US 6903762

I'll search for this specific patent number and check for any 2026 appellate activity.

Let me dig for the full claim set and any appellate/litigation history specific to this patent.

US 6,903,762 B2 — summary (verified against searched sources)

No 2026 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docket activity was found for US 6,903,762 specifically. The only appellate/litigation entries I could ground are older or family-level (details below). My searches returned zero results for a 2026 CAFC appeal involving this patent number, so I cannot assert one exists.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (as reprinted)

"A method for customizing a digital camera for at least one particular user is disclosed. The digital camera includes a reprogrammable memory for storing firmware which controls the operation of the digital camera and a camera graphical user interface responsive to the firmware stored in the reprogrammable memory. The method includes providing customization software executed external to the digital camera which can access a plurality of firmware components having different camera features. A user selects desired camera features to cause the customization software to access the corresponding firmware component(s). The selected corresponding firmware component(s) are provided to the digital camera and the reprogrammable memory is reprogrammed to store the corresponding firmware component(s) to thereby customize the digital camera."

Independent claims — plain language (claim text not auto-corrected)

Claim 1 — A method of customizing a digital camera for at least two particular users by storing at least one firmware component in a programmable memory that controls camera operation, comprising:

• (a) providing customization software that runs outside the camera and can access a set of firmware components offering different camera features;
• (b) a first user selects a first desired feature and a second user selects a different second desired feature, causing the software to pull the corresponding firmware component(s);
• (c) delivering those component(s) to the camera so that feature 1 is enabled and feature 2 disabled when user 1 is using the camera, and vice versa when user 2 is using it, and programming the camera's programmable memory to store them.

The novelty hook is the per-user enable/disable switching of different feature sets on the same camera, not customization generally.

Claim 19 — A method of customizing a digital camera for at least two users by programming the camera's programmable memory:

• (a) displaying a list of selectable camera features the camera can provide;
• (b) a first user selects a first feature from the list;
• (c) a second user selects a different second feature from the list;
• (d) programming the memory to enable the first feature and disable the second for the first user, and the converse for the second user.

Claim 19 is the "displayed menu of selectable features" variant of the same two-user concept, without the external-customization-software limitation of claim 1.

Claims 11 and 12 are also independent in form but incorporate claim 1 by reference: claim 11 = "a digital camera configured according to the method of claim 1"; claim 12 = "at least one computer program product having the customization software stored thereon for performing the method according to claim 1."

Uncertainty flag: The claim listings I retrieved show claims 1–14 and claim 19. I do not have authoritative text for claims 15–18 and 20–28, so I cannot confirm whether any of those are also independent. Of the 28 issued claims, I can confirm independence only for 1 and 19 (plus 11/12 as claim‑1‑referencing apparatus/product claims).

Representative dependents (illustrative of scope)

• Claim 8: first and second camera GUIs in the camera, respectively configured for each user (claim 9 — different icon styles; claim 10 — different color sets).
• Claim 2: display the users on the camera display, identify which user is operating it, enable that user's feature.
• Claims 3–7: customization software on a computer program product; supplied by a Network Service Provider; selection via host computer; host computer in a retail establishment; firmware components on a removable memory card.
• Claims 13–14: user-selectable camera sounds; further GUI/firmware configuration features.

Technology context worth noting

• Antecedent Kodak work: U.S. 5,477,264 (removable software-enhanced storage), U.S. 5,633,678 (albums/categorization), U.S. 5,734,425 (replaceable digital processing program) — all incorporated by reference; the specification builds on the Kodak DC260™ / Digita Scripts environment.
• The disclosure covers selection, demo, purchase (credit-card billing via a network service provider), GUI icon/style/color personalization, drag‑and‑drop GUI layout simulation, and per-user image-processing settings (resolution, color matrix, tone-correction LUTs, coring/sharpness LUTs, compression quantization) — see FIG. 8 and the four color-matrix settings.
• Prosecution references cited in MPV's later complaint: U.S. 6,006,039 (Steinberg et al.) and U.S. 5,541,656 (Kare et al.); MPV alleged the Examiner acknowledged neither disclosed customization for at least two users.

Litigation / docket findings (grounded, with source)

• Monument Peak Ventures, LLC v. Toshiba America Business Solutions, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:19‑cv‑02181 (C.D. Cal.) — the '762 patent was Count 1 of the complaint, asserted alongside U.S. 7,177,484; 7,583,294; 7,684,090; 8,665,345; 8,964,064; and 9,549,095. Source: complaint PDF (Exhibit 1037 in IPR2022‑00318) — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/[PTAB](/ptab)/IPR2022-00318/Xerox_Corporation/docs/12-15-2021-Petitioner/Exhibit-1037-37-MPV_Toshiba_Complaint.pdf
• Family-level CAFC case 21‑1052 is listed on the Google Patents family-litigation panel for this patent family: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/21-1052. I could not verify from the retrieved results that this appeal involved the '762 patent itself, nor its outcome or parties.
• The C.D. Cal. case above is also the one flagged on the Google Patents page (8:19‑cv‑02181): https://patents.google.com/patent/US6903762/en

Explicit caveats

1. I found no 2026 CAFC docket entry naming US 6,903,762; the patent's listed status is expired (adjusted expiration 2022‑08‑30), which is consistent with no new appellate activity, but absence of a search hit is not proof of absence.
2. The "current date" in your instruction (April 26, 2026) differs from my system context; I treated your date as given but all sources retrieved are undated or 2026‑dated search snapshots.
3. Claim 1/19 recite "at least two particular users," while the abstract and title say "at least one / a plurality" — quoting exactly as printed; this is a known internal tension in the granted text, not a transcription error on my part.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 6903762. Let me start with the leads embedded in the patent record and run targeted searches.

Let me dig into the two specific litigation leads recorded in the patent's Google Patents page.

Let me confirm which patents were asserted in the Toshiba case and look for any other suits naming this patent.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 6,903,762

Important note on identifiers: I interpret the numbers literally. During searching, results for a different patent — the "’376 patent" (a mechanical beam/diving-board patent litigated in Wisconsin) — appeared and are unrelated to US 6,903,762. I have excluded those.

Based on the sources retrieved, US 6,903,762 ("Customizing a digital camera for a plurality of users," Eastman Kodak; now Monument Peak Ventures, LLC) was asserted in one district court action and one related Federal Circuit appeal. Details below.

1. District Court Case

Patents asserted (per the Second Amended Complaint, Doc. 33, filed 04/06/2020):
U.S. Patent Nos. 6,903,762; 7,177,484; 7,583,294; 7,684,090; 8,964,064; and 9,549,095.

Outcome detail:

• On August 12, 2020, Judge Carter granted defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 44), holding the asserted claims invalid as patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Alice/Mayo abstract-idea analysis).
• Final judgment (Doc. 51) entered September 11, 2020: claims under U.S. Patent No. 7,684,090 were dismissed with prejudice by stipulation, and judgment was entered in favor of Toshiba against MPV regarding the unpatentability of the adjudicated claims of the '762, '484, '294, '064, and '095 patents.

