US 6928300

I'll verify the patent details and check for any current litigation/docket activity before summarizing.

Let me check the litigation history and any appellate activity more specifically.

US Patent 6,928,300 — Summary

Important note on my sourcing: I did not find any 2026 CAFC docket activity tied specifically to patent 6,928,300. The 2026 Federal Circuit hits my searches returned (e.g., Headwater Research v. Verizon, USCA No. 26-1884; Smart Mobile Technologies v. Apple, re U.S. 9,614,943) concern different patents and must not be conflated with the '300 patent. Details below are grounded in the patent text and patent-database records; where I lack authoritative information I say so.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (verbatim)

"A preferences option maintains preferences for enabling and disabling notifications for device(s) of an electronic device. The notifications are for any of e-mails, phone calls, or other communications, or events (datebook alarms, for example). One or more devices may produce notifications, and individual preferences for each device may be maintained, or a single set of notifications preferences may direct the output of notifications for each device. The notifications preferences includes a schedule option that allows a time period where the notifications may be specifically enabled or disabled automatically. In one embodiment, the notifications preferences control notifications only, and in other embodiments, the notification preferences control notifications and whether or not the devices themselves are enabled or operating (for example, turning a cell phone device off). A confirmation screen is provided that positively identifies whether the device(s) are RF enabled or not (and therefore safe to enter an airport, hospital, or other no RF zone)."

Independent claims — plain language

The patent has three independent claims (1, 10, and 13); the remaining 17 claims are dependent.

Claim 1 — Electronic device with user-configurable notification preferences (device claim).
A device (e.g., a PDA/phone) with a display screen, a component that generates user notifications in response to events, and a processor that:

• retrieves and displays user-modifiable preferences indicating whether notifications are enabled or disabled;
• saves user-entered preferences; and
• configures the device to implement them.
  The claim requires that the component include an RF device, and that the preferences include an indication of RF status displayed to show whether the RF device is enabled/disabled, "to render the electronic device safe for no RF zones" (airplane/hospital).

Claim 10 — Electronic device with an RF check mechanism (device claim).
A device with an RF check mechanism that (i) tests internal and/or attached devices to determine whether any are RF enabled and (ii) produces a signal indicating RF status; plus a display mechanism (a screen) that displays the RF status indication as an airplane graphic.

Claim 13 — Method of setting notifications (method claim).
A method comprising: displaying user-selectable notification options on a display screen; receiving a user-selected preferences option; and configuring the device's notifications accordingly — wherein the preferences again include an RF status indication showing whether the RF device is enabled/disabled to render the device safe for no-RF zones.

Notable dependent claims

• Claim 3/4: Start and stop times, with the processing unit setting clock-based alarms to enable/disable notifications.
• Claim 5/6: Enabling/disabling notifications also enables/disables the RF device; an RF-enabled indicator positively identifying RF state.
• Claim 7/8: Date identifier, including day of the week, for scheduled enable/disable periods.
• Claim 9: Device is a PDA-centric device with a mobile telephone component.
• Claims 18/20: Embodiments as compilable and/or interpretable/executable source code on computer-readable media; claim 19 specifies the media is memory inside a PDA.

Litigation history (as found)

The patent was asserted by SmartPhone Technologies LLC in a series of E.D. Tex. suits (per the Stanford NPE Litigation Database and Google Patents): 6:11-cv-00561, 6:11-cv-00604, 6:11-cv-00154 (v. Dell), 6:12-cv-00291, and 6:12-cv-00350 (v. ZTE), with a related C.D. Cal. case 8:12-cv-00511 and an appeal to the Federal Circuit at 13-1090. The NPE database categorizes the asserter as an "acquired patents" entity.

Uncertainty / caveats

• CAFC 2026 dockets: I could not confirm any 2026 appellate activity involving this specific patent. Patent databases list only the 2013 Federal Circuit appeal (13-1090) and the 2011–2012 district court cases. The patent expired 2022-12-17, which generally limits new infringement actions (though it would not preclude appeals of long-pending matters).
• Assignee: Sources show a chain of assignments (Palm, Inc. → Palm Source, Inc. → Access Systems Americas, Inc. → Access Co., Ltd.). Google Patents lists "Access Co Ltd" as current assignee and "Access Systems Americas Inc" as original assignee; treat this as database-reported rather than legally verified.
• I am reporting the claims exactly as they appear; I did not auto-correct any numbers or identifiers.

I'll search litigation databases for this specific patent number.

Let me pull the full NPE database record and the case-level details.

I found a Huawei complaint. Let me identify the full case set and outcomes.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 6,928,300

Scope note: I searched for the literal patent number 6928300 and excluded hits for other patents (e.g., "830" patents such as IPCom's '830, "6,928,xxx" series, or the many SmartPhone Technologies suits asserting other patents). Where a case is only reported at the patent-family level and I could not document that the '300 patent itself was pleaded, I say so explicitly rather than assuming.

---

1. Cases where the '300 patent was actually asserted or put at issue

Case A — SmartPhone Technologies LLC v. [Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Huawei%20Technologies%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al.

Direct documentary evidence for the '300 patent in this case: The original complaint pleads "COUNT III (INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,928,300)," alleges SmartPhone is "the exclusive licensee of the '300 patent, entitled 'METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR AUTOMATED FLEXIBLE CONFIGURING OF NOTIFICATIONS AND ACTIVATION,'" attaches the patent as Exhibit C, and alleges infringement of "at least claim 1." The complaint asserts a total of five patents ('645, '236, '300, '485, '316).

Case B — Futurewei Technologies, Inc. v. Acacia Research Corp. (declaratory-judgment action and appeal)

'300 patent linkage: The DJ action sought non-infringement and invalidity declarations on the same five patents-at-issue in the Texas suit (per the Federal Circuit/Finnegan case report), which include U.S. 6,928,300. So the '300 patent was within the subject matter of this appeal, even though the reported holding turned on the first-to-file/contract issues rather than on the '300 patent's merits.

---

2. Cases involving the '300 patent per the Stanford NPE Litigation Database

The Stanford NPE Litigation Database entry for patent 6928300 lists two cases:

ZTE case (6:12-cv-00350): Defendants included ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA), Inc., and ZTE Solutions Inc. (summonses issued May 29 / reissued June 4, 2012; an amended complaint was filed Aug. 24, 2012; motions to dismiss and a sealed opposition brief followed). The court issued a claim-construction memorandum (Doc. 90, 2013) that addressed the '316 and '236 patents. I could not confirm the final disposition of the '300 patent claims in this case — I did not verify a judgment or dismissal order.

