US 6607314

I'll search for this specific patent number and any associated litigation.

Let me search for USPTO records and any CAFC/litigation history.

US Patent 6,607,314 — Analyst Summary

Search scope note: I searched for the literal number 6607314 / 6,607,314. I found no litigation, PTAB proceeding, or CAFC docket (2026 or otherwise) associated with this specific patent. I cannot authoritatively confirm the absence of an unindexed 2026 CAFC appeal — searches of Federal Circuit dockets by patent number returned nothing for this number, and no USPTO Patent Center record surfaced beyond the bibliographic/fee data below. No docket information should be inferred from this silence.

Bibliographic Data

Discrepancies to flag (do not auto-correct): Unified Patents reports a priority date of 2000-10-02, grant date 2003-08-18, and expiration 2021-05-30 — each one day earlier than the Google Patents record above. These are likely timezone/derivation artifacts, but I am reporting both rather than reconciling them. The Google Patents full text is treated as authoritative per instructions.

Fee history: 4-year fee paid 2007-02-20; 8-year fee paid 2010-11-30; maintenance-fee reminder mailed 2015-03-27; lapse for failure to pay 2015-08-19. Unified Patents lists lifetime renewal fees of $0.

Abstract (as issued)

A printer attached to a computer using a driver routine includes an interface receiving an intermediate, device-non-specific code such as a Page Description Language (PDL) message generated by an active printer driver routine and providing a corresponding bitmap. The computer may be a standalone workstation or a server providing printer services to a network of users. The printer has a print engine to print an image corresponding to the bitmap. A communications interface receives a latest version of the printer driver routine, stored in local printer memory. A local processor selectively supplies the computer with the latest version of the driver from local memory, optionally responsive to a version designation of the active printer driver routine. The printer may connect over a dedicated channel such as a parallel or serial printer port. The communications interface may include Internet connectivity to a centralized database of printer server drivers.

Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

Claim 1 — Printer (apparatus)

A printer with a communication interface, memory, and a processor, where the processor:

1. Downloads a driver from a remote resource via the Internet and stores it in the printer's own memory. The driver defines instructions for generating print messages for this printer and carries a first version identifier.
2. Parses a second version identifier out of a print message when a client system sends data to the printer.
3. Sends the downloaded driver to the client system when the second version identifier does not match the first.

In short: the printer — not the PC — reaches out to the network, pulls the current driver into its own memory, checks the version stamp embedded in incoming print data, and pushes its stored copy back to a client running a stale driver.

Claim 8 — Method of operating a printer

The method counterpart, with the same logical steps framed as acts: (a) the printer downloads a driver from a remote resource (the claim text does not recite "via the Internet," unlike claim 1); (b) stores it in printer memory; (c) receives a print message from a client system; (d) parses a second version identifier from that message; and (e) communicates the downloaded driver to the client system when the second version identifier does not match the first.

Note the asymmetry: Internet connectivity appears in claim 1 but not in claim 8's independent text.

Claim 15 — Printer (means-plus-function / § 112 ¶ 6 form)

The same printer recited entirely in means-plus-function language: network interface means; memory means; means for downloading a driver from a remote resource; means for storing; means for processing a print message from a client system; means for parsing a second version identifier; and means for communicating the downloaded driver to the client system on a version mismatch. Claim 15 does not recite "via the Internet" either; that limitation appears only in claim 1 (and via dependent claim 20's web-site database).

Dependent-claim clusters

• PDL limitation: claims 2, 9, 16 (print message is a PDL message).
• Print-job trigger: claims 3, 10, 17 (message received when the client communicates data to print a document).
• Halting bitmap generation: claims 4, 11, 18 (the printer stops generating the bitmap for the document when it ships the new driver to the client).
• Availability notification first: claims 5, 12, 19 (tell the client the driver is available before sending it).
• Remote resource = database: claims 6, 13, 20; database accessible via a web site: claims 7, 14, 20.

Context Worth Noting

• Cited prior art (5 references): US 5,510,837 (DEC, bitmap printer data controller); US 5,620,177—sic, the record lists US 5,580,177 (Gase et al., HP, "Printer/client network with centrally updated printer drivers and printer status monitoring"); US 5,633,992 (HP, low-level direct connect for PCL printers); US 5,832,191 (Thorne, HP, automatically enabling communication with a network printer); US 6,113,208 (HP, replaceable cartridge with resident message-triggering memory). The specification expressly incorporates US 5,580,177 and US 5,832,191 by reference, and distinguishes them as server-centric (not standalone-PC) solutions that "do not address obtaining copies of updated drivers."
• Forward citations: the patent is heavily cited by later work, notably the Flexiworld Technologies family (e.g., US 8,705,097; US 10,761,791), Canon (e.g., US 9,407,972), and Samsung/Ricoh driver-installation and firmware-management patents.
• Technical disclosure beyond the claims: the specification describes four user-selectable outcomes on version mismatch — (i) ignore and print normally; (ii) print then update; (iii) halt, install the new driver from the printer, and re-render the job; and (iv) "rehabilitate" the already-generated PCL file to apply functionality implemented by the newer driver. It also notes the printer may store only the latest version number plus a pointer to database 42 or 46 rather than the driver binary.

Confidence / Uncertainty

• High confidence on title, inventors, assignee chain, application number, abstract, and claim structure — these come from the authoritative full text supplied.
• Medium confidence on the exact filing and issue dates; two independent sources disagree by one day (see above).
• Low confidence / no evidence found regarding any CAFC 2026 appeal, IPR, or district-court action involving US 6,607,314. Given the patent lapsed in 2015 for fee non-payment and its adjusted expiration was 2021, active 2026 Federal Circuit litigation over this number would be unusual — but I did not positively verify a null result through a dedicated docket database, so treat that as an explicit gap rather than a finding.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 6607314 specifically.

Bottom line

I found no litigation — and no PTAB, ITC, or other adversarial proceeding — involving U.S. Patent No. 6,607,314. Based on the sources I was able to reach, this patent does not appear to have ever been asserted in a lawsuit or challenged in an IPR/PGR/CBM.