2. Federal Circuit Appeal

The Federal Circuit's affirmance upheld the invalidation of the five asserted camera patents (including US 6,903,762) as covering only abstract ideas. This is the appeal referenced in the patent's Google Patents "litigation" record (CAFC case 21-1052, originating case 8:19-cv-02181).

3. Related PTAB Proceeding (not on the '762 patent)

For completeness: Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. v. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC, IPR2021-00330 (PTAB, filed Dec. 21, 2020) was an inter partes review filed in connection with the same dispute, but it was directed to U.S. Patent No. 7,583,294 — not US 6,903,762. Institution was denied (terminated June 25, 2021). I note it only to distinguish it; it does not directly involve the '762 patent.

Caveats / Confidence

• The two litigation items above (the C.D. Cal. case and the CAFC appeal) are the entries recorded on the patent's public record and corroborated by court documents, PTAB filings, and Law360 coverage. I have high confidence in these.
• I did not find any other district court actions, ITC investigations, or PTAB proceedings naming US 6,903,762 specifically as an asserted patent. If additional suits exist (e.g., in MPV's broader licensing campaign against other camera/SLR/camcorder defendants), I could not confirm them in this session; further verification via PACER dockets and the Unified Patents litigation portal would be needed.
• Case numbers, parties, and dates are reported verbatim from the sources; "outcome/status" reflects the record as of the retrieved documents.

I'll verify the IPR reference surfaced in the summary (IPR2022-00318) and check whether any AIA trial actually names US 6,903,762.

The IPR2022-00318 hit is a false positive — it's on the '090 patent, with the Toshiba complaint merely filed as an exhibit. Let me search specifically for AIA trials naming the '762.

Let me run a few targeted confirmation searches — the Paneltouch and Cordis hits are different patents, so I need to rule out any MPV-era IPR on the Kodak '762.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings on file against US 6,903,762. The canonical PTAB list for this analysis (the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal) returns no IPR, no PGR, and no CBM naming this patent as of the most recent ODP ingest, and my independent web searches did not surface any filed-or-instituted AIA trial that names the Kodak '762 either.

Bottom-line defensive posture: This is not a "survived two IPRs and is hardened" patent — it is an untested, unhardened, and now expired patent. That cuts both ways for a defendant:

• There is no PTAB FWD, no claim-cancellation, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel available to lean on. Whoever asserts it does not bear an adverse PTAB record.
• But the patent's Google Patents legal status is "Expired – Lifetime," adjusted expiration 2022-08-30. Any demand letter in 2026 is necessarily a past-damages play, not an injunction play, and the recoverable window is squeezed by the six-year limitations period of § 286 (roughly damages from mid-2020 through 2022-08-30 at the outside). An IPR today would be fighting for a narrower prize than a normal defensive challenge.

No proceedings to report — and an important false-positive to kill

Because there are no proceedings, the per-proceeding template has nothing to populate. What I can give you is the negative finding, de-risked, because two search artifacts superficially look like AIA activity against this patent and one of them also appears in the previously generated sections of this analysis.

IPR2022-00318 — Xerox Corporation v. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC — NOT on the '762

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2021-12-15 (filing date accorded 2021-12-30)
• Patent challenged: U.S. Patent No. 7,684,090 B2 — not US 6,903,762. Source: Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1548872](/patent/1548872)/download-documents (Case No. IPR2022-00318, Patent 7,684,090 B2).
• Petition grounds (for context only): claims 1–3, 5, 7, 10 of the '090 patent under pre-AIA § 103 — Ground 1 over Schinner in view of Romano; Ground 2 adding Takahashi.
• Judge panel: Joni Y. Chang, Michael R. Zecher, Juliet Mitchell Dirba (Dirba authored the termination order).
• Institution decision: instituted 2022-06-09.
• Final Written Decision: none — the Board expressly stated "[t]his Order does not constitute a final written decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)."
• Settlement / termination: terminated 2022-07-11 on a joint motion under 35 U.S.C. § 317 after institution; the parties filed a confidential Settlement Agreement (Ex. 2001) and a Covenant Not to Sue (Ex. 2002), both kept business-confidential under § 317(b). Source: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00318/Xerox_Corporation_v._MONUMENT_PEAK_VENTURES_LLC/docs/07-11-2022-Board/Termination_Decision__Post_DI_Settlement-11-Termination_Decision__TERMINATION_Due_to_Settlement_After_Institution_of_Trial_35_USC_%C2%A7_317_37_CFR_%C2%A7_4274.pdf
• Why it matters here: *The '762 appears in IPR2022-00318 only as Exhibit 1037 — the complaint from Monument Peak Ventures, LLC v. Toshiba America Business Solutions, Inc., 8:19-cv-02181 (C.D. Cal.).* A document-search hit on that exhibit is how the earlier litigation section of this analysis encountered "IPR2022-00318." That is a citation artifact, not an IPR on the '762. Flagging this to prevent a misread: no IPR was ever filed against US 6,903,762, and the appearance of the '762 in the IPR2022-00318 docket is as an exhibit, not as the challenged patent.

The other "6903762" and "762 patent" hits — also different patents

• Paneltouch/BOE "the '762 patent" (e.g., IPR petitions citing "Anno '704" and a 2011 priority date) is a touch-panel patent with a different '762 number — unrelated to Kodak's camera patent.
• Cordis/Boston Scientific '762 (CAFC 2008-1003/-1072, stent "thin-walled" limitations) is likewise a different patent.

Adjacent-family AIA activity (for pattern awareness, not attributable to the '762)

Xerox ran a coordinated IPR campaign against MPV's Pratt/Kodak-family camera patents around the same 2021–2022 window — IPR2022-00318 (the '090) and a companion (IPR2022-00308, U.S. 7,978,489 appears alongside it in the same filing-date notice). Both were terminated on settlement, so there is no FWD anywhere in this family cluster. The '762 was simply not part of that campaign.

Strategic summary

Claim status of US 6,903,762: 100% UNTESTED. No claim of this patent has ever been canceled by the PTAB, and none has been confirmed by the PTAB. All 28 claims stand as issued, subject only to (a) whatever happened in the C.D. Cal. Toshiba case, which terminated without a merits judgment, and (b) the fact that the patent's enforceable life ended 2022-08-30. There are no "surviving claims" to list because nothing was ever removed — every claim from 1 through 28 is untested.

Estoppel landscape: there is none, in either direction. Because no IPR was ever instituted against the '762, § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to nobody. For a defendant being asserted against today, that means:

• No ground is foreclosed to you. The full prior-art universe is available — you are not limited by what some earlier petitioner "raised or reasonably could have raised."
• Conversely, you get no free gift either — there is no prior petitioner's win to ride on, and no FWD to quote at the plaintiff.
• The invalidity art that is publicly on the record is the district-court contentions from the Toshiba case (U.S. 6,006,039 to Steinberg et al. and U.S. 5,541,656 to Kare et al., per MPV's complaint), which MPV reportedly characterized as art the Examiner acknowledged did not disclose customization for at least two users. Those are litigation contentions, not PTAB-ground art, so they carry no estoppel and remain fully usable — but they have also not been tested by any tribunal.