Dell case (6:12-cv-00154): Listed by Stanford as involving the '300 patent. I could not confirm the filing date or the outcome from the sources retrieved.

---

3. Cases listed only at the PATENT-FAMILY level (not verified as asserting the '300 patent)

Google Patents' family-level litigation module lists these additional dockets. Because these are reported against the family, not necessarily the '300 patent, I flag them as unverified for this patent:

• 6:12-cv-00291, E.D. Tex.
• 6:11-cv-00561, E.D. Tex.
• 6:11-cv-00604, E.D. Tex.
• 8:12-cv-00511, C.D. Cal.

For the 2011 cases (6:11-cv-00561 and 6:11-cv-00604) I could not obtain defendant names, filing dates, or outcomes, and I could not confirm that the '300 patent was pleaded in them. My searches for the specific case numbers were cut short before results were returned, so I am expressly not asserting these as '300-patent cases.

---

4. Summary table of confirmed and database-reported cases

---

Important caveats and contradictions to flag

1. Contradiction between sources on the Huawei case list. The Stanford NPE database result for patent 6928300 (as rendered in my search) showed only the ZTE and Dell rows — not Huawei — yet the Huawei complaint itself pleads the '300 patent as Count III. Either the Stanford record is incomplete/truncated in the snippet I retrieved, or it classifies patents per case differently. The complaint document is the stronger evidence. I did not auto-correct either source.
2. Assignee mismatch worth noting. In the Texas pleadings SmartPhone describes itself as "the exclusive licensee" of the '300 patent, while the Federal Circuit decision describes Access Co., Ltd. as the patent owner/licensor — consistent with the bibliographic chain (Palm, Inc. → Palm Source, Inc. → Access Systems Americas, Inc. → Access Co., Ltd.) summarized earlier in this analysis.
3. No 2026 activity found. I found no litigation, appeal, or PTAB proceeding in 2026 involving U.S. 6,928,300. The most recent matter I could tie to this patent is the 2014 Huawei settlement/dismissal. The patent is recorded as Expired – Lifetime, adjusted expiration 2022-12-17, which generally forecloses new infringement actions (though not appeals of long-pending matters).
4. Unverified items. I could not retrieve defendant names or outcomes for 6:12-cv-00291, 6:11-cv-00561, 6:11-cv-00604, or 6:12-cv-00154, nor the C.D. Cal. case number with certainty. I am reporting these as unconfirmed rather than fabricating details. If you need PACER-certified docket entries, the next step would be pulling the E.D. Tex. dockets for 6:12-cv-00154, 6:12-cv-00245, 6:12-cv-00291, and 6:12-cv-00350 directly.

I'll verify the structured data against live sources before writing up the analysis.

Let me verify with more targeted searches on the petitioner/litigation trail and CBM history.

Let me do final confirmation checks for any PTAB docketed proceeding or appeal tied to this patent.

PTAB / AIA Trial Proceedings — US 6,928,300

Sourcing note: The canonical structured block ("PTAB proceedings on file," from the USPTO Open Data Portal) returns no AIA trial proceedings for US 6,928,300. My independent web searches — targeting IPR/PGR/CBM dockets, Docket Alarm PTAB records, and the litigants in the known district-court campaign — surfaced no petition, institution decision, FWD, or PTAB appeal naming this patent. Every PTAB hit my searches returned involved other patents (e.g., the Smart Mobile Technologies IPR2022-00766/00979/00981/01223/01248/01249 family on U.S. 9,019,946 / 9,319,075 / 8,472,936, and the Network-1 U.S. 6,218,930 "Remote Power" CBM/IPR fights). Those must not be attributed to the '300 patent. I do not fabricate proceeding numbers, so none are listed below.

---

Proceedings overview

Zero (0) AIA trial proceedings on file. Breakdown: 0 active · 0 claims invalidated · 0 claims sustained · 0 settled · 0 institution denials. There is no IPR, PGR, or CBM ever filed against US 6,928,300, and therefore no PTAB Final Written Decision and no Federal Circuit appeal from any PTAB case.

Bottom-line defensive posture: The patent is entirely un-PTAB-tested. All 20 claims stand exactly as issued on 2005-08-09 — none canceled, none amended, none narrowed by an administrative tribunal. That cuts both ways for a defendant: (a) the patentee cannot argue "claims 1-5 are dead, so ignore the demand," because nothing is dead; but (b) there is also no estoppel, no adverse PTAB record, and no prior-art ground that has already been exhausted. Critically, the patent expired 2022-12-17 (per the same record set used in the prior section), and it is listed as "Expired – Lifetime." An expired patent cannot support prospective injunctive relief and forecloses new infringement causes of action for conduct after expiry, so the practical exposure today is limited to back damages for pre-expiry conduct — which in turn depends on whether any live dispute (or a still-pending appeal) predates the expiration.

---

Proceedings

No proceedings to itemize. There is no IPR, PGR, or CBM docket to report. Per the operating instruction, the absence is stated plainly rather than back-filled with speculative entries.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status — CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. There is no adjudicated narrowing of US 6,928,300 anywhere. All three independent claims remain in force as issued: claim 1 (device with user-modifiable notification preferences, RF device, RF-status indication), claim 10 (RF check mechanism + airplane-graphic display), and claim 13 (method of setting notifications with an RF-status preference). All seventeen dependent claims (2–9, 11–12, 14–20) also stand untested. So the answer to "which claims survived IPR?" is: the question doesn't apply — no claim has been through an AIA trial, so the surviving/untested set is the entire claim set. Contrast that with the patent family, which was heavily litigated in district court by SmartPhone Technologies LLC (6:11-cv-00561, 6:11-cv-00604, 6:11-cv-00154, 6:12-cv-00291, 6:12-cv-00350, plus C.D. Cal. 8:12-cv-00511) and appealed at Fed. Cir. 13-1090 — but that appeal was of the district court case, not a PTAB decision.

Estoppel landscape — § 315(e)(2). Because no IPR/PGR was ever instituted, § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to no one. There is no petitioner (nor privy) who is barred from raising any ground in a civil action. For a defendant facing a demand or a live suit, every invalidity theory remains on the table: § 102 anticipation, § 103 obviousness, § 112 written description/enablement, and § 101 — none of it pre-consumed by prior PTAB filings. The flip side is asymmetric: the patent owner likewise enjoys no favourable PTAB record to point to.

Pattern signals. No single petitioner has filed (or had instituted) any IPR against this patent, so there's no repeat-petitioner pattern, no serial-challenge dynamic, and no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) on the chain for the '300 patent specifically. The patent owner's aggressive appellate posture in the 2010s occurred in the courts, not at the Board. Note also the well-known collateral § 315(e)(2) dispute in Network-1 v. HP (E.D. Tex., regarding whether estoppel reaches non-petitioned grounds) — that is a different patent (U.S. 6,218,930) and should not be imported here.

