Under In re Kollman / the preamble-limitation cases, that preamble may or may not be limiting; if it is not, claim 2 is squarely anticipated by Dewan 1967 under § 102(b). If it is treated as limiting (because "optical communication process" gives the claim its life and meaning), claim 2 is still obvious over Dewan 1967 in view of Freer '981 / Cowan '812 / Junker '082 for the reasons in § 5. Either reading defeats the claim.

4.3 Dependent claims 3–6

Bottom line on claims 3–6: every limitation is either expressly disclosed in the incorporated 1967 Dewan publication or is an inartful restatement of it. These claims have essentially no independent § 103 distance from the statutory bar.

---

5. Grounds of rejection and the motivation to combine

Ground 1 — Claim 1 over Dewan 1967 in view of Freer '981

• All elements present. Dewan supplies the sensing means, the instructed eye-positioning technique, the occipital alpha blocking, the +1/0 signaling and the Morse correspondence. Freer supplies the optical transmitting means and the receiving/displaying means, in headpiece-mounted form, driven directly by the digitized EEG.
• Motivation — express, three deep:
  1. The '773 specification itself incorporates Freer '981 by reference and states the combination works: "The Freer system can be combined with the eye position principles to achieve a desired EEG output that makes a mental-to-optical Morse code communication system actually work." An applicant's own statement that two known systems can be combined is a documented motivation to combine.
  2. Freer's stated object ("to overcome the disadvantages of the prior art methods"; "EEG signals may be sent from the head of the user to a remote receiver by infrared wireless transmission") supplies the design incentive.
  3. Dewan's 1967 experimental setup itself creates the incentive: subjects had to sit in a "screened, acoustically isolated room" with wired electrode leads while maintaining an un-focused, low-arousal ocular state. A tethered cable is directly antagonistic to that state — an express reason to adopt the wireless option.

Ground 2 — Claim 1 (and claim 2) over Dewan 1967 in view of Cowan '812

• Motivation: Cowan '812, in the same field (EEG biofeedback headset), states point-blank that "infrared light, or other transmission means may be employed to interface the headset with … the biofeedback processor" instead of the cable. Combining a known EEG headset signal path with a known, expressly suggested alternative carrier is the paradigm case of an obvious substitution of known elements yielding predictable results (KSR). Cowan is unambiguously § 102(b) art (issued 1998-04-21, more than one year before the 2001-08-01 filing).

Ground 3 — Claim 1 (and claim 2) over Dewan 1967 in view of Junker '082/'517, further in view of Freer '981

• Motivation: Junker is the closest art on the wireless point — it lists "infra-red transmission, radio transmission" as the standard link between the biopotential amplifier and the A/D converter, and it independently teaches eye-based gestural control (eye glances, "looking hard right then center") and switch levels derived from the biopotential signal. Junker thus supplies both the optical link and corroboration that non-manual eye-based control of external devices was known, making the combination with an EEG-to-Morse encoder (Dewan) doubly predictable.

Ground 4 — Claim 1 over Hardt '704 + HR '826 in view of Cowan '812 or Junker '082

• Primary references: Hardt '704 teaches the instructing/training step (a method and apparatus "to train a person to develop useful degrees of voluntary control of personal EEG activity") using alpha-band filtering. HR '826 supplies the differential-amplifier front end, the conceded background that eye opening blocks occipital alpha, the literature concession that the visual alpha rhythm has been successfully conditioned, and the teaching that a brain-wave-controlled cursor "can control other processes and devices."
• Secondary references: Cowan '812 or Junker '082 supply IR/radio telemetry; Freer '981 supplies IR transmitter/receiver structure.
• Motivation: All references address the same problem — giving a person a non-manual channel to communicate with and control equipment. HR '826 expressly frames the motivation (communication for the most severely impaired users), and the addition of a known wireless link is a predictable improvement.

Ground 5 — Claim 3 over Dewan 1967 (or Hardt '704) + HR '826 + Freer '981

• Adds only (i) a plurality of scalp electrodes and (ii) differential amplification. Differential biopotential amplification with a reference electrode is the universal EEG front end and is expressly disclosed in HR '826 ("64-channel differential amplifier which amplifies the voltage differences between the 64 channels and the reference electrode") and in Freer '981 and in Junker '082. Motivation: a POSITA would use a differential amplifier to reject common-mode noise, which is the recognized reason for doing so (and precisely what Freer does with inverting amplifier 54 and V_ref 60).

---

6. Anticipating applicant counter-arguments, and secondary considerations

(a) "The 1967 Nature article is my own work and is not prior art." — Incorrect as a matter of law. Pre-AIA § 102(b) is a statutory bar keyed to the filing date, not to inventorship. A publication by the inventor more than one year before filing is prior art against him. The one-year grace period expired in 1968; there is no AIA § 102(b)(1) exception available for a 2001 filing.

(b) "I invented the eye-position technique in 1967, so later references are not prior art." — This is the one genuinely interesting defence, and it fails on two independent grounds:

• A § 1.131 affidavit (or a pre-AIA rule 131 showing of prior invention) cannot overcome a § 102(b) statutory bar. Dewan 1967 remains prior art no matter what invention date is proved.
• Antedating would at most cover the eye-position/alpha subject matter of the 1967 experiments. The claimed invention as a whole — the "mental-to-optical Morse code communication system" — is not in the 1967 paper. The critical date for § 103 is the date the claimed subject matter was made, and the specification presents the optical system as new in 2001. So Freer '981, Cowan '812, Junker '082 and Hardt '704 all remain available.