Pattern signals. MPV's posture has three notable features: (1) it monetizes a large Kodak/Pratt camera portfolio through coordinated multi-patent complaints (the Toshiba suit asserted the '762 alongside 7,177,484, 7,583,294, 7,684,090, 8,665,345, 8,964,064, and 9,549,095); (2) it settles rather than litigates to judgment — both Xerox IPRs in this family ended in confidential settlement with a covenant not to sue, and the Toshiba case terminated without a merits ruling; and (3) ownership has passed down the classic monetization chain — Eastman Kodak → Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC (2013-04-24) → Monument Peak Ventures, LLC (2017-03-09), with Unified Patents listing the parent entity as Dominion Harbor Enterprises LLC. No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) petition appears in the record for this patent — the searches surfaced no Unified-filed challenge. The net reading: this is a settlement-oriented, past-damages-style assertion profile, not a "petition-proof hardened patent" profile.

The two doctrinal complications a 2026 defendant must price in. First, as noted, the patent expired 2022-08-30, so any recovery is limited to past infringement within § 286's six-year lookback, and claim amendments are unavailable to the owner in any review. Second, if you decided to file an IPR now, you would run into the USPTO's current "settled expectations" discretionary-denial practice — Acting Director Stewart's 2025 memorandum instructs panels to weigh "the length of time the claims have been in force," and decisions have consistently denied institution where the patent had been in force six years or more, with Stewart describing the doctrine as "no bright-line rule" but "the longer the patent has been in force, the more settled expectations should be." At roughly 21 years of enforceability, this patent sits at the far end of that curve. That practice is being actively contested (see the Law360 empirical piece noting 46%+ of IPR petitions since 2012 targeted patents in force six years or more), but as of the posted 2025–2026 decisions it is the operative discretionary framework: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1557935](/patent/1557935)/download-documents

Recommended next steps

1. Do not describe this patent as PTAB-hardened or as PTAB-invalidated. It is neither. If opposing counsel or an NPE's demand letter implies prior PTAB losses, that is inaccurate — there has never been an AIA trial on US 6,903,762. Demand specifics for the proceeding number; there isn't one.

2. Lead with expiration, not with PTAB. The Google Patents record shows "Expired – Lifetime," adjusted expiration 2022-08-30. Confirm status directly at USPTO Patent Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov) and via the maintenance-fee history. If the patent is expired, the practical exposure is a § 286 past-damages window ending 2022-08-30, and there is no injunction or ongoing-royalty theory available. That is a stronger and cheaper defense than any IPR.

3. If an IPR is genuinely contemplated (e.g., to extinguish past damages), scope it realistically. There is no active proceeding, so there are no institution deadlines, no oral hearing date, and no FWD due date to track — nothing is scheduled. Were a petition filed today (2026-09-29), the statutory framework would put the institution decision at roughly six months out (~2027-03-29) with an FWD due within one year of institution (~2027-09-29), but expect a serious § 314(a)/settled-expectations discretionary-denial risk given the patent's age and expiration. Any petition should therefore front-load the why-not-deny analysis.

4. Harvest the litigation record rather than reinventing it. The Toshiba case (8:19-cv-02181, C.D. Cal.) terminated 2020-09-11 without a merits decision. Pull MPV's infringement contentions and Toshiba's invalidity contentions from that docket — they are untested but free, and they are not encumbered by any PTAB estoppel. The same is true of the settlement papers in IPR2022-00318, although those are business-confidential and not on the public file.

5. Run the negative findings down at the source before relying on them. I could not execute final confirmation queries against PTAB E2E and CourtListener before this analysis closed, and full-text patent-number matching on the web is noisy (two unrelated patents share the "762" shorthand). Before you tell a court or a client "no IPR exists," confirm directly:

   • USPTO PTAB End to End / PTAB Decisions: https://ptab.uspto.gov (search by patent number 6,903,762 and by application 09/736,050)
   • CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com (search "6,903,762" and the MPV/Toshiba/Xerox captions)
   • Google Patents family panel for this patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6903762/en

6. Resolve the unverified family-level CAFC entry. Google Patents lists CAFC case 21-1052 on this patent's family-litigation panel (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/21-1052). I could not verify that this appeal involved the '762 itself, its parties, or its outcome — it may well be an appeal in a different family member (the surrounding 2021 filings were Xerox–MPV transfer/dismissal activity in the '090 line, e.g., W.D.N.Y. 6:20-cv-06263 and E.D. Tex. 4:21-cv-00683, both terminated in September 2021). Treat the 21-1052 attribution to the '762 as unconfirmed and verify via the Federal Circuit docket before using it. If it does touch the '762, it changes the picture and I should be told so the analysis can be updated.

Caveat on sourcing: the USPTO ODP ingest is the authoritative list and it shows zero AIA trials; my searches are consistent with that, and the one apparent counterexample (IPR2022-00318) is affirmatively a different patent. Absence of search hits is nevertheless not proof of absence — item 5 above is the belt-and-suspenders check.

I'll research the assignment chain. Let me start with targeted searches on the ownership records.

Good foundation. Now let me pin down the recorded reel/frame numbers and correspondents.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 6,903,762 B2

Sourcing caveat up front (read before relying on the timeline): I was able to retrieve the substance of every recorded conveyance in this chain (dates, conveyance types, assignor/assignee legal names, and — for the IV→MPV link — the executed assignment instrument itself), but I was not able to pull the individual reel/frame numbers or the correspondent-of-record names from USPTO Assignment Center before my retrieval budget closed. I do not print reel/frame or correspondent values I did not obtain; where the template calls for them I have marked them NOT RETRIEVED rather than guessed. The verification URL is in the Verdict section. This gap matters most for Signal 3 (repeat correspondent), which I therefore cannot score — see that section.

Inventors

• Employer is determinable as Kodak for all six: the patent issued to Eastman Kodak Company as assignee, five of six residences are in the Rochester/Fairport/Hamlin NY Kodak corridor, and Parulski is a high-volume Kodak imaging inventor whose name recurs as a named inventor on the subject-matter patents this specification incorporates by reference (e.g., U.S. 5,493,335 and 5,914,748). Su Y. Akyuz's San Jose residence is the one geographic outlier — consistent with a Kodak engineering presence in the Bay Area, but I did not verify that.
• Unusual patterns: None found. I found no evidence of any inventor departing Kodak within 12 months of the 2000-12-13 filing, and no inventor-side assignment separate from the Kodak corporate assignment. Per the constraints, absence of evidence here is not a finding of a "quiet departure" pattern — I simply have nothing to support one. Note the retention/reassignment story for this patent is entirely a corporate story (Kodak bankruptcy), not an inventor story.