I want to be explicit about the confidence level: this is a negative finding, and negative findings are inherently harder to prove than positive ones. Below is exactly what I searched, what the authoritative records show, and where my coverage is limited.

What the authoritative records show for US 6,607,314

1. Google Patents full-text record (primary source, fetched 2026‑09‑29)

• Title: Apparatus for and method of updating a software routine
• Patent No.: US 6,607,314 B1; Application No. 09/679,229
• Inventors: Martin D. McCannon, Mark N. Anderson
• Original/current assignee: Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (assignment recorded from Hewlett-Packard Company on 2003‑07‑28)
• Priority/filing date: 2000‑10‑03; Granted: 2003‑08‑19
• Legal status: Expired – Fee Related; maintenance fees lapsed effective 2015‑08‑19 (notice of lapse 2015‑08‑19; discontinuation 2015‑09‑14 under 37 C.F.R. § 1.362); adjusted expiration listed as 2021‑05‑31

The Google Patents record contains no litigation section and no litigation entries. It lists only:

• Patent Citations (5): US 5,633,992; US 5,511,152; US 5,580,177; US 6,113,208; US 5,832,191 — all prior art references, not litigation.
• Cited By (169): later patents that cite '314 as references — again not litigation.

2. Unified Patents portal — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-6607314-B1
The portal entry for US‑6,607,314 lists the bibliographic data, family members (0), and litigation-risk style metrics (PVIX: 0, RNIX: 0, SVIX: 0), with no litigation entries, no PTAB proceedings, and no district-court case links. Unified's litigation caselist is the exact resource you pointed me to; the patent has no associated case records there.

3. Cited in prosecution of other patents, not in litigation
The only third-party "appearance" of '314 I found is as an examination citation: it is cited as an [Xi] reference against EP 2 367 105 A3 (Samsung, Host apparatus connected to an image forming apparatus and driver installation method thereof). That is patent-office prosecution, not litigation.

Searches performed and their limits

Coverage caveats I must flag honestly:

• I was not able to run a direct PACER docket query, and my Docket Alarm search was cut off, so I cannot claim exhaustive district-court coverage. Docket databases also have gaps for older pre‑2005 filings.
• Because the patent lapsed in August 2015 for failure to pay maintenance fees, any infringement action would have had to be filed while it was in force (or within the six-year § 286 damages window). Nothing in the records I retrieved indicates any such action.
• I deliberately excluded look-alike numbers. For example, the printer-related litigation and complaints that surfaced in my searches involve US 6,456,308 (Agranat Embedded Web Server), US 6,145,946 and US 6,493,106 (Industrial Print Technologies), and the HP/Nokia, HP/Neodron, HP/Slingshot, and HP/Philips disputes — none of which assert 6,607,314. Similarly, the pre‑2005 HP-assigned patents US 5,580,177 (Gase, Printer/client network with centrally updated printer drivers) and US 5,832,191 (Thorne) are cited as background within the '314 specification; they are separate patents with their own histories and are not the same property.

Requested case-by-case listing

Because the search returned no cases, there is no plaintiff/defendant/jurisdiction/case-number/filing-date/status table to populate. Stated precisely:

No litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 6,607,314 is known to me or reflected in the records I could retrieve.

If you need a belt-and-suspenders confirmation before relying on this, the two checks that would close the remaining gap are:

1. A direct PACER Case Locator search (party-name and patent-number search) — I could not execute this here.
2. Lex Machina / Docket Navigator / RPX Insight full patent-level case lookup for the patent number — I could not execute this here.

If you'd like, I can attempt those specific queries again (e.g., RPX Insight and the Unified Patents caselist directly) to try to convert this negative finding into a fully documented one.

I'll verify the structured data against public sources.

Let me run a couple more targeted checks before concluding.

One more confirmation pass on PTAB and litigation dockets.

PTAB Proceedings Report — U.S. Patent No. 6,607,314

Patent: Apparatus for and method of updating a software routine
Assignee: Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
Inventors: Martin D. McCannon; Mark N. Anderson
App. No.: 09/679,229 | Filed: 2000-10-03 | Granted: 2003-08-19
Claims: 20 (independent claims 1, 8, 15)
Pre-AIA (effective filing date 2000-10-03)

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file against US 6,607,314. The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and my independent web searches across PTAB decision sources, petitioner-filing repositories, and third-party patent trackers surfaced no petition, no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, and no Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent — so the count is 0 total: 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials. The defensive posture therefore is not "hardened by surviving IPR" — it is that this patent was never worth anyone's IPR filing fee, and the reason is visible in its own prosecution history: the patent lapsed for nonpayment of maintenance fees effective 2015-08-19, roughly eight years before nominal expiration. If a demand letter today cites claims 1–20, the PTAB absence is a footnote; the maintenance-fee lapse is the argument.

No proceedings to describe. Per the requested ordering, there are no claims-invalidated proceedings to place at the top, because there are no proceedings at all.

No PTAB proceedings on file

• Type: N/A (no IPR, no PGR, no CBM)
• Filed: N/A
• Status: No proceeding exists. The structured ODP block supplied with this task states verbatim that the API "returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest." My web searches returned no contradictory evidence — nothing was surfaced that the ODP merely hadn't indexed.
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: N/A
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: N/A
• Defensive value: Because there is no FWD, there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel running against anyone, and no claim of the '314 patent has been canceled by the Board. Do not let opposing counsel imply otherwise. Equally, do not plan a defense around an IPR win — the affirmative defenses you actually have are non-infringement, invalidity in district court, and the patent's lapse under 35 U.S.C. § 41(c).

Strategic summary

Claim status — CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. No claim of the '314 patent has been canceled, narrowed, or confirmed by the PTAB. All twenty claims (1–20) are UNTESTED in an AIA trial. Independent claim 1 is directed to a printer with a communication interface, memory, and a processor that downloads a driver from a remote resource via the Internet, stores it, parses a second version identifier from a print message from a client system, and communicates the downloaded driver back to the client when the versions don't match. Independent claim 8 is the method counterpart; claim 15 is the means-plus-function counterpart. None has been construed by the Board. (A district court Fintiv-discussion snippet that surfaced in searching was from an unrelated patent's IPR and does not concern the '314 patent — I am flagging it only so it isn't mistaken for a '314 record.)

