US 7289024

I'll verify this patent against live sources before summarizing.

I ran the requested searches. Here's what I found and a concise summary.

Sourcing note / scope of verification

The two searches above were for the literal number 7289024 (patent US 7,289,024 B2). I did not find any live litigation, PTAB proceeding, or CAFC docket (2026 or otherwise) involving this patent. Two traps worth flagging explicitly, since you asked me not to return similar numbers:

• Hits containing the string "7289024" in court filings were Westlaw citations (e.g., Grays v. Auto Mart USA, LLC, 2019 WL 7289024) — a case-reporter number, not the patent.
• Recent EDTX filings referring to "the '074 Patent" (e.g., Attentive v. Postscript, No. 1:23-cv-00087) concern different, 11-million-series patents. US 7,289,024 would be cited as "the '024 patent." Not the same.

I relied primarily on the fetched Google Patents record (authoritative text supplied), cross-checked against uspto.report. I did not directly query USPTO Patent Center/PAIR or the CAFC docket system in this session, so the litigation-free finding is based on search coverage rather than an exhaustive docket pull — treat it as "no evidence found," not "confirmed none."

Summary of US 7,289,024 B2

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7289024/en and https://uspto.report/patent/grant/7289024

Abstract (as granted): A system employing a telematics unit and a telematics call center. The telematics unit includes a first module and a first set of at least one pre-scripted text message; the telematics call center includes a second module and a second set of at least one pre-scripted text message. The modules operate to selectively establish a communication between the telematics unit and the call center involving at least one of the two sets of pre-scripted text messages.

Independent claims in plain language

Claim 1 (system). Two-sided architecture: a vehicle telematics unit holding a first module plus its own set of pre-scripted text messages, and a telematics call center holding a second module plus its own set of pre-scripted text messages. The two modules can selectively establish communication between unit and center. The in-vehicle module must additionally:

1. Enter a pre-scripted text message mode on any one of three triggers — (a) failure of an impedance test of at least one audio circuit, (b) airbag deployment, or (c) receipt of an emergency mode input;
2. Present a plurality of the pre-scripted messages to the user through a pre-scripted text message mode interface;
3. Receive the user's selection of one of those messages via that interface; and
4. Transmit the selected message between the telematics unit and the call center.

In practical terms: when voice fails or the cabin can't/won't speak (dead mic/speaker line, crash with airbag deployment, or a deliberate emergency press), the car surfaces a menu of canned phrases and the occupant taps one to send a text to the advisor.

Claim 4 (method). The method mirror of claim 1: enter the pre-scripted text message mode on one of the same three triggers; after entering, provide a plurality of pre-scripted messages via the interface; receive the user's selection via the interface; and transmit the selected message from the telematics unit to the call center.

Claim 11 (means-plus-function system). The §112(f)-style counterpart: means for entering the mode on one of the three triggers; means for providing the plurality of pre-scripted messages via the interface upon entering the mode; means for receiving the user's selection; and means for transmitting the selected message from unit to center.

Dependent claims: 2 — protocol selected from SMS, CDMA, AMPS, SDARS, GSM, PCS, Bluetooth, 802.11, or an FCC Part 15 protocol; 3 — first message sent in response to an activation command from the vehicle or a mobile phone; 5 — storing the messages in the telematics unit; 6 — emergency mode input is an emergency button press; 7 — receiving a message back from the call center in response; 8 — displaying the messages on a display screen; 9 — display screen is a navigation screen, monitor, driver information display, or radio display unit; 10 — setting a diagnostic trouble code.

Prior art cited on the face

Nine references, including US 5,630,207; US 6,810,323; US 6,871,067; US 6,956,831; US 2003/0078033 A1; US 2003/0083060 A1; US 2004/0142678 A1 (Krasner, emergency info via wireless devices); US 2004/0185855 A1 (continuing a call); and US 7,071,821 B2.