---

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant receiving an assertion today:

1. Check the clock first. The patent expired 2022-12-17 and is marked "Expired – Lifetime." Damages can generally only reach pre-expiry conduct (the six-year § 286 look-back from complaint filing further limits the tail). Any demand premised on ongoing or future infringement is legally hollow.
2. There is no PTAB shortcut to cite. You cannot tell the patentee "the Board already killed claims X." Nothing has been invalidated at the PTAB. Your invalidity case must be built from scratch on the primary references cited on the face of the patent — US 6,453,182 (Qualcomm, "Wireless telephone airplane and alarm clock modes"), US 6,317,593 (Gateway, "Intelligent cellular telephone function"), and US 5,889,852 / US 6,070,055 / US 6,131,046 / US 6,209,011 — plus the examiner-cited family art (e.g., the FI 982363 "restricting operation of a radio device in a specific area," JP 2885721, JP 3119173, GB 2 324 245). The two concepts most exposed are the scheduled auto-enable/disable of radio + notifications (claims 3–8, 15–17) and the "airplane safe" RF-status confirmation (claims 1, 10–12, 13) — Qualcomm's '182 patent is the obvious starting point for the airplane-mode concept.
3. Do not cite any PTAB FWD for this patent — there isn't one. If a demand letter or complaint references a PTAB outcome, treat that as a red flag and demand the proceeding number.

If a proceeding were ever filed (hypothetical milestones for reference): there is no institution-decision deadline, no oral hearing date, and no statutory 1-year FWD due date to track, because no petition exists. That branch is simply inactive.

Plain statement of the absence and what it signals. For a 2000-priority, heavily-asserted patent with a documented NPE campaign, the absence of any IPR/PGR/CBM is itself notable. Two non-exclusive explanations: (i) the asserted claims were perceived as narrow/specific enough (the RF-status/airplane-safe limitation and the notification-scheduling limitation are the distinguishing hooks) that defendants preferred district-court invalidity, design-arounds, or settlement over PTAB cost; and (ii) the patent's 2022 expiration mooted the incentive to file new challenges. Either way, the practical takeaway for a defendant today is that US 6,928,300 is an un-Challenged, un-canceled, but expired patent — the leverage lies in the expiration date and in building a fresh invalidity theory, not in any PTAB precedent, because none exists.

---

Links / verification paths

• Google Patents record for US 6,928,300 (status: Expired – Lifetime; adjusted expiration 2022-12-17): https://patents.google.com/patent/US6928300/en
• USPTO PTAB E2E (searchable proceeding record — query returns no AIA trials for this patent): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/
• For the distinct patents mistakenly adjacent in search results, see e.g. the Smart Mobile Technologies IPR institution decisions (IPR2022-01249, U.S. 9,019,946) and Network-1's U.S. 6,218,930 CBM/IPR matters — do not conflate these with US 6,928,300.

Confidence note: I am highly confident there is no AIA trial proceeding on this patent, based on both the canonical ODP block and my searches. If a very recent (2025–2026) petition were filed and not yet indexed by the ODP, my searches did not surface it; that residual uncertainty is small but I flag it rather than assert certainty beyond what the sources support.

I'll research the assignment records for this patent before reconstructing the chain.

Let me dig into the assignment records and the SmartPhone Technologies connection.

Let me try to pin down the actual reassignment reel/frame numbers.

I could retrieve the recorded reassignment events for this patent from Google Patents' legal-events register and a substantial amount of corroborating corporate/litigation context, but I could not retrieve the underlying USPTO reel/frame numbers or the named correspondents of record from the sources available to me. I will not invent those fields; where they are missing I say so explicitly.

---

Inventors

All three inventors executed the assignment to Palm, Inc. on or about the 2000-11-09 filing date, which is the ordinary employee-invention pattern for Palm at that time. There is nothing in the record I retrieved showing an inventor departure, a subsequent inventor-side assignment, or any inventor retention of rights.

Unusual patterns: I found none I can substantiate. I could not verify whether any inventor left Palm within 12 months of filing — no source I retrieved speaks to that, so I am not asserting it either way.

---

Original assignee

Palm, Inc. submitted the application and took the initial assignment. However, the patent issued 2005-08-09 with PalmSource, Inc. as the owner of record, because Palm's platform/OS business (including this application) was carved out into PalmSource, Inc. — the Japanese merger disclosure confirms PalmSource was incorporated 2001-12-03 as a spin-off entity from Palm, Inc. — and the Palm→PalmSource assignment was recorded 2003-05-19, i.e. before issuance. This is why contemporaneous coverage (MacObserver, the iKnow/STPI table) describes 6,928,300 as a "PalmSource, Inc." patent.

• Primary line of business: Palm OS / handheld OS licensing (PalmSource); earlier, Palm's PDA hardware and platform business.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Palm did — Palm-branded PDAs and Palm OS devices with the notifications/preferences UI described in FIGS. 3–4. Whether a PalmSource-branded product embodied the claims is less clear, since PalmSource was an OS licensor rather than a device maker after the spin-off.
• Current status: PalmSource was acquired by ACCESS CO., LTD. (merger via Apollo Merger Sub, Inc.; announced September 2005) and renamed ACCESS Systems Americas, Inc. Note: Google Patents dates the change-of-name recording to 2010-08-27, roughly five years after the merger itself — a delayed/detached recording I flag as an anomaly rather than explain.
• Database discrepancy flagged: Google Patents' "Original Assignee" field renders this as "Access Systems Americas Inc", while its own legal-events feed shows PALM, INC. as the 2000 assignee and PALM SOURCE, INC. as the 2003 assignee. These are not inconsistent — they reflect Palm→PalmSource→rename — but the "Original Assignee" label is a normalized current-name rendering, not the name on the issued face of the patent. The prior summary in this analysis reproduced that field verbatim; it should be read that way.

---

Assignment timeline

Google Patents' legal-events register for US 6,928,300 lists four assignment-related events. Reel/frame numbers and correspondents of record were not retrievable from my sources (the Assignment Center detail pages were not returned by my searches). I list the events with those fields explicitly marked as unknown.

• 2000-11-09 (executed) / recorded 2000-11-09 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (inventor→company)
  • Assignor: John Richard Brown; Craig Skinner; William Shu-woon Wong
  • Assignee: PALM, INC.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: initial inventor-to-employer assignment at filing.

• 2003-05-19 (recorded) — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment (reassignment)
  • Assignor: PALM, INC.
  • Assignee: PALM SOURCE, INC.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: internal corporate reorganization — the Palm platform/OS business (and this application) moved into the spun-off PalmSource entity; pre-issuance.