Estoppel landscape. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only to a petitioner that obtained an institution decision. Since no IPR was ever instituted on this patent, there is no estoppel of any kind — no petitioner-side estoppel, no patent-owner-side estoppel, and no estoppel-based leverage for either side. Every prior-art ground is theoretically still available to a defendant: the five references cited on the face of the patent (US 5,511,152 to Duhamel/DEC; US 5,580,177 to Gase et al.; US 5,633,992 to Dhuey; US 5,832,191 to Thorne; US 6,113,208 to Cook et al.), the two HP patents the specification expressly incorporates by reference (the '177 and '191 patents), and the entire body of post-2000 printer-driver-update art. Practically, however, an IPR is not the vehicle to reach those grounds: the patent is pre-AIA, so PGR is unavailable on effective-filing-date grounds; CBM is subject-matter-ineligible (this is a printer-driver update patent, not a financial-services business method), and the CBM program sunset on 2020-09-16 in any event; and an IPR petition would face the § 315(b) one-year bar if a complaint has been served. Note also that the Board can institute on an expired or lapsed patent — invalidity does not require enforceability — so the lapse is not the reason no IPR exists. The real reason is economic: few parties see $100k+ of PTAB fees as worthwhile against a patent that stopped earning maintenance-fee protection in 2015.

Pattern signals. (1) No serial petitioner — there is no petitioner to check for repeat filings. (2) No patent-owner appellate aggressiveness — HP never had a Board result to appeal, and the patent's lapse postdates the relevant period. (3) No defensive aggregator in the chain — Unified Patents maintains a passive profile page for US-6607314-B1 at its patent portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-6607314-B1), but a profile page reflects a crawler's dataset, not a Unified Patents-filed challenge; treating that page as evidence of an IPR would be a fabrication. (4) Enforcement signal — the patent's grant-to-lapse life (2003–2015) produced no publicly reported assertion campaign that I could locate, which is consistent with an internal HP portfolio asset rather than a litigation instrument.

One caution on the record. The Google Patents status line reads "Expired – Fee Related, expires 2021-05-31," while the same page's legal-events table shows the contradictory and more probative sequence: maintenance-fee reminder mailed 2015-03-27, lapse for failure to pay 2015-08-19, patent discontinuation notation 2015-09-14, and "Lapsed due to failure to pay maintenance fee" with an effective date of 2015-08-19. The 2021-05-31 figure appears to be a nominal term calculation, not a statement that the patent was in force until then. Verify the lapse and, critically, whether any § 1.378 petition to revive was filed and granted, directly in USPTO Patent Center / PTAB E2E and the fee-record history before relying on it in a filing or a demand-letter response. I am flagging this as a record inconsistency, not resolving it.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing an assertion of the '314 patent:

• Do not build your defense on a PTAB record — there isn't one. There is no FWD to link to, no canceled claim to quote, and no disposition to cite. Any statement to the contrary by a plaintiff is wrong; you can correct it by pointing to the ODP's null result for this patent.
• Lead with the lapse, not the Board. Pull the fee record from USPTO Patent Center and confirm whether: (a) the 12-year maintenance fee was ever paid; (b) a petition to revive under 37 C.F.R. § 1.378 was filed, and if so whether it was granted and when. If the patent has been lapsed and unrevived since 2015-08-19, the claims were unenforceable during the entire period of lapse, and pre-revival damages theories are substantially undermined. Check the revival petition's filing date against the infringement notice date — if revival came after your client's accused conduct, intervening-rights and notice arguments under 35 U.S.C. § 41(c)(2) come into play.
• Intervening rights / laches / § 287 notice. An eight-year gap between lapse and any assertion invites a laches and marking analysis that is often more valuable than an invalidity case, particularly where the patentee never marked under § 287.
• If the plaintiff has revived and is asserting, and you are within the § 315(b) window (i.e., served less than one year ago), an IPR remains technically available against an expired patent — but weigh it against the marginal value of PTAB fees on a patent whose claims you may be able to kill in district court on the same five references cited on the face of the patent, with no § 315(e)(2) estoppel constraining you either way.
• Do not cite a PTAB proceeding number for this patent. There is none, and inventing or importing one from a similarly numbered patent would be a sanctionable misrepresentation.

If you are assessing the portfolio (diligence / acquisition):
Treat US 6,607,314 as a lapsed, non-enforceable asset pending confirmation of non-revival. Its forward-citation footprint (roughly 169 citing documents in one index view, 60 in another) shows it was technically influential in the printer-driver-update space, but citation frequency is not residual rights. Value it at or near zero absent a granted revival.

I'll verify the assignment records against the authoritative sources before building the ownership chain.

Let me dig for the recorded correspondent and check for any post-2003 assignments.

Inventors

Both inventors are HP employees assigning to their employer in the ordinary course; the assignment pre‑dates the filing, which is the standard employment‑agreement pattern. No departure pattern is determinable — I found no evidence that either inventor left HP within 12 months of filing, and I have no personnel data to confirm or refute it. I am flagging this as not determinable, not as "clean." (The examiner of record was Anh T. N. Vo; not relevant to ownership.)

Original assignee

• Entity on the face of the issued patent: Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (current/original assignee per Google Patents; the patent issued 2003‑08‑19 to this entity). The initial assignee at filing was Hewlett-Packard Company, which transferred the application to HP Development Company, L.P. during pendency (see timeline).
• Primary line of business: computer hardware and peripherals — printers, imaging/printing supplies, PCs. This is a large operating company.
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes. The patent is directed to printer firmware/architecture: a printer that downloads a driver, parses a version identifier out of an incoming PDL/PCL print stream, and pushes an updated driver back to the host (claims 1 and 8). HP shipped the printers, drivers, and PDL/PCL stacks that this describes.
• Current status: Operating. The patent itself lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees effective 2015‑08‑19 (discontinuation recorded 2015‑09‑14 under 37 C.F.R. § 1.362); Google Patents lists adjusted expiration 2021‑05‑31. Per the earlier litigation summary, no suit or PTAB/ITC challenge ever named this patent.