Points of uncertainty

• Claim scope changed between publication and grant. The pre-grant publication/description frames the invention broadly around "modules selectively establishing communication" and "determining whether the telematics unit is in a pre-scripted text message mode," while granted claim 1 recites the narrower, specific triggers (impedance-test failure / airbag deployment / emergency mode input) plus interface display and user selection. The granted claim text is authoritative.
• Assignee history is convoluted due to the 2008–2010 GM bankruptcy and Treasury/UAW/Citicorp security interests and releases. Google lists current assignee as General Motors LLC; the title chain is not a clean single assignment.
• Fetched status vs. an inconsistent snippet. Google Patents shows "Expired – Lifetime," adjusted expiration 2025-12-08, and the record shows a 12th-year maintenance fee paid 2019-04-18. One search result surfaced "PATENT EXPIRED DUE TO NONPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEES / lapse 20200715" — that text appears within the record for a different family member/publication (US 2006/0047373 A1), not the '024 patent, and I could not reconcile it with the '024 fee records from these sources. If precise expiration status matters, verify in USPTO Patent Center.
• No CAFC 2026 docket hit for US 7,289,024 was found. I cannot affirmatively state the patent has never been litigated; I only state that nothing surfaced for this number in the searches run.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 7289024. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me search more specific litigation databases and case-tracking sites.

Let me try more targeted docket-focused searches.

Findings: Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 7,289,024

Short answer: Based on my searches, I found no litigation — past or pending — in which U.S. Patent No. 7,289,024 ("Method and system for sending pre-scripted text messages," Sumcad et al., assigned to General Motors) is identified as an asserted patent. I want to be explicit that this is a negative finding from the sources I could reach, not a certified "no litigation exists" determination.

What I searched

• General web queries for US patent 7289024 litigation, "7289024" patent lawsuit, "7,289,024" patent infringement case, "7289024" General Motors patent lawsuit defendant
• The Unified Patents portal / PTAB-related materials and Docket Alarm litigation results
• Justia dockets / CourtListener / UniCourt style docket pages
• The Google Patents page for US7289024 provided in the record

What the searches returned

• No case hits for this patent number. Results for queries containing "7289024" returned either the patent's own bibliographic page (uspto.report, Google Patents) or unrelated matters that merely happened to contain similar or coincidental strings — e.g., a § 1927 sanctions opinion (D. Colo.), trademark/bankruptcy opinions, a Masimo v. Apple jury-instruction filing, an MCOM IP complaint list, and a Lithuanian company-registry notice referencing "Pranešimo Nr. 7289024." None of these involve U.S. 7,289,024.
• The Google Patents record itself shows no "Litigation" section. It lists only "Cited By," "Family Citing," "Citations," and assignment/legal-events history. A patent that had been asserted would typically show up in third‑party litigation databases even if not on that page, so this is corroborating but not dispositive.
• The patent's legal status is "Expired – Lifetime" (adjusted expiration 2025-12-08), and fees were paid through the 12th year, which is consistent with a patent that was never the subject of recorded district-court enforcement.

One item to flag — not confirmed as this patent

My search surfaced a 2026 case, Wyoming Technology Licensing, LLC v. General Motors LLC, No. 1:2026cv00810 (W.D. Tex., filed April 1, 2026), a patent-infringement suit against GM. I could not confirm which patent(s) are asserted in that case, and the docket's "cause of action" field shown was 15 U.S.C. § 1126, which is not the usual statutory basis for a utility-patent infringement count. I am therefore not attributing U.S. 7,289,024 to that case — doing so would be speculation. It is worth pulling the actual complaint in that docket to rule it in or out.