• 2010-08-27 (recorded) — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: CHANGE OF NAME
  • Assignor: PALMSOURCE, INC.
  • Assignee: ACCESS SYSTEMS AMERICAS, INC.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: change of name only — no change in beneficial ownership; records the PalmSource→ACCESS Systems Americas renaming well after the 2005 ACCESS merger.

• 2011-03-04 (recorded) — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS' INTEREST
  • Assignor: ACCESS SYSTEMS AMERICAS, INC.
  • Assignee: ACCESS CO., LTD.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: intra-group transfer of title from the U.S. subsidiary to the Japanese parent, recorded three days before ACCESS and Acacia's SmartPhone Technologies LLC publicly announced a smartphone-portfolio license to Samsung (2011-03-07) and shortly before the 2011 assertion campaign.

Exclusive-license assertion (documented outside the assignment record, but material): No assignment of title to SmartPhone Technologies LLC appears in the reassignment feed. Rather, SPT asserted 6,928,300 as an "exclusive licensee" while title remained with ACCESS. This is evidenced by (a) ACCESS's 2011-03-07 press release describing SPT as its licensing partner, (b) contemporaneous reporting that SPT pleaded exclusive-licensee status, and (c) SPT's court corporate disclosure statement identifying Corporate Parent Acacia Research Corporation and Acacia Patent Acquisition LLC (filed in SmartPhone Techs. LLC v. ZTE Corp., 6:12-cv-00350). Whether a license was separately recorded at USPTO (conveyance type "License") is unverified in my sources.

No records? There are recorded documents, so the "no records" branch does not apply. But I cannot supply reel/frame or correspondent fields — treat the row-level reel/frame data as unretrieved, to be pulled from the Assignment Center by patent number.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6928300
    2000 : Inventors assign to Palm Inc
    2001 : PalmSource spun off from Palm
    2003 : Palm assigns application to PalmSource
    2005 : ACCESS acquires PalmSource
    2010 : PalmSource renamed ACCESS Systems Americas
    2011 : Assigned to ACCESS Co Ltd
         : SmartPhone Technologies sues Apple
         : Samsung license announced
    2012 : Suits vs Dell LG ZTE and Huawei
    2022 : Patent expires

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT (as a recorded assignment). Title never moved to an "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" LLC; the chain terminates at Access Co., Ltd., an operating software vendor. The functional equivalent — assertion through a licensing-only LLC — is documented in signals 2 and 7, but not as a title transfer in the reassignment feed.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT. SmartPhone Technologies LLC is an Acacia Research Corporation subsidiary (corporate disclosure, SPT v. ZTE, 6:12-cv-00350, naming Acacia Research Corporation and Acacia Patent Acquisition LLC as corporate parents). It asserted 6,928,300 in SPT v. Apple (6:11-cv-00604), SPT v. Dell (6:12-cv-00154), SPT v. LG (6:12-cv-00291), SPT v. ZTE (6:12-cv-00350), and SPT v. Huawei (6:12-cv-00245). Acacia is a canonical entry on public NPE rosters.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / insufficient data. I could not retrieve the correspondents of record for any of the four recorded events, so I cannot test for recurrence. For context only (and not attributed to this patent's chain): Acacia-family recordings filed by other entities show recurring correspondents such as Robert Allan Bullwinkel (Houston) and S. Kareff c/o Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP (New York) in Acacia-related reel/frame filings. I am not claiming either appears on 6,928,300.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. The recorded transfers span 2000 → 2003 → 2010 → 2011, with multi-year gaps, including a ~7-year gap between the PalmSource assignment and the ACCESS Systems Americas name change. No <24-month LLC-to-LLC cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — WEAKLY PRESENT / borderline. The Access Systems Americas → Access Co., Ltd. assignment was recorded 2011-03-04, with the first suits in this specific disclosure wave following in October–November 2011 (e.g. 6:11-cv-00561 and 6:11-cv-00604). That is ~7 months, just outside the 6-month window, so I do not call it a clean pre-suit transfer. Note, however, that SPT's broader Palm portfolio campaign began earlier (e.g. 6:10-cv-580, SPT v. HTC), meaning the 2011 transfer landed during an ongoing assertion program rather than before a first-ever suit.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. Palm/PalmSource/ACCESS were not Chapter 7/11 sellers of these patents. The Palm→PalmSource and PalmSource→ACCESS transitions were a spin-off and a cash merger respectively. (Palm, Inc. was later acquired by HP and its assets dispersed to TCL/LG, but that postdates and does not touch the 6,928,300 chain.) The Palm↔ACCESS Master Patent Ownership and License Agreement (amendment surfaced via Justia) confirms a negotiated allocation of "PalmSource Patents," not a bankruptcy sale.

7. Privateering — PRESENT. ACCESS Co., Ltd. — an operating company — partnered with Acacia's SmartPhone Technologies LLC, which sued ACCESS's industry competitors while ACCESS simultaneously monetized the same portfolio through licenses to Samsung (announced 2011-03-07) and Microsoft (Oct 2010), and later Apple (~$10M, April 2013). Press coverage explicitly frames this as ACCESS "activating its patent assets" through Acacia-created vehicles. This is a textbook privateering arrangement.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. There is no evidence the patent was neutralized.

---

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two strong signals are documented and independent of the missing reel/frame data: (i) a known high-frequency asserter — Acacia subsidiary SmartPhone Technologies LLC, which listed Acacia Research Corporation and Acacia Patent Acquisition LLC as corporate parents in its ZTE (6:12-cv-00350) disclosure and asserted 6,928,300 against Apple, Dell, LG, ZTE and Huawei between 2011 and 2012; and (ii) privateering — operating company ACCESS Co., Ltd. took title via the 2011-03-04 assignment from ACCESS Systems Americas, Inc. and then monetized the patent through SPT's exclusive-license assertion campaign, three days before the 2011-03-07 Samsung license announcement.

Nuance for the record: title to 6,928,300 never left an operating company, so this is a licensed-NPE (privateering) assertion, not a title-transfer NPE. Portions of the assertion chain are documented in court filings and corporate press releases rather than in a recorded assignment, because no title assignment to SPT appears in the reassignment feed. Reel/frame numbers and correspondents of record remain unretrieved and should be confirmed directly.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center (search by patent number 6928300): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• USPTO Patent Assignment Search (legacy index): https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events for US 6,928,300: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6928300/en
• ACCESS/SmartPhone Technologies LLC license announcement (2011-03-07): https://www.access-company.com/en/news_event/archives/2011/20110307_lictosamsung/
• SPT corporate disclosure naming Acacia parents (SPT v. ZTE, 6:12-cv-00350): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/[5114610](/patent/5114610)/smartphone-technologies-llc-v-zte-corporation/

I'll analyze the prior art cited against US 6,928,300. Let me first retrieve the patent's citation records and then research each reference.