Assignment timeline

Two assignments are of record. Source: the authoritative Google Patents legal‑events record for US 6,607,314 (which reproduces the USPTO assignment reel/frame data), cross‑checked against Unified Patents and uspto.report. I could not execute the interactive USPTO Assignment Center query (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/), so the correspondent‑of‑record field — which is not reproduced in the Google Patents legal events — is not retrievable from the sources I reached and I have marked it as such rather than guessing.

• 2000‑09‑29 (executed) / recorded 2000‑12‑27 — Reel 011415/0850
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Martin D. McCannon; Mark N. Anderson
  • Assignee: Hewlett-Packard Company (Colorado)
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable from the sources reached. Flag: HP's era‑standard correspondent of record for internal IP filings was HP's own Intellectual Property Administration group (Fort Collins, CO — cf. HP/HPE recordings of the same period at Reels 008979/0306, 025039/0844, and HPE's legacy recording at 056497/0904 showing the Fort Collins correspondent address). This is suggestive but unconfirmed for Reel 011415/0850.
  • Context: Original inventor-to-employer assignment — routine employment assignment of the application.
• 2003‑07‑28 (executed) / recorded 2003‑07‑31 — Reel 013862/0623
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Hewlett-Packard Company
  • Assignee: Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (Texas)
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable from the sources reached (same limitation as above).
  • Context: Intra‑corporate reorganization — HP's 2003 corporate restructuring moved the IP estate from Hewlett-Packard Company into Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. This is a change of holding entity, not a third‑party sale.

No further assignments of record. The only subsequent legal events are maintenance‑fee payments (2007‑02‑20 and 2010‑11‑30), a maintenance‑fee reminder (2015‑03‑27), and the 2015 lapse/discontinuation. There is no post‑issuance transfer to any third party, NPE, or aggregator.

Discrepancy flagged: Unified Patents lists a priority date of 2000‑10‑02 and a grant date of 2003‑08‑18, one day off from the authoritative text (filing/priority 2000‑10‑03, granted 2003‑08‑19). Per the operating rule to prefer the patent text, I use the 2000‑10‑03 / 2003‑08‑19 dates throughout.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6607314
    2000 : Inventors assign to Hewlett-Packard
         : Reel 011415 frame 0850
    2003 : Intra-corporate transfer to HP Dev Co
         : Reel 013862 frame 0623
    2015 : Patent lapses for unpaid fees

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No assignment in the chain runs to any IP/Licensing/Holdings/Ventures LLC. The two recorded transfers are HP Company → HP Development Company, L.P. (Reels 011415/0850, 013862/0623), both operating entities.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither current nor prior assignee appears on any public NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, MPHJ, Round Rock, etc.). The property stayed inside HP. Caution on names: the earlier search surfaced a false positive — an SEC Form 8‑K keyed to identifier "6607314" (CIK 23082, Computer Sciences Corporation, 2006). That identifier is a coincidental SEC accession token, not this patent, and belongs to a different company entirely.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not assessable. The correspondent‑of‑record is not exposed in the sources I could reach, so I cannot evaluate recurrence. This is the one signal genuinely blocked by my tooling limits; it is not a "not present" finding.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Two assignments total, 34 months apart, both intra‑HP; no chained back‑to‑back LLC hops within 24 months.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. Per the litigation summary, no infringement suit ever named US 6,607,314, so no litigation‑timed assignment exists to flag.
6. Bankruptcy fire‑sale — not present. No HP Chapter 7/11 proceeding; no assignment record reflecting a judicial or estate sale.
7. Privateering — not present. HP never transferred the patent to an assertion vehicle; it held the property until it lapsed for non‑payment.
8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain terminates at Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P., an operating company — not RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. (Inverse outcome: the patent was nonetheless effectively neutralized by abandonment in 2015, not by defensive acquisition.)

Verdict

Insufficient data — in the precise sense the option is defined ("no records, or only the original assignment"). Substantively, and stated plainly: this is not an NPE and shows no asserter pattern.

Justification: the assignment record for US 6,607,314 consists of exactly two recorded assignments — the inventors to Hewlett-Packard Company at Reel 011415/0850 (executed 2000‑09‑29, recorded 2000‑12‑27) and the intra‑corporate transfer to Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. at Reel 013862/0623 (executed 2003‑07‑28, recorded 2003‑07‑31) — after which the patent remained with HP and lapsed for non‑payment of fees effective 2015‑08‑19 with no third‑party conveyance. There is no shell entity, no known asserter, no litigation‑timed transfer, and no defensive aggregator in the chain, so the NPE‑oriented labels (Operating-company assertion; Defensive aggregator) do not fit either, since no assertion or defensive acquisition ever occurred. The single unresolved field is the correspondent of record, which requires the interactive Assignment Center query I could not run.

Verification: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 6607314; mirror at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). One caveat I want on the record: confirm the correspondent‑of‑record for Reels 011415/0850 and 013862/0623 directly in Assignment Center before closing, since that is the only chain element my sources could not expose.

I'll research each cited prior-art reference for US 6,607,314. Let me run targeted searches.

Now let me research the remaining cited references.

Let me research the final cited reference, US 6,113,208.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 6,607,314 B1

Scope note (built on the prior sections): I searched the USPTO-derived record for the literal number 6,607,314 (US09/679,229). I did not substitute any look‑alike number. This section builds on the earlier patent summary and litigation summary and does not repeat them. It uses the five references appearing in the record's "Patent Citations (5)" table as the prior-art universe, and assesses each against the 20 issued claims (independent claims 1, 8, 15).

Two contradictions with the earlier generated sections — flagged, not silently fixed:

1. The earlier Patent summary listed the DEC reference as "US 5,510,837 (DEC, bitmap printer data controller)." The authoritative text lists US 5,511,152 for that reference. Per instructions, the full text is authoritative — the correct number is 5,511,152.
2. The earlier summary wrote "US 5,620,177—sic" for the Gase reference. The authoritative text lists US 5,580,177. I adopt 5,580,177.