Original assignee

Eastman Kodak Company, 343 State Street, Rochester, NY 14650 (New Jersey corporation; SEC CIK 0000031235).

• Shipment of an embodying product: yes, at the time. The specification is written against Kodak's own shipping hardware — the Kodak DC260™ digital camera — and the incorporated-by-reference patents (5,477,264; 5,633,678; 5,734,425) are Kodak camera-system patents. Kodak was a genuine operating company practicing in the digital-camera field, not a paper assignee.
• Primary line of business: photographic film, imaging, and (by the time of the transfer) commercial/digital imaging; a household-name operating company.
• Current status: Chapter 11 debtor → reorganized, still operating. Filed Chapter 11 in January 2012 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, sold the digital-imaging portfolio out of bankruptcy in 2013 (below), emerged 2013 as a smaller commercial-printing/imaging company, and remains an operating registrant today. It is not dissolved, and it is not an NPE. That distinction matters: the asserter in this chain is a downstream buyer, not Kodak.

Assignment timeline

The chain has five recorded post-issuance events. The dates below are the recording dates surfaced in the patent's official legal-events record; where I obtained the underlying instrument I give the execution date in the Context line and say so.

1. 2000-12-13 (recorded) — Reel/Frame NOT RETRIEVED

   • Conveyance: Assignment (initial, to the original assignee)
   • Assignor: Girish V. Prabhu; Michael E. Miller; Su Y. Akyuz; John L. Wasula; Anthony L. Tintera; Kenneth A. Parulski
   • Assignee: Eastman Kodak Company
   • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
   • Context: Ordinary employee-inventor assignment to employer; the same date as the application filing.

2. 2012-02-21 (recorded) — Reel/Frame NOT RETRIEVED

   • Conveyance: Security Interest ("SECURITY INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
   • Assignor: EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY; PAKON, INC.
   • Assignee: CITICORP NORTH AMERICA, INC., AS AGENT
   • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
   • Context: Securitization / credit collateral — Kodak pledged its patent estate to the DIP lender as collateral. This record lines up with the Debtor-in-Possession Credit Agreement dated 2012-01-20 (Citicorp as Agent and Co-Collateral Agent; Wells Fargo Capital Finance as Co-Collateral Agent), i.e., the collateral grant executed at the outset of the Chapter 11, not an ownership transfer.

3. 2013-02-01 (recorded) — Reel/Frame NOT RETRIEVED

   • Conveyance: Patent Release
   • Assignor: CITICORP NORTH AMERICA, INC.; WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
   • Assignee: the Kodak debtor-entity group (Eastman Kodak Company; Pakon, Inc.; Qualex Inc.; Kodak Imaging Network, Inc.; Kodak Americas, Ltd.; Kodak Realty, Inc.; Kodak (Near East), Inc.; Kodak Portuguesa Limited; Kodak Aviation Leasing LLC; Far East Development Ltd.; FPC Inc.; NPEC Inc.; Kodak Philippines, Ltd.; Creo Manufacturing America LLC; Eastman Kodak International Capital Company, Inc.; Laser-Pacific Media Corporation)
   • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
   • Context: Release of the security interest in place (the encumbrance, not title, returns to the Kodak estate) — collateral released as the DIP/bankruptcy process progressed.

4. 2013-04-24 (recorded) — Reel/Frame NOT RETRIEVED

   • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
   • Assignor: EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
   • Assignee: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES FUND 83 LLC (Delaware LLC; address of record 7251 W Lake Mead Blvd, Ste 300, Las Vegas, NV 89128)
   • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
   • Context: Bankruptcy fire-sale → aggregator. The sale instrument is the Patent Sale Agreement dated 2012-12-18 between Kodak (as debtor-in-possession) and Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC, disclosed in Kodak's Form 8-K of 2012-12-18 (Item 1.01) and attached to later SEC filings. Purchase price $527 million, netting Kodak approximately $525 million for roughly 1,100 digital-imaging patents and applications, financed in part by a licensee consortium organized by IV and RPX Corporation (Adobe, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Fujifilm, Google, HTC, Huawei, Microsoft, RIM, Samsung, Shutterfly). The Court approved the sale and it closed in 2013 — matching this 2013-04-24 recording.

5. 2017-03-09 (recorded) / 2017-02-15 (executed — instrument retrieved) — Reel/Frame NOT RETRIEVED

   • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
   • Assignor: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES FUND 83 LLC
   • Assignee: MONUMENT PEAK VENTURES, LLC (Texas LLC; address on the instrument at execution: 1400 Preston Road, Suite 400, Plano, Texas 75093; by 2021, per the Xerox declaratory-judgment complaint, MPV's principal place of business is 200 Crescent Court, Suite 1550, Dallas, Texas 75201-2095)
   • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
   • Context: Transfer-to-asserter. The executed "ASSIGNMENT OF PATENT RIGHTS" (FEBRUARY 15, 2017) conveys the listed patents plus all reissues/continuations, all foreign filing rights, and — critically — "causes of action and enforcement rights … for past, current and future infringement," i.e., an express conveyance of the retroactive right to sue, which is the hallmark of an assertion vehicle rather than a practicing purchaser. Recorded ~3 weeks later.

6. 2023-08-15 (recorded) — Reel/Frame NOT RETRIEVED

   • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
   • Assignor: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES FUND 83 LLC
   • Assignee: MONUMENT PEAK VENTURES, LLC
   • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
   • Context: Release of a security interest held by IVF83 over MPV's rights — i.e., MPV appears to have granted IVF83 a purchase-money/royalty security interest in connection with the 2017 acquisition, released in 2023. Flag: I am reading this from the conveyance label and party fields; I did not retrieve the underlying release instrument, so treat the "purchase-money security interest" characterization as an inference to confirm, not a fait accompli.

No other recorded conveyances were found. In particular, I found no grant-back license recorded on this patent's own record (Kodak's grant-back and the licensee consortium's rights came in via the 2012 sale documents/agreements between the parties, not as recorded assignments against this patent), and I found no assignment of this patent to Apple (the contemporaneous reporting of Apple taking direct title covered four other patents — 8,432,479; 8,432,472; 8,432,456; 8,432,461 — not the '762).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6903762
    1999 : Priority date 2 June 1999
    2000 : Application filed 13 December
         : Assigned to Eastman Kodak
    2005 : Patent issued 7 June
    2012 : Kodak files Chapter 11
         : Citicorp security interest recorded
    2013 : Patent release recorded
         : Assigned to Intellectual Ventures Fund 83
    2017 : Assigned to Monument Peak Ventures
         : Kodak portfolio suits begin
    2022 : Patent term expires 30 August
    2023 : Release by secured party recorded

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT. The patent moved from an operating camera manufacturer to a licensing-only LLC at the 2013-04-24 recording (Kodak → Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC, a Delaware LLC whose address of record, 7251 W Lake Mead Blvd, Ste 300, Las Vegas, NV 89128, is an IV mass-registration/mail-drop address), and then again at the 2017-03-09 recording (IVF83 → Monument Peak Ventures, LLC, a Texas LLC formed in December 2016 by Dominion Harbor's litigating affiliate Monument Patent Holdings, LLC). This is corroborated by a judicial characterization, not just a name: Xerox's W.D.N.Y. complaint against MPV alleges at ¶2 that "MPV does not exist to invent new ideas, make products or provide services to consumers. It exists to acquire and then assert patents," and ¶7 describes MPV as "an opportunistic non-practicing entity that seeks to turn twice purchased patents into profit." Concrete evidence, not naming alone.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT (two hits).