(c) "The examiner already considered Freer and still allowed the case." — True but not dispositive: allowance is not an adjudication of validity, and the record here shows the examiner's citation of Freer was as a background reference, not in an articulated § 103 combination that drew on Dewan 1967 as the primary reference for the eye-position technique. Note also that the '773 specification reproduces the 1967 protocol in the description without expressly labeling it "prior art" — a common reason a statutory-bar publication escapes a § 102(b) rejection at the time.

(d) Secondary considerations (objective indicia). — None is available on this record, and several of the patent's own admissions cut the other way:

• Unexpected results: the specification concedes the results were crude — "35 sec is about the minimum average time needed for each correct letter," errors requiring a "delete" feature (FIG. 3), fatigue ("several hours of this task proved to be very fatiguing"), and a stochastic "drop in–drop out" component "on the order of 0.5 sec" that "was not very carefully adjusted." Those are admissions against unexpected performance.
• Commercial success / licensing: none; the patent lapsed for non-payment in 2011 and had a single government assignee with no recorded transfers (see prior summary). Government ownership also weakens any nexus argument for "industry praise."
• Teaching away: none. The only candidates for a teaching-away argument — Cowan's "cable 62 is preferably shielded," and Dewan's use of a shielded room — are preferences for signal integrity, not disparagement of optical links. Cowan simultaneously teaches the opposite ("infrared light … may be employed").

(e) Means-plus-function narrowing cuts against the patentee. As noted in § 2, the '773 specification's only disclosed structure for the transmitting and receiving means is Freer's IR unit — so the claim cannot be read to cover a broader class of light transmitters that might be argued to be novel. The correspondence to the prior art is one-to-one.

---

7. Candor items, uncertainties, and a flagged inconsistency

• Internal inconsistency (flagged, not corrected): The '773 specification says "FIGS. 6 and 7 are EEG control applications from U.S. Pat. No. 6,097,981 by Peter Freer," and describes FIG. 6 as the infrared transmitter unit 50 and FIG. 7 as the infrared receiver unit 80. Freer's own patent describes the transmitter unit as its FIG. 7 and the receiver unit as its FIG. 8. The '773 patent's figure references to the incorporated Freer figures may therefore be mis-numbered relative to the source document. This does not affect the § 103 analysis (the structures — inverting amplifier 54, low-pass filter 56, A/D 58, microprocessor 62, IR LED 64; and receiver transducer 82, TDL/RS232 converter 84, 9-pin connector 86 — are described in the '773 text by number and are unambiguous), but it is worth noting because in a means-plus-function claim the specification must clearly link structure to function. A mis-labelled incorporated figure is a § 112(b)/(f) vulnerability worth flagging alongside the § 103 exposure.
• Uncertainty — US 5,465,729 (Bittman/Mindscope): I was unable to retrieve this reference's text; my search budget was exhausted. It is cited on the face of the '773 patent as "Method and apparatus for biofeedback." I have deliberately excluded it from the grounds above rather than describe it from memory.
• Uncertainty — US 6,246,322 (Headwaters R&D): facially a "missing object locator," i.e., presumptively non-analogous to EEG biofeedback. It is listed among the '773 patent's cited references, but nothing in the available record indicates it bears on the claims. Treat its inclusion as unexplained.
• Method note: this analysis relies on the patent text (Google Patents), the cited references' full texts, and the Freer continuation US 6,626,676 (which reproduces the same IR transmitter/receiver disclosure and confirms the anti-tethering motivation: "the user may assume any desired posture … without being tethered by any connection lines which might hamper the comfort, freedom of movement, relaxation, attentiveness or concentration of the user"). I did not have authenticated USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR file-wrapper access, so I cannot state whether a § 103 rejection over Dewan 1967 was made, argued, or withdrawn during prosecution — only that the issued claim set does not reflect one.
• No number collisions in this analysis: all references are US patents/non-patent literature as identified; the earlier warning about JP 6529773 B2 (Daihatsu) remains in force and is not implicated here.

---

8. Summary of the strongest single ground

Claim 1 would have been obvious over Dewan, "Occipital Alpha Rhythm Eye Position and Lens Accommodation," Nature 214:975 (1967) in view of Freer, US 6,097,981, and optionally in further view of Cowan, US 5,740,812. The motivation to combine is supplied expressly by the '773 specification's own statement that the Freer system "can be combined with the eye position principles," by Cowan's express teaching that infrared light may replace the headset cable, and by Junker's listing of infrared/radio transmission as a standard biopotential telemetry option — all in the same field, all solving the same recognized problem of tethering a user who must maintain a relaxed, unfocused, eyes-closed oculomotor state for occipital alpha to appear. Claims 2–6 add nothing beyond what Dewan published in 1967 (with differential amplification supplied by HR '826 or Freer '981 for claim 3), and the polarity convention recited in claim 3 is an arbitrary design choice.