Both earlier errors appear to be transcription artifacts. I flag them rather than auto-correct the record.

Examiner vs. applicant citation: In the Google Patents tables, US 5,511,152 and US 6,113,208 carry the "Cited by examiner" marker; US 5,580,177 and US 5,832,191 are the references expressly discussed/incorporated in the '314 specification, and US 5,633,992 appears in the reference list without an examiner marker.

Threshold point on § 102

Every one of the five references issued before 3 October 2000 (the '314 priority/filing date):

So all five are facially available as prior art. The real question is whether any one of them discloses every element of a given claim.

Anticipation requires every element in a single reference. Claim 1 requires, in combination: (i) a printer that itself downloads a driver from a remote resource via the Internet into printer memory; (ii) the processor parses a second version identifier out of an incoming print message from a client system; and (iii) the printer communicates the downloaded driver to the client system on a version mismatch. As shown below, none of the five references discloses element (i) or element (iii), and none parses a version identifier from a print message. My conclusion, stated up front, is that none of the cited references anticipates any of claims 1–20 under § 102; they are more properly characterized as § 103 (and background) art. That is consistent with the patent having issued over them.

1. US 5,580,177 — Gase, et al. (Hewlett-Packard)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 5,580,177, Printer/client network with centrally updated printer drivers and printer status monitoring, inventors Stephen T. Gase and Craig R. White, assignee Hewlett-Packard Company.
• Application / dates: App. No. 08/220,322; filed 1994‑03‑29; granted 1996‑12‑03. (URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5580177A](/patent/US5580177A)/en ; https://uspto.report/patent/grant/5580177)
• Brief description: A network of client processors, a file server, and printers. Each client stores a printer‑driver procedure; the file server stores a library of "most‑updated" printer‑driver procedures for each printer type. On a print request, the file server (in combination with the client) determines whether the client's driver is identical to the most‑updated driver in the server library; if not, the client's driver is altered/overwritten to coincide with the server's most‑updated version. A printer utility also reports network/printer availability status. The '314 specification expressly incorporates this reference and distinguishes it as server‑centric and not directed to standalone computers or to obtaining updated drivers.
• Potential § 102 anticipation:
  • Claim 1 — No. Gase discloses version comparison + automatic driver update, but the driver repository and the "latest version" live on the file server, not on the printer; the printer does not download a driver, does not store a driver, does not parse a version identifier from a print message, and does not push a driver to the client. Elements (1b), (1e), (1f) are absent.
  • Claim 8 / Claim 15 — No, for the same reasons (no printer-side download, no print-message parsing, no printer→client driver transfer).
  • Dependent claims 2–7, 9–14, 16–20 — No (each incorporates the unmet independent-claim elements).
• Role: This is the most relevant reference to the '314's conceptual core (detect a stale installed driver, compare to a stored latest version, auto-update it), and the natural primary reference for a § 103 combination. It is not an anticipatory reference.

2. US 6,113,208 — Benjamin, et al. (Hewlett-Packard)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 6,113,208, Replaceable cartridge for a printer including resident memory with stored message triggering data, inventors Trudy Benjamin, Winthrop D. Childers, James P. Axtell, Michael L. Bullock, and Kerry Trent Christensen, assignee Hewlett-Packard Company.
• Application / dates: App. No. 08/856,262; filed 1997‑05‑14 (a continuation‑in‑part of App. 08/651,221, filed 1996‑05‑22, now US 5,682,140, and App. 08/845,800, filed 1997‑04‑25, now US 5,930,553 — hence the 1996‑05‑22 priority date shown in the record); granted 2000‑09‑05. (URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6113208 ; https://uspto.report/patent/grant/6113208)
• Brief description: A replaceable ink cartridge/pluggable module carries a memory chip. On insertion, the printer's microprocessor reads a printer‑driver identifier code from the cartridge memory, compares it to the currently installed driver version, and if the cartridg‑borne code indicates a newer driver, displays a message indicating availability of the newer driver — and may automatically cause the host processor to connect to the manufacturer's Internet website to download the updated driver (claims 4–5, 13–16). Other triggers (low ink → reorder message; mailbox flags; service‑station flags) are also disclosed.
• Potential § 102 anticipation:
  • Claim 1 — No. The source of the version data is the cartridge memory, not a print message parsed by the printer (element (1e) absent); the printer does not download and store the driver in its own memory for later delivery (elements (1b)/(1c) absent as claimed); and the printer does not communicate the driver to the client (element (1f) absent). The 6113208 system downloads the driver to the host/processor arrangement over the Internet, which is the reverse of '314's printer‑resident, printer‑serve‑out architecture.
  • Claim 8 / Claim 15 — No, for the same reasons.
  • Claims 5, 7 / 12, 14 / 19, 20 (notify‑then‑send; web‑site database) — No, but closest. 6113208 discloses "a message indicating availability of the newer driver procedure" and connection to an Internet website to acquire the update — conceptually adjacent to the "communicate a message … that said downloaded driver is available, before … communicating said downloaded driver" and "database accessible through a web site" limitations. Because those claims depend on claim 1/8/15, which 6113208 does not meet, there is no literal anticipation; but 6113208 is the most probative reference on the availability‑notification and Internet‑download features, and the strongest secondary reference in a § 103 combination with Gase.
• Note: this is the closest of the five references in time to the '314 filing (issued about one month before), and it is examiner‑cited.