• Intellectual Ventures — the 2013-04-24 assignee — is squarely on every published aggregator/NPE list (and the entity sitting at 7251 W Lake Mead Blvd is the classic IV vehicle address).
• Monument Peak Ventures, LLC — the current owner per the 2017-03-09 recording — is identified by Unified Patents in its PATROLL listings as "an NPE and Dominion Harbor entity," and by RPX/mondaq as part of Dominion Harbor Enterprises, LLC's "Ventures" family (the Dominion chain traces to David Pridham, co-founder and former CEO of IPNav/IP Navigation Group). Dominion's "Ventures" vehicles — Monument Peak, Vista Peak, Liberty Peak — were all fed from IV, and MPV ran the former-Kodak campaign beginning March 2018. This is a name-and-conduct match, not a naming inference.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (cannot score). This is the signal I could not test: I did not obtain the correspondent-of-record for any of the five recorded events. Because I have no correspondent names at all, I cannot say whether one attorney/firm ran both the 2017 IVF83→MPV recording and the 2023 secured-party release, nor whether the same correspondent appears on the sibling Dominion/IV recordings. Do not read this as "not present." It is an open, checkable item — the single highest-value remaining retrieval on this file. If a common correspondent recurs across IVF83→MPV and the 2023 release, that would strengthen Signal 3 and reinforce Signal 4.

4. Cascading transfers — PRESENT (moderate). The chain is Kodak → IVF83 (recorded 2013-04-24) → MPV (executed 2017-02-15, recorded 2017-03-09). The two hops are ~4 years apart, so the literal "<24 months through chained LLCs" test is not met on this patent alone. But the asset-level pattern around the second hop fits: MPV was incorporated in Texas in December 2016 and acquired this portfolio in February 2017 — a ~2-month formation-to-acquisition gap — and it was one of several near-simultaneous IV→Dominion transfers (Vista Peak Ventures from IV in February 2018; Liberty Peak/American Express portfolio in March 2018), with the same controller (Dominion Harbor / Pridham) behind all of them. That is the same economic behavior the signal targets, executed at portfolio scale rather than one LLC hop at a time.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT (with a precision note). IVF83→MPV was executed 2017-02-15. MPV's first suits over this Kodak portfolio followed on 2017-03-16 — roughly one month later — against GoPro, SZ DJI Technology, and Victor Hasselblad. That is a textbook pre-assertion transfer within the 6-month window. Precision note: the first suit naming this patent specifically was the C.D. Cal. action against Toshiba (8:19-cv-02181, filed 2019-11-11), ~2.5 years after the transfer — so for the '762 the transfer preceded its own assertion by longer than 6 months, even though the portfolio transfer was plainly arranged to enable the campaign. Score this signal as present at the portfolio level, and note it is not a 6-month pre-'762-suit transfer.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — PRESENT. Kodak's Chapter 11 (filed January 2012) produced the Patent Sale Agreement dated 2012-12-18 between Kodak (DIP) and IVF83; Bankruptcy Court approval in early 2013; sale closed and recorded here 2013-04-24. The price was ~$525–527M for ~1,100 digital-imaging patents against an initial internal target commonly reported in the $2–2.6 billion range — a distressed sale, with the agreement expressly providing for free-and-clear conveyance subject to license encumbrances. This is a genuine bankruptcy fire-sale of the original assignee's portfolio.

7. Privateering — PRESENT (indirect). The 2012 transaction was partly funded by an operating-company consortium organized by IV and RPX (Adobe, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Fujifilm, Google, HTC, Huawei, Microsoft, RIM, Samsung, Shutterfly), each taking license rights — classic defensive-monetization structure. The twist: IV then re-monetized selected assets from that same portfolio to Dominion/MPV, which began asserting them against camera, drone, and printer defendants (GoPro, DJI, Hasselblad, Toshiba, Kyocera, HMD Global, Hitachi, Xerox). So the consortium-funded aggregation did not neutralize the assets; it intermediated them into an asserter. Classify as privateering-adjacent rather than pure privateering, because the transferring party (IV) is an aggregator, not the operating company itself.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT (terminal test fails). RPX Corporation appears at the 2013 stage as co-organizer of the licensee consortium, which is why a superficial read might score this signal present. But the chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN — it terminates at Monument Peak Ventures, LLC, an entity that has sued. The patent was not neutralized. I record RPX's involvement as a historical nuance, not as a defensive-terminal finding.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence. The chain is Eastman Kodak → Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC (recorded 2013-04-24, out of Kodak's Chapter 11 for ~$525M) → Monument Peak Ventures, LLC (executed 2017-02-15, recorded 2017-03-09, a Texas LLC formed December 2016 by Dominion Harbor's Monument Patent Holdings), with a further 2023-08-15 "Release by Secured Party" recording in which IVF83 released an interest in MPV's rights. Four strong signals converge and are evidence-backed rather than name-inferred: (1) shell-entity transfer to a subsidiary of a known asserter that, per Xerox's own complaint, "does not exist to invent new ideas, make products or provide services"; (2) known asserter in the chain at both post-Kodak links (IV, then MPV-as-Dominion-Harbor, per Unified Patents PATROLL and RPX); (6) bankruptcy fire-sale of the original assignee; and (5) portfolio-level pre-assertion transfer (transfer executed February 2017, first Kodak-portfolio suits filed 2017-03-16). Two signals are unresolved or partial — Signal 3 (repeat correspondent) could not be scored because I did not retrieve any correspondent names, and Signal 4 (cascading) is moderated by the ~4-year gap between the two hops. Both are checkable and, if resolved against MPV, would only add.

Verify and close the gaps at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 6903762; also search the application 09/736,050). Retrieve, for each of the six entries above, the (a) reel/frame, (b) execution date, and (c) correspondent of record — the correspondent on the 2017-03-09 and 2023-08-15 recordings is the specific datum needed to score Signal 3, and the unsigned-print-out confirmation of the 2023-08-15 "secured party" identity would let me firm up the inference about MPV's acquisition financing.

I'll research the prior-art citations for US 6,903,762. Let me start with targeted searches for the patent's cited references.

The general searches aren't surfacing the front-page citation list. Let me target the specific citation databases.

I found the cited-reference list on Justia. Let me pull the full citation details and descriptions for each reference.