Recommended next steps to close the gap

Because my tool access was limited, a definitive answer should be confirmed against authoritative dockets:

1. Lex Machina / Docket Navigator patent-module search on patent number 7,289,024 (these index asserted patents directly).
2. Unified Patents litigation portal — search the patent number in the caselist/dashboard at portal.unifiedpatents.com.
3. PACER / CourtListener RECAP full-text search for "7,289,024" in complaint text (many complaints cite the patent number in that formatted form).
4. USPTO Patent Center / Assignment records and the PTAB endpoint for any IPR/PGR referencing the patent (none appeared in my search).
5. Pull the complaint in Wyoming Technology Licensing, LLC v. GM, No. 1:26-cv-00810 (W.D. Tex.) to confirm or exclude it.

Bottom line

Per the searches I was able to run, I found no known litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 7,289,024. I state that with the explicit caveat that my searches did not reach a definitive asserted-patent database, so the result should be verified in Lex Machina/Docket Navigator and the Unified Patents portal before it is relied upon. I did not locate a plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome for any case on this patent, and I will not supply fabricated case data to fill that gap.

I'll verify the canonical "no proceedings" result against live sources before writing.

Let me run a few more targeted checks for any AIA trial, appeal, or litigation activity.

PTAB / AIA Trial Posture — US 7,289,024 B2

"Method and system for sending pre-scripted text messages" | Sumcad, Veliu, Kamdar | GM (now General Motors LLC) | filed 2004-08-19, granted 2007-10-30 | App. 10/922,013

---

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal ingest) returns no AIA trials, and independent web checks found no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition, no institution decision, no final written decision, and no Federal Circuit appeal touching US 7,289,024. Breakdown by status: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0.

Bottom-line defensive posture: there is no PTAB outcome to lean on. This is a clean-record patent, not a hardened one — nothing has been canceled, nothing has been confirmed, and no petitioner estoppel exists to hand a defendant a free pass. Conversely, and more practically: the patent term has run. Google Patents reports an adjusted expiration of 2025-12-08 and a current legal status of Expired – Lifetime (12th-year maintenance fee paid 2019-04-18; no further fee events). As of today (2026-09-29) the patent is roughly ten months past expiration, which matters more to a defendant than any PTAB statistic.

Verification trail (no proceedings found)

No proceeding numbers are invented or inferred below. Where a field of the standard template cannot be populated, it is marked N/A — no proceeding exists.

No proceeding to report

There is no IPR, PGR, or CBM to walk through claim-by-claim. Rather than fabricate entries, here is the null-result picture that a defendant actually needs:

• Type / Filed / Status / Judge panel / Grounds / Institution / FWD / Settlement / Appeal: all N/A — no proceeding exists.
• PGR unavailability: PGR applies only to patents with an effective filing date on or after 2013-03-16. This patent's priority date is 2004-08-19 — PGR was never available against it.
• CBM unavailability: the transitional CBM program (AIA § 18) sunset on 2020-09-16, and the subject matter (telematics emergency messaging between a vehicle and a call center) is not a covered business method in any event.
• IPR eligibility window: IPRs have been available since 2012-09-16. This patent sat IPR-eligible for ~13 years and drew zero petitions. That is not evidence of strength — it is consistent with a patent that was never the subject of a public infringement campaign. Well-asserted patents attract IPRs; this one did not.
• PTAB "sustained/invalidated" claim map: no claim of US 7,289,024 has ever been canceled, disclaimed, or held unpatentable in any AIA trial. All 11 issued claims remain as granted.
• Reexamination: the public legal-events record for the patent shows only assignments (GM → Motors Liquidation → GM Company → GM LLC) and maintenance-fee payments — no ex parte reexamination certificate and no reissue appears on the face of the record.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: 11 claims, all UNTESTED, all expired. The granted claim set is claims 1–11. Claim 1 is a system claim (telematics unit with a first module and a first set of pre-scripted text messages + telematics call center with a second module and a second set of pre-scripted text messages) in which the first module is further required to (a) enter pre-scripted text message mode on failure of an impedance test of at least one audio circuit, airbag deployment, or receipt of an emergency mode input; (b) present a plurality of pre-scripted messages through an interface; (c) receive a user selection; and (d) transmit the selected message. Claims 4 and 11 are the parallel method and means-plus-function claims carrying the same entry triggers; claims 2, 3, 5–10 are dependencies (protocol list; activation command from vehicle or mobile phone; storing; emergency button press; call-center response; display screen variants; DTC). Because no claim has been tested, there is no "surviving claim" list narrowed by IPR — every claim is untested, and the entire set is exposed to a first-challenger attack. Note also that the granted claim 1 is materially narrower than the published application US20060038674A1 (whose abstract/summary recites "at least one pre-scripted text message" without the impedance-test / airbag / emergency-input triggers), consistent with amendment during prosecution. Confirm the exact as-granted text and any certificate of correction against USPTO PatentCenter before relying on this.