3. US 5,633,992 — Hewlett-Packard

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 5,633,992, Low-level direct connect for PCL printers, assignee Hewlett-Packard Company. (Corresponding EP 0 634 716 B1, Low-level direct connect protocol for PCL printers, filed 1993‑12‑30, granted 1999‑06‑30.)
• Application / dates: Filed 1993‑06‑15 (a continuation of App. 08/077,180, also filed 1993‑06‑15); granted 1997‑05‑27. (URLs: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5633992 ; http://data.epo.org/gpi/EP0634716B1)
• Brief description: A method/apparatus for negotiating the communication mode between a host (computer with printer driver 23) and a receiving module (printer). A pre‑selected data string is sent to the printer; a printer that understands packetized data‑command format transitions to it and handshakes back, while a printer that does not simply treats the string as null characters. Concerns bi‑directional parallel channels, "commands on the fly," and PCL/PCL packetized vs. continuous‑stream modes.
• Potential § 102 anticipation:
  • Claims 1, 8, 15 — No. The reference is about transport/mode negotiation, not driver version detection, driver download, or driver distribution. It mentions a printer driver on the host as background, but discloses none of the version‑identifier, remote‑download, or printer→client driver‑delivery elements.
  • Dependent claims 2–7, 9–14, 16–20 — No.
• Role: Background art on host↔printer PCL communication and the bidirectional channel that '314 claim 1's "communication interface" and claims 2/9/16's "PDL message" presuppose. Not anticipatory.

4. US 5,832,191 — Thorne (Hewlett-Packard)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 5,832,191, Method and apparatus for automatically enabling communication with a network printer, inventor Thorne, assignee Hewlett-Packard Company. (The '314 specification expressly incorporates this reference.)
• Application / dates: Filed 1997‑04‑30; granted 1998‑11‑03. (URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5832191 ; https://uspto.report/patent/grant/5832191)
• Brief description: A network "plug and print" service. A network server stores, per printer, an "agent" data structure; on receipt of a message (e.g., SAP) from a newly connected printer, the server creates the agent data structure, establishes a communication data structure to enable communication with both the printer and its agent structure, and, on a client request, automatically establishes a communication pathway between the client and the printer and supplies printer data to the client. Centered on the Novell/NDPS environment.
• Potential § 102 anticipation:
  • Claims 1, 8, 15 — No. 191 concerns printer discovery/configuration and connection setup, not driver versioning or driver transfer. It discloses no driver download from a remote resource, no version identifier parsed from a print message, and no printer→client driver delivery.
  • Dependent claims — No.
• Role: Background art on networked printer discovery/installation via a server‑maintained data structure. Not anticipatory.

5. US 5,511,152 — Lai and Bortman (Digital Equipment Corp.; now HP)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 5,511,152, Memory subsystem for bitmap printer data controller, inventors Charles C. Lai and Wayne R. Bortman, assignee Digital Equipment Corporation (current assignee per record: Hewlett-Packard Development Co. LP / HP Inc.).
• Application / dates: App. No. 08/124,177; filed 1993‑09‑20; granted 1996‑04‑23. (Record variants, flagged: Unified Patents lists priority 1993‑09‑19 and grant 1996‑04‑22 — one day earlier.) (URL: https://patents.justia.com/patent/5511152 ; PDF: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/61/de/8b/94526abeb25221/US5511152.pdf)
• Brief citation/description: A DRAM memory controller for a printer having a single host CPU, a DMA controller, and a bitmap memory; multiple sequencers (CPU sequencer, DMA sequencer, refresh sequencer) arbitrate synchronous vs. asynchronous transfers, with page‑mode DRAM accesses to move data between bitmap memory and a print FIFO. Purely about printer bitmap memory hardware/control.
• Potential § 102 anticipation:
  • Claims 1, 8, 15 — No. Remote to the invention; no driver, no version identifier, no network.
  • Claims 4 / 11 / 18 ("ceasing generation of a bitmap image") — No (but this is almost certainly why it is examiner‑cited). 152 is cited as art on the bitmap‑image generation and print‑engine data path that the '314 claims presuppose (formatter 18 → image memory 20 → print mechanism/controller 22). It does not disclose ceasing bitmap generation upon communicating a driver to a client.
• Role: Background art on the bitmap data controller / print engine memory path. Not anticipatory.

Bottom-line mapping (single-reference § 102)

Most relevant prior art, ranked:

1. US 5,580,177 (Gase) — closest on the substance (version comparison and automatic updating of a client's printer driver), but server-centric and silent on the printer‑resident/Internet‑download elements.
2. US 6,113,208 (Benjamin) — closest on the notification + Internet acquisition features (availability message; web‑site download), but the version data comes from cartridge memory and the download target is the host.
3. US 5,833,992 / US 5,832,191 / US 5,511,152 — background art on PCL communication, network printer setup, and the bitmap data path, respectively.

Why nothing anticipates: The '314's independent claims turn on three elements that, taken together, appear in none of the cited references — (a) the printer downloads and stores the driver from the Internet/remote resource into its own memory; (b) the printer parses a version identifier from the incoming print message; and (c) the printer communicates the stored driver back to the client system on mismatch. The cited references split these features across a file server (Gase), a cartridge memory + host (Benjamin), or transport/discovery/hardware contexts — which is why the claims, as issued, survive a single-reference § 102 challenge. The realistic attack, if any, is a § 103 combination of Gase (primary) + Benjamin (secondary), with 992/191/152 as background.

Confidence and gaps

• High confidence on the five references' numbers, titles, assignees, and issue dates as reported in the authoritative text and corroborating sources; high confidence that no reference squarely discloses the printer-side Internet download and the print-message version-parsing of claim 1. Anticipation assessment is made on the claimed subject matter and the reference abstracts/spec text I retrieved.
• Medium confidence on the precise filing dates where sources disagree by one day (e.g., US 5,511,152: 1993‑09‑20 vs. 1993‑09‑19; grant 1996‑04‑23 vs. 1996‑04‑22). I report both and do not reconcile.
• Caveat: I analyzed the references from their abstracts, specifications, and claim sets as retrieved; I did not perform a full element‑by‑element chart against the complete text of every reference's figures. For the examiner‑cited references in particular, the prosecution record (why they were cited, and against which claims) would refine the § 102 vs. § 103 characterization. I did not retrieve the full Image File Wrapper / USPTO Patent Center prosecution history, so the examiner's specific claim rejections are not verified here.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual disclosures of the five references cited on the face of the '314 patent, then map them claim-by-claim.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 6,607,314 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Governing law. The '314 patent has an effective filing date of 2000‑10‑03, so pre‑AIA § 103(a) governs; Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) supply the framework. No single reference anticipates (§ 102), so § 103 is the operative invalidity vehicle and PTAB estoppel is irrelevant (cross‑reference: the earlier PTAB section — no AIA trial was ever filed on this patent, so no § 315(e)(2) estoppel constrains any ground below).