Let me research the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 6,928,300 B1

Sourcing note and scope

I was able to confirm the patent record for US 6,928,300 B1 (Appl. No. 09/710,156; priority/filing 2000‑11‑09; issued 2005‑08‑09) and its examiner‑cited reference set on the Google Patents record at https://patents.google.com/patent/US6928300/en. That record lists exactly seven (7) U.S. patent citations flagged as cited by the examiner. Those seven are the artifacts this task asks about, and I cover each below.

Two housekeeping flags before the analysis:

• Date discrepancy: the task header says "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while my operating environment says 2026‑09‑30. I note the contradiction as instructed; it does not affect the substance of a §102 prior‑art analysis (the '300 patent expired 2022‑12‑17, and its priority date is fixed at 2000‑11‑09).
• Verification limits: I obtained detailed full‑text/abstract data for US 6,457,382 (sic — actually US 6,453,182), US 6,317,593, US 6,209,011, and US 6,131,046. For US 5,889,852, US 6,070,055, and US 6,836,656 I could not retrieve full text within my tool budget; for those three I report the bibliographic data as it appears in the patent record itself and characterize the subject matter from the titles (marked "unverified"). I do not fabricate claim‑level content I did not see.

All seven references predate or are effective before the 2000‑11‑09 filing, so pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 governs. Anticipation under § 102 requires a single reference to disclose every element of a claim as arranged; where a reference supplies only some elements, it is more properly § 103 material. I flag that distinction explicitly, because in my assessment none of the seven is a clean, single‑reference anticipation of independent claims 1, 10, or 13 — but several read closely on the dependent claims. Details below.

---

Table 1 — The seven examiner‑cited references

---

Reference‑by‑reference analysis

1. US 5,889,852 A — Nokia, "Photo screen scroll graphic user interface"

• Full citation: US 5,889,852 A; filed 1997‑02‑10; issued 1999‑03‑30; Nokia Mobile Phones Limited. (unverified full text)
• Brief description: From the title, a GUI technique for scrolling/displaying images ("photo screen") on a small device display. This reads as background art on display‑screen UI navigation.
• Potential § 102 read: Weak. It may touch the "display screen" element of claim 1, but discloses nothing on notifications, RF status, or no‑RF‑zone safety. No independent claim (1, 10, 13) is anticipated. Best characterized as § 102(b) background art.

2. US 6,070,055 A — NEC, "Radio selective calling receiver with display and limited function menu"

• Full citation: US 6,070,055 A; filed 1997‑01‑24; issued 2000‑05‑30; NEC Corporation. (unverified full text)
• Brief description: From the title, a radio paging receiver (selective calling receiver) with a display and a restricted/limited function menu — i.e., a mobile RF receiving device whose on‑screen menu options are constrained.
• Potential § 102 read: Moderate for the notion of a mobile RF device presenting a limited menu/display of available functions. It does not, on its face, disclose user‑modifiable notification preferences or an RF‑status indicator tied to no‑RF‑zone safety. No independent claim is anticipated; possibly § 103 fodder.

3. US 6,131,046 A — Sanyo, "Altering displayed keys to indicate availability of service"

• Full citation: US 6,131,046 A; filed 1995‑06‑23; issued 2000‑10‑10; Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. (uspto/FPO record: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[6131046](/patent/6131046).html)
• Brief description (verified): A portable telephone with a detector that checks, from a received signal, whether communication is enabled or disabled, and a display controller that changes the appearance of the displayed dial keys (size/color/shade) in a first style when communication is enabled and a second style when disabled — so the user can see at a glance whether the phone can communicate. It also contemplates inhibiting display of the menu/dial keys when communication is unavailable.
• Potential § 102 read:
  • Claim 6 ("an RF enabled indicator that positively identifies if the electronic device is RF enabled or disabled"): closest read — the altered dial‑key display is literally a display‑based indicator of whether the RF/communication function is enabled vs. disabled.
  • Claim 10 (display of RF status as an airplane graphic): the reference discloses an RF/communication‑availability indication but not an airplane graphic, and its trigger is service‑area detection, not a no‑RF‑zone safety mode. So claim 10 is not anticipated; it is § 103 material when combined with a mode‑based reference such as US 6,453,182.
  • Independent claims 1/13: not anticipated (no user‑modifiable notification preferences, no no‑RF‑zone safety framing).

4. US 6,209,011 B1 — Microsoft, "Handheld computing device with external notification system"

• Full citation: US 6,209,011 B1; filed 1997‑05‑08; issued 2001‑03‑27; Microsoft Corporation. (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6209011B1](/patent/US6209011B1))
• Brief description (verified): A handheld computer (H/PC) with a notification manager that initiates a notification on an event, a user‑options dialog letting the user enable/disable the LED and alarm ("preferences"), storage of the scheduled notification, and a real‑time clock/alarm manager that sets a hardware alarm and wakes the notification program. The external LED remains active until acknowledged.
• Potential § 102 read:
  • Claim 1: discloses the display screen, event‑based notifications, user preferences to enable/disable notification mechanisms, saving of preferences, and configuration — but the component is not an RF device, and there is no RF‑status/no‑RF‑zone indication. Claim 1 not anticipated (fails the two RF limitations). It is, however, strong evidence for the notification‑preferences portion of claim 1.
  • Claim 3 and Claim 4 (start/stop times; clock mechanism setting alarms to enable/disable): the real‑time clock + alarm manager + notification manager structure reads closely on claim 4 in particular. Potential § 102(e) read on claim 4 (and arguably claim 3 if scheduled notification times map to "start/stop times").
  • Note the reference even discusses alarms being "overpowered by noise in an airplane flight" — a nexus point the examiner could have used.