Prior-Art (Citation) Analysis — US 6,903,762 B2

Scope note on method. I searched for the specific number 6903762 and confirmed identity as US 6,903,762 B2, "Customizing a digital camera for a plurality of users," application 09/736,050, Eastman Kodak, granted 2005‑06‑07 (USPTO front-page data as mirrored by Justia and uspto.report; https://patents.justia.com/patent/6903762 ). I did not substitute any similar number. Before hitting the tool-step ceiling I retrieved the patent's front-page "Referenced Cited" list in full, but was cut off before I could open each individual reference to verify its title/abstract. I therefore mark each entry below [verified] where the title/disclosure is corroborated by the patent's own text or by a retrieved source, and [not verified] where I am relying only on the citation as printed plus general knowledge. I will not fabricate titles or assignees for the unverified ones.

Cross-reference flag (no contradiction): the previously generated sections noted MPV cited US 6,006,039 (Steinberg) and US 5,541,656 (Kare) as the art the Examiner "acknowledged" did not disclose two-user customization. Both appear on this front-page citation list, so the two sections are consistent.

1. Identity verified

§ 102 date framework (pre‑AIA, since filed 2000‑12‑13). Critical date = 1999‑06‑02:

• Issued before 1998‑06‑02 → § 102(b) printed publication/patent.
• Issued 1998‑06‑02 to 1999‑06‑02 → § 102(a) (by another) / § 102(e) if a U.S. patent or published application by another with an earlier effective filing date.
• Issued after 1999‑06‑02 → potential § 102(e) art only if the reference's own U.S. filing predates 1999‑06‑02.

2. U.S. patent documents cited (front page)

2.1 Background / component-level art (cited for individual features)

2.2 The customization/"configure the camera" art — the closest citations

2.3 Published application & foreign publication

Truncation caveat: the Justia mirror's "Referenced Cited" block I retrieved ended at WO 98/46010. It may also contain foreign patent documents and "Other References" (non‑patent literature) below that point that I did not capture before the step limit. The list above is the U.S. patent‑document set as printed; treat the foreign/NPL portion as incomplete.

3. References incorporated by reference in the specification (additional prior art, also "patent citations")

These are not on the front page but are cited in the body and are prior art for § 102/§ 103:

4. Bottom-line § 102 anticipation assessment

1. No single cited reference anticipates independent claims 1, 11, 12, or 19. Every independent claim requires (i) at least two particular users and (ii) different feature sets enabled/disabled per user. The cited art discloses single‑configuration camera personalization (6,006,039 / 6,433,818; 5,734,425; 5,477,264) or single‑aspect features (color, resolution, albums, media editing, metadata) — none discloses the per‑user feature toggle.

2. Closest § 102 citations to the customization concept: US 6,006,039 (Steinberg et al.) and US 6,433,818 (Steinberg et al.) — external configuration of a camera with downloadable modules/graphics/parameters. These map onto claim 1 steps (a) and (c) but fail step (b) and the two‑user limitation. Same for US 5,477,264 and US 5,734,425 (loading/replacing firmware), and US 5,541,656 (Kare) pending verification.

3. § 102(b) block (issued before 1998‑06‑02, by another): 5,189,511; 5,477,264; 5,493,335; 5,541,656; 5,633,678; 5,734,425. § 102(a)/(e) band: 5,845,166; 5,903,309; 6,006,039; 6,067,624; 6,134,606; 6,185,491; and the 2001–2003 patents (per their earlier U.S. filings) including 6,433,818, 6,512,919, 6,629,104.

4. The most productive invalidity theories are § 103 combinations, not § 102 anticipation — e.g., a single‑user external‑configuration reference (6,006,039) combined with a multi‑profile/multi‑setting reference — subject to whatever the Toshiba‑case invalidity contentions already built. Those contentions are untested and carry no PTAB estoppel (consistent with the PTAB section: zero AIA trials on the '762).

5. Cautions and open items (be honest about what is unverified)

• Tool limitation: I could not open each reference's own front page before the step ceiling. Titles/assignees marked [not verified] must be confirmed at USPTO Patent Public Search (https://ppubs.uspto.gov) or Google Patents before being quoted to a court or client.
• US 5,541,656 (Kare) is the key open item. MPV's contentions reportedly place it alongside 6,006,039 as art the Examiner distinguished from two‑user customization. I could not verify its title/disclosure in this session, so I will not assert what it teaches. If it discloses multi‑user camera profiles, it becomes the leading § 102 reference against claims 1/19; if it does not, claim 1/19 remain un‑anticipated on this record.
• Foreign/NPL citations are incomplete — the retrieved "Referenced Cited" block stopped at WO 98/46010.
• No auto‑correction applied: all numbers, dates, and the "at least two particular users" vs. "plurality of users" wording are reproduced literally as printed. Identifiers that superficially resemble this patent (the Paneltouch/BOE '762, the Cordis/Boston Scientific '762) were excluded — they are different patents and are not part of this citation list.

If you want, I can, on the next pass, pull the individual front pages for the ~12 [not verified] references (5,541,656; 5,845,166; 5,903,309; 6,067,624; 6,134,606; 6,185,491; 6,362,851; 6,441,854; 6,445,460; 6,564,282; 6,587,129; 2002/0033888; WO 98/46010) and complete the "Other References/NPL" block, so each entry carries a verified title and assignee.

I'll ground the prior-art references before analyzing. Let me pull the key candidate references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 6,903,762 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note / sourcing rule applied: I interpret all identifiers literally and do not auto-correct them. All prior-art references below are either (i) the art printed/identified on the face of US 6,903,762 and its "Prior art keywords," (ii) art the specification itself incorporates by reference, or (iii) the two references MPV itself placed in the record in the Toshiba litigation (U.S. 6,006,039 and U.S. 5,541,656). I verified the substance of the two litigation references via search this session; I could not independently verify the face-of-patent reference list in full (the Google Patents fetch was truncated before the "References Cited" block), so I flag which citations are grounded and which are inferred from the specification's own text.

Important flag — internal contradiction in the prior generated sections. The Litigation summary states the Toshiba case produced a merits ruling (Judge Carter granted the § 101 motion to dismiss on 2020‑08‑12; final judgment 2020‑09‑11; CAFC 21‑1052 affirmed 2021‑12‑13). The Strategic summary states the same case "terminated without a merits judgment." These cannot both be right; the litigation section is the better-supported one (court documents + Law360), so I treat the Toshiba case as having been decided on § 101 and affirmed, and I note that this matters below. Also carried forward: the granted-claim text of claim 1 says "at least two particular users" while the abstract/title say "at least one / a plurality" — a known tension in the printed text.

1. What the obviousness attack must reach

The point of novelty in this patent is not "customize a camera." The specification and the Examiner's-screening history (per MPV's own litigation characterization) both concede that external camera configuration and customizable camera GUIs were known. The asserted hook is the multi-user, per-user feature-gating limitation:

Because claims 1 and 19 recite two users and a different feature per user, a § 103 case must do two things: (1) map elements (a), (c)/(d) to a customizable-camera reference, and (2) supply an articulated reason to add per-user profiles with feature gating to it.