Estoppel landscape: none, because there is no IPR. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only to a petitioner (and its real parties in interest/privies) in an IPR that instituted. With zero instituted trials, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel exists against anyone, and no § 325(e)(1)/(2) estoppel from PGR/CBM either. Practically, this means a defendant's invalidity position is unconstrained: all § 102/§ 103 patent-and-printed-publication grounds, all § 112 grounds (unavailable in IPR anyway), and all system-prior-art/§ 102(a)(1) public-use grounds are fully available in district court. The nine examiner-cited references on the face of the patent (US5630207; US6956831; US6810323; US6871067; US20030078033A1; US20030083060A1; US20040185855A1; US20040142678A1; US7071821) are the natural starting kit for a § 103 combination, and none of them carries any estoppel or § 325(d) baggage from a prior Board proceeding.

Pattern signals: nothing to profile. There is no repeat petitioner (no petitioner at all), no patent-owner appeal practice (no FWD to appeal), and no defensive-aggregator trail (no Unified Patents / RPX-style IPR on this number appears in the record). The only "pattern" is the ownership chain — the GM bankruptcy-era reassignment sequence (Motors Liquidation Company, US Treasury and Citicorp security interests, UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust, released 2010-11-04 and 2014-11-07, ending at General Motors LLC). That chain matters for standing/real-party-in-interest if anyone asserts it, not for PTAB strategy. One family item to check: the continuation-in-part US 11/058,349 (filed 2005-02-15, published as US20060030298A1, same 2004-08-19 priority) is a separate filing with its own claims — if a demand letter cites the "pre-scripted text messages" family, identify whether it is targeting the '024 patent or the CIP's offspring; they are not the same asset.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Lead with expiration, not validity. The patent's adjusted expiration is 2025-12-08 and its recorded status is Expired – Lifetime. Post-expiration making/using/selling cannot infringe. Any remaining exposure is historical damages only, and 35 U.S.C. § 286 limits recovery to the six years preceding the complaint — i.e., conduct from approximately 2019-12-08 forward. Demand the plaintiff identify accused conduct within that window with specificity.
2. Say the quiet part explicitly in any invalidity contentions: no PTAB activity exists on US 7,289,024 — no IPR, PGR, or CBM, no petition, no institution decision, no FWD, no Federal Circuit appeal, and no reexamination certificate. That means no § 315(e)(2)/§ 325(e) estoppel constrains any defendant, and the full prior-art universe is open. There is no FWD to link or quote, because none was ever issued — do not let an opponent imply otherwise.
3. If you nonetheless want a Board record (rarely worth it here): an IPR is technically available against an expired patent, but with no injunctive exposure and a six-year damages tail closing, the cost-benefit is usually unfavorable — especially when a district-court § 103 case using the nine examiner-cited references is cheaper and unconstrained by estoppel. If you do file, the statutory clock is unforgiving: the Board must issue a final written decision within one year of institution (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)), extendable up to six months for good cause — and the § 315(b) one-year bar runs from service of the infringement complaint.
4. Verify the claim text you are defending against. Pull the as-granted claims and the full prosecution history for App. 10/922,013 from USPTO PatentCenter and cross-check the file wrapper for the amendment that added the impedance-test / airbag / emergency-input triggers to claim 1. That prosecution-history narrowing is the most promising source of prosecution-history estoppel and of a § 112 written-description attack on the added limitations.
5. Check for co-pending/related assertions before settling. Run the patent number, the patent family, and the CIP publication US20060030298A1 through Docket Navigator or Lex Machina. I could not confirm from public sources whether US 7,289,024 has ever been asserted in litigation; treat that as an unverified gap, not as a finding that no suit exists.