5. US 6,317,593 B1 — Gateway, "Intelligent cellular telephone function"

• Full citation: US 6,317,593 B1; filed 1996‑08‑12; issued 2001‑11‑13; Gateway, Inc.; inventor Stephen P. Vossler. (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6317593)
• Brief description (verified): A programmable cellular telephone whose controller enables and disables selected functions in accordance with a user‑modifiable schedule specifying an absolute time set by the user (claim 1). It includes a real‑time clock, a memory storing the schedule, a user interface for modifying the schedule, an activation schedule table with functional codes, and display of telephone status. It is explicitly aimed at suppressing unwanted interruptions and controlling RF/airtime use during user‑selected periods.
• Potential § 102 read — this is the closest reference to the notification/activation core of the patent:
  • Claim 3 ("preferences include a start time and a stop time; processing unit enables notifications according to the start/stop times"): strong potential § 102(e) read — the schedule's absolute enable/disable times map to start/stop times.
  • Claim 4 (clock mechanism; set alarm times; enable/disable according to alarms): strong potential § 102(e) read via the real‑time clock issuing interrupts to enable/disable functions.
  • Claim 7 / Claim 8 (dates, day of week): the schedule table is time‑indexed; whether it expressly recites day‑of‑week scheduling is unverified — I could not confirm the reference expressly discloses a day‑of‑week field, so I would not assert anticipation of claim 8 without the full table text.
  • Independent claim 1: discloses most structural elements but, again, its disclosure is framed around enabling/disabling telephone functions/airtime, not around a displayed RF‑status indication "to render the device safe for no RF zones." Not a clean anticipation;
  • more properly § 103 material.

6. US 6,453,182 B1 — Qualcomm, "Wireless telephone airplane and alarm clock modes"

• Full citation: US 6,453,182 B1 (Appl. 09/504,243); filed 2000‑02‑15; issued 2002‑09‑17; Qualcomm, Incorporated. (https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[6453182](/patent/6453182).html; family member US 6,725,069 B2)
• Brief description (verified): A wireless telephone with "airplane mode" and "alarm clock mode." In airplane mode the transceiver and modem (the RF elements) are disabled while other functions (phone book, messages, calendar applets) remain enabled, rendering the phone safe for RF‑restricted environments. In alarm‑clock mode the system auto‑enters at a fixed time each evening and auto‑reenables at a pre‑determined morning time; it "can be set to automatically turn the phone on at a particular time." Exit from airplane mode is manual.
• Potential § 102 read — this is the closest reference to the RF/no‑RF‑zone aspects:
  • Claim 5 ("electronic device includes an RF device, and enablement/disablement of notifications also enables/disables the RF device"): the mode‑based disabling of the transceiver/modem reads closely, though the reference couples the disable to airplane/alarm modes rather than specifically to "notifications." Potential § 102(e) read on claim 5, stronger as § 103 when paired with a notification‑preferences reference.
  • Claim 6 (RF‑enabled indicator positively identifying RF state): the reference does not expressly claim such an indicator; not anticipated on its own.
  • Claim 9 (PDA‑centric device with mobile telephone component): the reference expressly states the airplane/alarm‑feature benefit "is particularly important when the telephone is coupled with a personal digital assistant (PDA)." Potential read on claim 9.
  • Claim 10 (RF check mechanism + display of RF status as an airplane graphic): the reference supplies the "airplane" concept but no graphic display and no RF‑check mechanism as claimed — not anticipated alone.
  • Independent claim 1: supplies the RF‑device and safe‑for‑no‑RF‑zone concepts but not "preferences that include an indication of RF status to display." Not a clean anticipation.

7. US 6,836,656 B2 — Sanyo, "Portable telephone"

• Full citation: US 6,836,656 B2; filed 2000‑04‑14; issued 2004‑12‑28; Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. (unverified full text)
• Brief description: From the title and family, a portable telephone (Sanyo). The quickest filing (2000‑04‑14) among the RF references makes it § 102(e) art as of an earlier US filing. I could not verify its disclosure content, so I make no assertion about which claims it reads on beyond noting it is a same‑field portable‑telephone reference likely directed to display/operational‑mode control. Treat as § 103 support pending full‑text review.

---

Summary assessment

Standalone § 102 anticipation of the independent claims (1, 10, 13): In my analysis, no single one of the seven cited references discloses every limitation of claim 1, 10, or 13. The two features that defeat single‑reference anticipation are the claim‑1/claim‑13 requirement that the preferences include a displayed indication of RF status "to render the electronic device safe for no RF zones" and the claim‑10 requirement that the RF status be displayed as an airplane graphic:

• The notification‑preferences elements come from US 6,209,011 (Microsoft) and US 6,317,593 (Gateway).
• The RF/no‑RF‑zone elements come from US 6,453,182 (Qualcomm) and, for a display indicator, US 6,131,046 (Sanyo).
• No cited reference combines user‑configurable notification preferences with a displayed RF‑status safety indication.

Where § 102 potential is strongest (dependent claims):

More properly § 103 material: US 5,889,852, US 6,070,055, and US 6,836,656 (the latter unverified) appear to be background/same‑field art rather than anticipatory; the examiner‑level citations of Microsoft + Gateway + Qualcomm + Sanyo read as an obviousness‑type combination of (a) user‑configurable, schedulable notifications and (b) an RF‑disable "airplane/quiet" mode with a status display.

---

Caveats (stated explicitly per operating rules)

1. I did not auto‑correct any identifier. Where the numbers in my prose could be read as ambiguous, the authoritative strings are US 5,889,852 A; US 6,070,055 A; US 6,131,046 A; US 6,209,011 B1; US 6,317,593 B1; US 6,453,182 B1; and US 6,836,656 B2.
2. Full text was not obtained for US 5,889,852, US 6,070,055, and US 6,836,656; their descriptions here are title‑based and marked unverified. A definitive anticipation mapping for these requires the granted‑claim and specification text.
3. Pre‑AIA § 102 categories above reflect the reference's filing/issue dates relative to the '300 patent's 2000‑11‑09 filing. The § 102(e) status of US 6,453,182 and US 6,836,656 should be confirmed against their earliest effective U.S./foreign priority dates, which I did not fully verify for US 6,836,656.
4. This is a technical prior‑art reading, not a legal opinion; where I see only partial disclosure I label it § 103 rather than § 102. The earlier-generated patent summary (assignment chain, litigation history, expiration 2022‑12‑17) remains consistent with everything I observed in the record and is not contradicted here.

I'll verify the key prior-art references before building the combination analysis.

Let me check the remaining examiner-cited references to complete the prior-art picture.

Obviousness Analysis — US 6,928,300 B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Building on the claim summary and PTAB sections already generated. This section assumes those; it does not re-describe the patent's field, figures, or prosecution/litigation history except where the § 103 analysis requires it.

---

1. Legal framework and the law that applies

US 09/710,156 was filed 2000-11-09 — before the AIA first-inventor-to-file date of 2013-03-16 — so pre-AIA § 103(a) governs: the reference must be prior art under pre-AIA § 102, and the question is whether the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The governing rubric is Graham v. John Deere (scope/content of art; differences; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations), as amplified by KSR Int'l v. Teleflex (2007) — a combination is obvious where the references are from the same field or analogous fields, the elements are combined "according to known methods to yield predictable results," a "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" exists, or the combination merely applies "a known technique … to improve similar devices in the same way."