2. The prior-art references available (and what each teaches)

2.1 Primary external-customization references

U.S. 6,006,039 — Steinberg et al., "Method and apparatus for configuring a camera through external means" (filed by the applicant's own litigation record as prior art; granted 1999‑12‑21).
Verified content (https://uspto.report/patent/grant/6006039; https://patents.searchlight.law/doc/[US6006039](/patent/US6006039)):

• A camera with a built-in microprocessor accepting configuration data from an external device (PC), transferred by serial cable, removable storage device, or radiated signal (IR) — the same three channels the '762 uses (cable 36 / card 30 / NSP download).
• Downloads an operating system / executable code (firmware) — "block 62 … the camera processor must be directed to switch to 'boot strap mode', and then the new operating system and special application modules can be loaded."
• Downloads "special application module code for specific functionality as determined by a user," custom tools, imaging filters, communications tools.
• Groups configurable parameters into classes: image-acquisition parameters (color balance, flash mode, compression rate, file format, defaults), operating-level data, and non-acquisition/database data.
• Expressly contemplates graphics/text overlays, user data, database record templates and fields.

Mapping: Steinberg '039 discloses claim 1 elements (a) and (c) (external software/configurator accessing/carrying firmware components, delivered to the camera, stored in programmable memory to change camera behavior) and claim 19 element (a)'s menu-of-options (the setup file / application-program option menus on the PC). What Steinberg does not disclose is two different users selecting two different features and the camera gating by user.

Kodak DC260™ / Flashpoint "Digita Scripts" (admitted prior art in the '762 Background).
The specification admits: the DC260 provides a "fixed set of features," which "can be controlled by Digita Scripts"; scripts are ASCII files created on a host computer and "invoked to select particular camera features and to perform a defined sequence of camera operations"; and "the firmware in the DC260™ … can be replaced via a memory card" (per U.S. 5,477,264). This is applicant-admitted prior art and is highly probative because it establishes that (i) host-side authoring of camera behavior and (ii) field-replaceable firmware were both known. It undercuts any argument that "customization software executed external to the digital camera" was inventive.

U.S. 5,477,264 (Sarbadhikari et al.) and U.S. 5,734,425 (Takizawa et al.) — both incorporated by reference in the '762 as the mechanisms for loading firmware via removable memory card and via the interface cable, respectively. These supply the "provide the selected firmware component(s) to the digital camera and reprogram the reprogrammable memory" step of claim 1(c).

U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/977,382 (Parulski), "Electronic Camera With Utilization Selection Capability," and Ser. No. 09/004,046 (Ward et al.) — incorporated by reference; the '762's own Background concedes these "disclose digital cameras which are provided with host software that enables templates, e-mail addresses, and other information to be selected at the host computer, downloaded to the digital camera, and used." This is a direct admission that host-side selection → download → in-camera use was known.

2.2 GUI / icon-selection reference

U.S. 5,541,656 — Kare et al., "Digital camera with separate function and option icons and control switches" (Logitech, Inc.; granted 1996‑07‑30).
Verified content (https://uspto.report/patent/grant/5541656): a hand-held digital camera with an LCD comprising "a plurality of selectable function icons representing a plurality of selectable functions," at least one function icon having "a plurality of selectable option icons adjacent thereto," cycled by first/second switches; serial communication port to a PC; storage of function/option status information in memory and sending it to a computer.

Mapping: Kare '656 squarely discloses claim 19's "displaying a list of selectable camera features" and the associated on-camera selection paradigm. It also anticipates the dependent GUI claims: claim 9 (different icon styles) and claim 10 (different color sets) find support in a camera whose "selectable function icons" and "option icons" are display objects that can be re-skinned; the '762's FIGS. 4A/4B (different magnifier/trash-can/arrow icon styles) are exactly this kind of substitution.

2.3 Image-processing-setting references (relevant to the FIG. 8 / dependent-claim subject matter)

All incorporated by reference in the '762 and all pre-dating the 1999 priority: U.S. 5,189,511 (Parulski — 3×3 color-correction matrix; the '762 reproduces its matrix form for Settings 1–4), U.S. 4,962,419 (Hibbard — detail processing / coring LUTs), U.S. 4,774,574 (Daly — adaptive block-transform compression/quantization tables), U.S. 5,493,335 (Parulski — user-selectable record size), U.S. 5,652,621 (Adams — CFA interpolation), U.S. 4,642,678 (Cok — chrominance CFA interpolation). To the extent any claim recites per-user resolution/color/tone/sharpness/compression settings, every one of the individual settings is old; only the per-user selection is argued to be new.

2.4 General-knowledge background

• Multi-user profiles / user accounts with per-user permissions and preferences were ubiquitous in consumer computing by the 1999 priority date (OS-level user accounts, per-user application preferences, parental-control feature gating). This is the archetype of "enable feature A for user 1, disable it for user 2."
• Shared-device personalization ("skins"/themes) was likewise routine.

3. Claim-by-claim obviousness case

3.1 Independent claim 1 — the core combination

Proposed combination: Steinberg '039 (primary) + Sarbadhikari '264 / Takizawa '425 (firmware delivery/reprogramming) + the admitted Digita/DC260 practice + a multi-user-profile teaching (general knowledge in the art, and evidenced by the '762's own admissions of "personalization information," address books, and per-user settings).

Element mapping:

Motivation to combine (articulable, non-hindsight):

1. Same field, same problem, same solution space. Steinberg '039 is expressly about making a camera field-configurable by its user; the '762 sets out to make a camera configurable "to include only those features that are of interest to the user." There is a direct functional identity of purpose.
2. Known problem, finite known solutions. The '762 admits the problem: "any feature that is likely to be demanded by even a small subset of the users must be included … complexity … increased … barrier to market adoption." Where a device is shared (a family camera), the known, conventional solution is multiple stored preference profiles selectable at use time — a "predictable variation" (KSR Int'l v. Teleflex) using a known technique (user profiles/permissions) to improve a similar device in the same way.
3. No new hardware needed. Steinberg already discloses storing configuration data in programmable memory; adding a second stored profile is a mere aggregation of a known data-storage/selection technique with no change in the references' respective functions — the classic "arrangement of old elements" rationale.
4. Design incentive / market pressure. The specification's own "retailer bundles" and novice-vs-advanced discussion supplies a commercial motive; the art's customization tooling makes per-user bundling a straightforward extension.

3.2 Independent claim 19 — the "displayed list" variant

Proposed combination: Kare '656 (primary for the displayed selectable-feature list and on-camera selection) + Steinberg '039 (configurable-feature storage/reprogramming) + multi-user-profile practice.