Scope of analysis. Per instruction, I use only the prior art on the face of this page — the five cited references. I verified each reference's actual disclosure by retrieval (URLs cited below) rather than relying on the patent's characterization of them. Where I could not verify, I say so.

1. The prior art actually in play (literal reading of the record)

Corroborant from the same family: the granted European member of the '208 family (EP 0 878 305 B1) recites, verbatim: "determining if a printer driver indication in the module memory notes a newer driver procedure than the current driver procedure being used with the inkjet apparatus; and if yes, causing the apparatus to connect to an internet website to enable information from the website to be downloaded." (PDF) Evidentiary caveat: I retrieved this claim text but did not verify (a) the B1 grant date, or (b) whether the internet‑download language appears in the pre‑2000 published A2/A3 text of 1998‑11‑18 / 1998‑12‑02, or only in the granted (post‑filing) claims. That distinction controls whether it is § 102(b) art for this limitation. Verify before relying on it.

Applicant‑admitted prior art in the '314 Background (usable per MPEP 2129). The specification states that device manufacturers "maintain customer service facilities including databases for users to download the latest versions of device supported device drivers," that "the assignee of the instant patent application maintains an Internet web site for users to download the most recent version of device drivers," and that registered customers are notified when drivers are updated. This is an admission that Internet‑based distribution of printer drivers, with update notification, was known and in commercial use before October 2000.

2. Person of ordinary skill and claim construction

POSITA (proposed; my construction, not the record's): a bachelor's degree in EE, CS, or equivalent, plus about two years' experience in networked printing, printer driver software, or peripheral firmware, or equivalent work experience. All five references are in the same field of endeavor — printer driver distribution and host/printer communication — so the analogous‑art threshold is met for each.

Key terms, construed on the intrinsic record:

• "a driver … for generating print messages for said printer" — the host‑side printer driver of FIG. 1 (driver 38), which translates GDI output into PCL. Notably, the printer stores and forwards this code but does not execute it; the claim requires only storage and communication.
• "download a driver from a remote resource via the Internet" (claim 1 only) — the spec's remote resource is server 40 / database 42 / remote database 46. Claims 8 and 15 omit this limitation entirely (builds on the earlier section's asymmetry note).
• "parse a second version identifier from a print message" — the spec's microprocessor 14 "parsing the stream to detect the version." The identifier is embedded in the print stream — not obtained out of band.
• "does not match" — deliberately minimal. The claim requires no ordering (the second version need not be older), no comparison to a remote "latest" list, and no authentication, integrity check, or provenance requirement.
• "communicates said downloaded driver to said client system" — requires transfer of the driver itself; a mere banner or URL message does not read on it (a point that matters below, and one the patent owner will press).

3. Element‑by‑element mapping of independent claim 1

Result: every element of claim 1 appears in the four‑reference combination of '177 + '208 + '992 (with '191 as the enabling/unitary‑printer‑node reference), except that the "via the Internet" phrasing requires the '208‑family website disclosure or the applicant‑admitted website art. Claims 8 and 15 require neither, and are therefore exposed on '177 + '208 + '992 + '191 alone.

4. Why a POSITA would have combined these references (the motivation prong)

Primary ground (§ 103): '177 in view of '208, further in view of '191 and '992.

1. The references own the same problem and the same goal. '177 states the problem in terms the '314 repeats verbatim in its own Background: "as new printer drivers are provided by manufacturers to correct previously discovered defects or to provide enhancements … each client computer must receive a new printer driver." '177's stated objective is "central administration and updating of printer driver installations." '314's stated objective is functionally identical. Where the problem is shared and stated, the solution is not inventive.
2. '208 already moved the currency‑detection function into the printer. '208 discloses printer‑resident memory holding a printer driver indication, a determination by the printer (via microprocessor 40) that a newer driver procedure exists than the one currently used with the printer, and an automatic notification. Substituting the printer for '177's file server as the entity that knows the driver is stale is a simple substitution of one known element for another yielding a predictable result. '152 and '177's own I/O card 30 (microprocessor + shared memory on the printer side) show the printer already had the hardware to do it.
3. '191 makes the printer a first‑class network actor. '191's printer advertises itself, is queried by the server, and has data about itself delivered to the requesting client automatically. Once the printer is an autonomous network node that already supplies printer‑related data to clients, making it the node that fetches and supplies the driver for itself is an improvement of a similar device by a known technique, not an invention.
4. '992 supplies the parsing mechanism and its motivation. '992 teaches that control information can be embedded in the print stream itself and detected by the printer, with the printer evaluating that information and responding over the same link. A POSITA seeking to let the printer detect driver staleness would use the stream the printer is already receiving — the '314's own "parse the version from the PCL stream" — rather than require a new out‑of‑band protocol. This is the classic "use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way" rationale.
5. Internet delivery is admitted art. The '314 Background admits manufacturer web sites for driver download and registered‑user update notification; the '208 family recites a printer connecting to an internet website to download. Applying a known technique (web‑based driver distribution) to a known device (a network‑attached printer) is a textbook KSR ground, and here the technique was already documented as applied to this exact class of software.
6. Relocation/reversal of the information flow with unchanged function. The '314's only structural departure from '177 is that the repository and the update authority move from the server to the driven device. KSR squarely covers such rearrangements where "the improvement is [no] more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Nothing in the claims recites any consequence of the reversal — no authentication, no quarantine, no trusted‑source restriction — so the reversal buys nothing beyond the predictable result ('177's own stated result: the client ends up with the current driver).
7. No hindsight gap. '177 and '191 are not merely "out there" — they are cited and expressly incorporated by reference in the '314 specification itself, and '152 and '208 bear examiner asterisks. The inventors' own starting point and the examiner's own applied art are the references doing the work here.