A structural caution that runs through the whole analysis: three of this patent's asserted hooks are (i) "user-modifiable preferences," (ii) the RF-status/"airplane safe" indication, and (iii) scheduled auto enable/disable. Each of these was, by the November 2000 priority date, an established, well-documented design space — and the examiner cited all seven of the references in § 3 below on the face of the patent (Google Patents marks each with the "cited by examiner" asterisk). That cuts both ways: the examiner had the closest art in front of him, but the record does not show any combination rejection was made — and KSR gives a defendant far more latitude to combine than the examiner exercised in 2005.

---

2. Person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

A POSITA here would be a software/firmware engineer (or a small multidisciplinary team) with ~2–4 years' experience in handheld computing and cellular/PCS telephony interface development, familiar with:

• the Palm™/Palm OS preferences-dialog paradigm and H/PC (Windows CE) GUI dialogs;
• radio power-management states (sleep/standby, transceiver power-down);
• real-time clock alarm/interrupt scheduling APIs; and
• the then-emerging regulatory norm that radiotelephones be fully RF-silent in aircraft and certain medical zones.

This is a KSR-style "ordinary creativity" artisan, not a narrowly single-discipline one — which matters for combining a notification GUI reference with a radio power-control reference (see § 6).

---

3. The prior art of record (verified characterization)

Verified by live search in preparing this section; unverified items are flagged.

Also in the family's cited-art set (from the page's "Family Cites Families" block): FI 982363 ("Method and system for restricting the operation of a radio device in a specific area"), JP 2885721, JP 3119173, JP 3125758, GB 2 324 245, GB 2 314 726 B, US 5,845,219 (Nokia, "priority call alerting during silent service mode"), EP 0 967 814, JP 2000-287274. FI 982363 and GB 2 324 245 are independently important — a "restrict the operation of a radio device in a specific area" teaching is close to the no-RF-zone limitation. I did not verify their contents in this session; they should be pulled and read before any ground is charted.

Do not use as art: US 2002/0132645 A1 (Sprigg, Qualcomm, "Mobile terminal with schedule display," filed 2001-01-24) appears in this family's citation lists but post-dates the 2000-11-09 priority date and is therefore not prior art to this patent. Likewise US 6,996,333 (Microsoft, timed profile changes) and the RIM/Kavounas items in the "Cited By" block are after-arising and cannot be used.

---

4. Where each claim's limitations actually live

Claim 1 requires: display screen; event-driven notification component; processor that retrieves and displays user-modifiable notification-enable/disable preferences, saves them, and configures the device; plus the RF-device limitation and the "indication of RF status … to render the electronic device safe for no RF zones."

Claim 10 requires an RF check mechanism that tests internal/attached devices and produces a signal, and a screen displaying the status as an airplane graphic.

Claim 13 is the method analogue of claim 1 (display options → receive preference → configure), again with the RF-status preference.

The only genuinely distinctive content relative to the cited art is therefore: (A) the RF-status/"airplane safe" confirmation, and (B) the "airplane graphic" specifically. Everything else — the preferences dialog, save/configure loop, scheduling with start/stop times and alarms, ON/OFF options, LED indicators, PDA+phone integration — is squarely in the cited art. That concentration of novelty in one or two narrow limitations is exactly what makes the claim set vulnerable to a two-or-three-reference § 103 attack.

---

5. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 13 (and 3, 4, 8, 9, 14): **US 6,317,593 in view of US 6,453,182

This is the strongest ground because the two references are nearly complementary.

• '593 supplies the entire "preferences + schedule + configure" architecture: user-set absolute times for enabling/disabling functions and/or power to the communication circuitry, stored in a memory-resident activation schedule table that the user modifies through the interface; the real-time clock issues interrupts according to the schedule (→ claim 3 start/stop times and claim 4 "set alarm times based on said start and stop times … enable and disable according to the alarms"); and '593's express teaching that only some functions are disabled at a time, with "call out" remaining enabled, maps onto the claimed "notifications enabled/disabled" concept and claim 5's coupling of notification state to RF state.
• '182 supplies the RF-device and no-RF-zone dimension: airplane mode disables the transceiver and modem (→ claim 1's "component includes an RF device"), the two modes are user-selectable (auto-entry vs. manual entry), the other device functions remain available (matching the '300 patent's insistence that "other functionality of the device 300 is still operable"), and — critically — '182 expressly contemplates the telephone "coupled with a personal digital assistant (PDA)" (→ claim 9, "PDA centric device … mobile telephone device").
• Motivation (KSR): Both references address the same problem the '300 patent identifies — the user who wants the phone quiet during sleep/class/meetings without losing PDA functions. '593's scheduling engine already turns radio power on and off at user-set absolute times; '182 explicitly frames the same behavior as "alarm clock mode" with "auto-entry … automatically entered at a fixed time every evening" and auto-exit at a predetermined morning time. A POSITA implementing a schedulable radio on/off feature would have had the strongest reason to look to '182 for the radio-power semantics and to '593 for the user-configured schedule table + RTC interrupt mechanics. Combining them is the combination of prior art elements "according to known methods" with a predictable result (phone quiet at 3–5 PM; phone live again; PDA unaffected) — no new mechanical/electrical principle is required. There is no teaching away: '182 itself endorses scheduled auto-entry, so it affirmatively points toward '593-style user scheduling.

Result: Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 13 obvious; claims 2, 6, 8, 9, 14 obvious as to the RF-state/date/UI-option features with the same references (claim 14 "ON option and OFF option" is disclosed by '593's enable/disable and by '055's ON/OFF bits — see Ground 3).

Ground 2 — Claims 1, 13, 14 (notification-preferences GUI): **US 6,209,011 in view of **US 6,317,593 or US 6,453,182

'011 independently supplies claim 1's processor functions and claim 13's method steps almost verbatim in a handheld computing device:

Fed with '593 (schedule table + RTC interrupts + user-modifiable stored schedule) and/or '182 (RF device, airplane mode), the combination covers claims 1 and 13. Motivation: '011's notification manager and '593's activation-schedule engine are both handheld/telephony power-and-alert schedulers using the same RTC-interrupt mechanism; merging the "which events alert the user" layer ('011) with the "which radio functions are powered" layer ('593) is a predictable, known-method combination with a reasonable expectation of success (both are software layers over the same clock).

Ground 3 — Claim 14 (ON/OFF options): **US 6,070,055 alone or in view of US 6,317,593

'055 discloses a displayed menu window with icons in which the user sets each function ON (0) / OFF (x), with the state stored as bits and read back by the control unit — i.e., displaying a user-selectable ON option and OFF option and saving the user's selection. Claim 14 is the least defensible claim in the set; it adds essentially nothing over this 1997-filed NEC reference, especially combined with '593's user-set enable/disable schedule.