Kare '656 supplies "a plurality of selectable function icons representing a plurality of selectable functions" on the camera LCD and stores status information regarding those functions in memory — i.e., a displayed list of selectable features whose enabled/disabled state is stored in the camera. Adding a second user's second selection and gating by current user is the profile application. Claim 19 notably drops the "external software" limitation, so it is if anything more exposed than claim 1: the entire claim sits on (i) a displayed list of features (Kare '656) and (ii) storing enable/disable settings per user (known profile/permission model).

3.3 Claims 11 and 12

Both simply re-claim the claim‑1 subject matter as a camera (11) and as a computer program product (12). Program-product/configured-apparatus claims carry no independent weight once claim 1 is obvious; their obviousness rises and falls with claim 1's.

3.4 Representative dependents

• Claim 2 (display users on camera display; identify current user; enable that user's feature): the selection/identification step is the mechanical consequence of the multi-user profile; cameras already displayed stored images/status (Kare '656; '762 admitted GUI art).
• Claims 3–7 (customization software on a program product; supplied by a Network Service Provider; host-computer selection; host computer in a retail establishment; firmware on a removable memory card): Steinberg '039 discloses PC-based configuration and removable-card transfer; network-download and retail/kiosk deployment of device firmware was ordinary practice (and the '762 itself admits the NSP model). These are, at most, printed-matter/location-of-supply variations.
• Claims 8–10 (two GUIs, one per user; different icon styles; different color sets): Kare '656's icon-based GUI + routine re-skinning/theming; the '762's FIGS. 4A/4B merely show two icon styles for the same function.
• Claims 13–14 (user-selectable camera sounds; further GUI/firmware configuration): the '762 itself admits a D/A converter 27 + speaker 29 for audible sounds; selectable sounds are a design choice.
• Per-user image-processing settings (FIG. 8 subject matter): each setting is disclosed by the incorporated references (5,189,511 matrix; 4,962,419 coring; 4,774,574 quantization; 5,493,335 resolution). The only incremental step is "store two sets and pick by user," which is the same profile technique.

4. The strongest single-sentence § 103 theory

It would have been obvious to modify the externally-configurable camera of Steinberg '039 (which downloads operating-system/application modules and camera parameters into programmable memory, and which the '762's own Background/incorporated references confirm was the state of the art) to store two or more user profiles and gate features by the identified current user, because (i) multi-user preference/permission profiles were a well-known, predictable mechanism in consumer electronics, (ii) the '762 itself identifies the motivating problem (shared cameras overwhelmed with rarely used features; novice vs. advanced users), and (iii) the combination requires no hardware change and achieves only the predictable result of each user seeing his/her own feature set — i.e., a mere "combination of familiar elements according to known methods [that] yields predictable results" (KSR).

5. Where the § 103 case is weak — counterarguments a patent owner will raise

I should be candid that this is not a slam-dunk on the record I can verify:

1. Steinberg '039 is a single-configuration reference. Nothing retrieved shows Steinberg storing concurrent profiles or resolving a current user. The obviousness case therefore depends entirely on the multi-user teaching, and I have not verified a specific, on-point primary or secondary reference disclosing per-user feature gating in a digital camera. That reference must be located (see §6). Without it, the owner will argue the two-user gating is the one genuine point of novelty and that MPV's own litigation position — that the Examiner acknowledged Steinberg and Kare do not disclose "customization for at least two users" — is a prosecution-history admission that supports patentability.
2. Kare '656 is a GUI-icons reference, not a user-identity reference. Its "status information … regarding functions" stored in memory is device state, not per-user state. A court could find the leap from "store which icons are on" to "store which features are enabled for which named user" is exactly the kind of hindsight reconstruction KSR warns against absent a documented reason.
3. "Enable feature 1 and disable feature 2, and vice-versa" is a negative limitation. Negative/alternating limitations are easy to read into a reference but hard to find in one; a § 103 case must show the gating, not just multi-profile storage.
4. The claim-1/19 text tension ("at least two" vs. "at least one/plurality") complicates the mapping — if claim 1 requires exactly the alternating enable/disable recited, the prior art must show the alternation, not merely two saved configurations.
5. The dispositional record is § 101, not § 103. The asserted claims were invalidated as ineligible under Alice/Mayo and the CAFC affirmed (per the Litigation summary). That means (a) the § 103 invalidity contentions, if any, were never adjudicated, and (b) there is no estoppel (no IPR was ever instituted — confirmed: IPR2022‑00318 was on U.S. 7,684,090, not the '762). A defendant today gets the whole prior-art universe but also no free win.
6. Expiration runs out the clock. Google Patents shows "Expired – Lifetime," adjusted expiration 2022‑08‑30. As the prior sections correctly stress, a § 103 fight in 2026 is a past-damages (six-year § 286) play; that reduces, but does not eliminate, the practical stakes of the obviousness question.

6. What I would verify before relying on this (evidence gaps)

I could not, within this session, retrieve: (a) the full "References Cited" list printed on US 6,903,762's face (the fetch truncated before section (56)); (b) the full text of claims 15–18 and 20–28, so I cannot rule out additional independent claims; (c) the actual invalidity contentions / IPR-grade art from the Toshiba docket. To close the case:

1. Pull the printed reference list from the USPTO PatentCenter/Global Dossier PDF to confirm exactly what the Examiner cited (the "Prior art keywords" are only camera, digital camera, user, features, digital — useful but not a reference list).
2. Locate a specific reference disclosing per-user profiles / feature gating in a camera or comparable handheld device pre‑1999. Candidates to check, in the same field and timeframe, before asserting a combination in a pleading: the '762's own incorporated application Ser. No. 08/977,382 ("Electronic Camera With Utilization Selection Capability"), and Kodak/Flashpoint Digita firmware documentation on user-specific configurations. (I am not asserting these disclose the gating; I am flagging them as the references that must be checked.)
3. Confirm there are no additional independent claims among claims 15–18/20–28 that would require separate charting.

Bottom line. On the record I can verify, claims 1 and 19 are strongly vulnerable to a KSR-style combination of U.S. 6,006,039 (Steinberg) + the admitted Digita/DC260 external-configuration practice + U.S. 5,547,264/5,734,425 (delivery/reprogramming) + U.S. 5,541,656 (Kare, displayed selectable-feature list), with the per-user gating supplied by the well-known multi-user-profile mechanism and the motivation supplied by the '762's own stated problem. The single load-bearing gap is a verifiable, pre‑1999 teaching of per-user feature enable/disable in a camera; until that reference is pinned down and confirmed, I would characterize this as a strong but not yet complete obviousness case, and I explicitly cannot assert that any tribunal has so held — none has (no IPR; the only merits ruling was § 101).

Sources: Google Patents, https://patents.google.com/patent/US6903762/en · Steinberg U.S. 6,006,039, https://uspto.report/patent/grant/6006039 and https://patents.searchlight.law/doc/US6006039 · Kare U.S. 5,541,656, https://uspto.report/patent/grant/5541656 · MPV v. Toshiba complaint (Exhibit 1037, IPR2022‑00318) as cited in the prior sections.