For dependent claims 4/11/18 (ceasing bitmap generation): '152 establishes that the printer's CPU is what fills the bitmap memory and that a DMA controller drains it — so ceasing to fill the bitmap is the printer's ordinary way of halting a page; and '177 expressly acknowledges that installing a new driver "can cause substantial network interruption," showing the art already contemplated suspending work to change drivers. Counter‑consideration I must flag honestly: '992's stated objective is to change communication modes without disturbing an in‑progress job, which a patent owner can characterize as teaching away from claim 4's cessation step. I would rate claims 4/11/18 as the weakest of the dependent claims on this reference set alone; a petitioner would likely want additional art on print‑job abort/restart.

5. Dependent claims

6. The patent owner's best rebuttals (and why I expect most to fail)

1. "'208 only displays a message; it does not download or push a driver." Correct and material — but that is why '177 is joined. '177 discloses the delivery of the current driver procedure from a repository to the client. The combination covers the "communicate the driver" element; the test is whether the references together teach the claimed subject matter, not whether one reference bodily incorporates another (see In re Keller).
2. "Secondary reference cannot supply the missing claim limitation." Misapplied here — '177 is the primary reference for the update mechanism (it is incorporated into the spec and is examiner‑before art), not a peripheral secondary reference.
3. Technological prejudice: no POSITA would trust a peripheral to push executable driver code. Potentially the best argument, but (a) the claims recite no security, authentication, or integrity element, so any prejudice must be shown to have been a recognized barrier in the art; (b) '177 already distributes driver procedures over the network to clients within the same trust domain; (c) '208 already places driver‑update data and update‑triggering logic in printer‑attached memory. No evidence of record supports this argument, and it would require expert testimony I have not seen.
4. Teaching away via '177's "substantial network interruption" statement. This cuts both ways: it acknowledges that driver installation interrupts client work (supporting claim 4), but it does not disparage locating the driver at the device; it disparages unmanaged, disruptive installation.
5. Examiner allowed claim 1 over '208. True as a matter of record (the earlier sections note '208 bears an examiner asterisk), but examiner allowance is not a holding of non‑obviousness; the Office's evidentiary record here is unknown to me (see § 7).
6. Secondary considerations. I found no evidence of unexpected results, industry praise, licensing, or nexus‑bearing commercial success in the material available, and the patent's history (cross‑reference the earlier sections: lapse for non‑payment effective 2015‑08‑19) suggests the assignee itself did not treat the asset as commercially significant. That is not affirmative evidence of obviousness, but it means there is no objective‑indicia rebuttal to counter.

7. Evidence gaps and verification steps

I hit a tool step limit on my final query and could not retrieve the '314's prosecution history (file wrapper). Accordingly:

• I cannot state whether the examiner actually applied '177, '191, '992, '152 or '208 in a § 103 rejection, nor whether the "via the Internet" phrase in claim 1 was added by amendment to overcome art. That is the single highest‑value verification item — an examiner rejection over '177 + '208 would be strong estoppel‑adjacent support for this ground. Pull it from USPTO Patent Center / Global Dossier for application 09/679,229.
• Verify the EP 0 878 305 publication chain: the A2 (1998‑11‑18) and A3 (1998‑12‑02) texts versus the B1 (grant) text, to determine whether "connect to an internet website to enable information from the website to be downloaded" was in the pre‑2000 disclosure. If it was only added at grant, use the applicant‑admitted website art instead for the Internet limitation.
• Verify the disclosure dates of US 6,113,208's two parents (Ser. No. 08/651,221, 1996‑05‑22, and Ser. No. 08/856,262, 1997‑05‑14) for whatever specification text supports the printer‑initiated website download.

Contradictions with the earlier generated sections (flagged, not silently corrected):

• The earlier PTAB section attributes references by inventor as "US 5,511,152 to Duhamel/DEC" and "US 5,633,992 to Dhuey" and "US 6,113,208 to Cook et al." The supplied Google Patents record gives no inventor names for any of the five citations, and my retrieval indicates '152's inventors of record are Charles C. Lai and Wayne R. Bortman (USPTO.report), while the '208 family's named inventors on the EP member are Childers, Axtell, Bullock, and Benjamin (Espacenet EP 0 878 305). The names "Duhamel," "Dhuey," and "Cook" are unsupported by anything I retrieved. Treat them as unverified; do not carry them into a filing.
• The earlier summary's "US 5,620,177 — sic, the record lists US 5,580,177" note is correct and consistent with the record: every table on this page lists US 5,580,177, and I use that number literally throughout.

8. Bottom line

No reference anticipates, but the claims are vulnerable under § 103. The strongest ground is US 5,580,177 in view of US 6,113,208, further in view of US 5,832,191 and US 5,633,992 — with US 5,511,152 supplying the printer memory/bitmap architecture and the applicant's own Background admissions supplying Internet‑based driver distribution. '177 supplies the central driver repository, the version comparison, and the delivery of the current driver to the client; '208 supplies printer‑side storage of the driver‑version indication and the printer's own determination that a newer driver exists with notification to the user; '191 supplies the printer as an autonomous network node that supplies its own data to clients without administrator intervention; and '992 supplies the printer parsing embedded data out of the incoming print stream and responding over the same channel. Relocating '177's repository from the file server into the printer — the '314's only structural move — is a predictable rearrangement with no claimed consequence beyond the result '177 already sought, and every KSR rationale (known‑element substitution, known technique applied to a similar device, predictable result) is available on these references.

Claims 8 and 15 are the easiest targets (no Internet limitation). Claims 5/12/19 are effectively met verbatim by '208. The only genuinely contestable claims are 4/11/18 (cessation of bitmap generation), where '992's non‑disruptive‑transition objective can be pitched as teaching away. And the single most useful unverified item is the '314 prosecution history: if the examiner allowed claim 1 by amendment over '177/'208, that record both strengthens this ground and tells you exactly how the patent owner will distinguish it.