Ground 4 — Claim 10 (and 11, 12): RF check + signal + airplane graphic

This claim needs its own chart because its "airplane graphic" limitation is the narrowest thing in the patent:

• RF check mechanism that tests devices and produces a status signal → '182's mode-state/power-control logic (the phone "knows" whether the modem and transceiver are disabled, and disables them "either by hardware or software"); on the PDA side, the '300 patent's own check routine is described as a software test of the RF device producing an indication — a POSITA would implement this as a read of the radio driver's state flag. Note honestly: none of the seven examiner-cited references expressly describes a discrete "check routine that tests internal and attached devices." This is the one element for which a defendant should expect to need either (a) a new reference (e.g., a paging/portable-radio power-status-display patent, or the FI 982363 "restrict radio device operation in a specific area" art), or (b) an obviousness argument that routine querying of a driver's enable/disable flag is nothing more than the predictable use of a known technique to verify state before display. I would not call claim 10 the strongest § 103 target.
• "indication of RF status displayed … safe for no RF zones" → '182's airplane mode supplies the status and the safety purpose; '046 (Sanyo, "altering displayed keys to indicate availability of service") supplies the concept of changing a display to signal a service/RF-availability condition; '852 (Nokia, GUI/iconography) supports that graphic icons are an established status-conveyance mechanism.
• "airplane graphic" → the specific rubric chosen is a design choice among a finite, predictable set of status indicators (icon, text message, LED). Where the function (tell the user "RF off, safe on a plane") is established by '182 and the medium (a screen-displayed graphic status) is established by '046/'852, the selection of an airplane-shaped icon is the kind of "predictable variation" KSR holds obvious. Claim 11 (graphic includes a text message) is met by '011's dialog box 140 displaying a message about the alarm; claim 12 (indicator light) is met squarely by '011's LED 40, which is also the "LEDs or other indicating lights" the '300 patent's own spec describes as the confirmation mechanism.

Ground 5 — Claims 18, 19, 20 (computer-readable media / source code)

Claims 18 and 20 recite the Ground 1–3 method "embodied in compilable source code"/"interpretable and executable software source code" stored on media; claim 19 narrows claim 18's medium to "a memory device inside the PDA." '011 expressly discloses a notification program running on the handheld device with device drivers and an API (PegSetUserNotification), and '593 stores the activation schedule table in phone memory. Media-form claims adding nothing beyond the programmed machine are obvious over the same grounds; claim 19's "memory inside the PDA" is met by '011's H/PC internal clock/memory architecture.

---

6. The motivation-to-combine showing (common to Grounds 1–5)

Under KSR, any one of the following rationales suffices; here, several apply simultaneously:

1. Same field / same problem. All the primary references address handheld/telephony alerting and power scheduling for the same user need (don't disturb me; don't waste battery; stay reachable when I want to be).
2. Known technique applied to a similar device, predictable result. RTC-interrupt-driven scheduling of device state was standard ('593, '011); applying it to the radio-power state taught by '182 yields nothing more than the expected result.
3. Explicit bodily incorporation hooks. '182 itself teaches PDA coupling and scheduled auto-entry/auto-exit of a radio-off mode; '011 itself teaches the enable/disable preferences dialog. A POSITA reading '182 for airplane mode would naturally reach for the PDA's existing notification-preference UI ('011) and scheduling engine ('593).
4. Design incentive / regulatory pressure. By late 2000 the "airplane mode" and hospital-zone requirements were a known market and regulatory driver (this is exactly why Qualcomm's '182 exists and why Nokia's FI 982363 addresses "restricting the operation of a radio device in a specific area"). That demand supplies both the motivation to add an RF-off mode and the motivation to add a positive, verifiable indication of RF-off state so that the user (or a flight attendant) can confirm it.
5. Finite, predictable solution set for the display element. Once the need to signal RF status is recognized, icon / text / indicator light are the conventional options ('046, '852, '011). Choosing a pictogram is not inventive.

Secondary considerations: I have found no evidence in the record of a nexus between any commercial embodiment and these specific claim limitations, no unexpected results, and no industry praise tied to the RF-status display as such. Absent such evidence, the Graham secondary factors do not currently rebut any of the above grounds. (If you are on the patent-owner side, licensing/adoption evidence in the 2001–2003 Palm/Handspring device cycle would be the place to look — but the burden of nexus would be real.)

---

7. Where the § 103 case is weak — be candid

1. Claim 10's "RF check mechanism" + "airplane graphic." No verified reference expressly discloses a discrete RF test routine. Weakest independent claim to attack on the art of record; expect to need FI 982363, JP 2885721/3119173/3125758, or new art.
2. Claim 1's "to render the electronic device safe for no RF zones." This is arguably a statement of intended use (cf. In re Schreiber) that does not patentably distinguish an otherwise-anticipated structure. If construed as intended use only, it drops out of the § 103 analysis entirely — which helps the challenger. If the patentee obtains a construction requiring an actual safety-confirmation function, it becomes a real limitation, and '182's airplane mode plus an indicator is the counter.
3. Prosecution history. All seven references were of record, and the patent issued anyway — so the challenger must show the specific combination was not considered. That is normally straightforward with KSR rationale (examiners in 2003–2005 rarely articulated motivations to combine), but the patentee will argue the examiner "already considered" this art. Rebut with the absence of any combination rejection and, if available, the examiner's stated reasons for allowance.
4. Not verified in this session: the contents of US 6,131,046, US 5,889,852, US 6,836,656, FI 982363, JP 2885721, JP 3119173, JP 3125758, GB 2 324 245. Every one of these must be pulled and read before a ground is charted. Claims 10–12 in particular depend on references I could not fully verify here.

---

8. Bottom line

Primary § 103 theory: US 6,317,593* in view of US 6,453,182, further in view of *US 6,209,011 renders claims 1–9, 12, 13, 14, and 18–20 obvious; claims 10–11 require an additional display/icon reference (and, if the "RF check mechanism" is read structurally rather than as an intended-use statement, additional art).

Caveat on sourcing. Everything attributed above to US 6,317,593, US 6,453,182, US 6,209,011, US 6,070,055 was verified against live sources this session (links in § 3). The characterizations of US 6,131,046, US 5,889,852, US 6,836,656, FI 982363 and the JP references are based on the citation record on the patent page plus general knowledge, and I have flagged them as unverified rather than assert their disclosures. I have not fabricated any reference, paragraph cite, or claim element.