Confidence note: the "zero PTAB proceedings" conclusion is high-confidence — it comes from the canonical ODP block and was not contradicted by any web source. The absence of any district-court assertion history is not something I can confirm with high confidence from the sources checked; verify it in a litigation database before relying on it.

I'll cross-check the assignment record and related litigation/ownership facts before writing.

Let me check for recorded assignment correspondents and any assertion history tied to this patent number.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 7,289,024 B2

Patent: US 7,289,024 B2 — "Method and system for sending pre-scripted text messages"
App. No.: 10/922,013 · Filed: 2004-08-19 · Granted: 2007-10-30 · Adjusted expiration: 2025-12-08 (per Google Patents legal events)
Related matter: continuation-in-part 11/058,349 (filed 2005-02-15, pub. US20060030298A1, pub. 2006-02-09), claiming priority to 10/922,013.

Data-provenance note, read first. The reel/frame numbers below are taken from the Google Patents legal-events feed for this patent. The USPTO Assignment Center / assignment.uspto.gov record is the controlling source, and the Assignment Center's "correspondent of record" field is not exposed in any source I could reach for this patent — Google Patents omits it, and I did not retrieve the underlying Assignment Center abstract-of-title pages. I therefore report correspondent data as unverified rather than guess. Everything else below is transcribed from recorded reel/frame entries.

---

Inventors

All three executed the original assignment to General Motors Corporation two days before the 2004-08-19 filing date, which is the standard employment/obligation-to-assign pattern for a large corporate filer — not an inventor-owned or university-owned filing.

Unusual-pattern check: No evidence found of inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing, and no inventor-owned follow-on filings or inventor-to-LLC transfers appear in the chain. The work is squarely GM's OnStar/telematics engineering (the specification is written entirely from the perspective of an embedded telematics unit and a GM-style call center with human or virtual advisors). Note: I could not independently verify individual employment histories post-filing, so "no departure" is an absence-of-evidence finding, not a confirmed one.

Caution on name-matching: a 2021 E.D. Tex. complaint by K.Mizra LLC against GM references a "lead inventor … residing in Plano, Texas," but that concerns US 7,394,423 ("Internet Protocol Based 911 System") — a different patent, different chain. Do not conflate it with this patent.

---

Original assignee

General Motors Corporation (Delaware corporation), 300 Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan 48265 — the entity named at grant and recorded in the original assignment (Reel 015713/0943, executed 2004-08-17, recorded 2004-08-19).

• Line of business: global automotive OEM. The patent's commercial embodiment is GM's OnStar connected-vehicle service — automated crash response, advisor call-center interaction, and in-vehicle emergency communication. GM launched OnStar in 1996 and has described it as the industry's first embedded telematics system; it ships on millions of GM vehicles (e.g., GM's own litigation admissions describe OnStar as factory-installed standard equipment from MY2015 and reaching "more than 21 million connected vehicles globally"). The '024 claims (emergency-triggered pre-scripted text mode, impedance-test failure, airbag deployment) map directly onto OnStar Automatic Crash Response behavior.
• Product embodying the claims: Yes — OnStar/connected-vehicle services. This is the operating-company prong, and it is well documented in GM and third-party litigation filings (see e.g. the GM/OnStar MDL materials and the FTC/California AG connected-services complaints referencing OnStar crash response and diagnostics).
• Current status: Operating. The Detroit-based business survived its 2009 Chapter 11 via a §363 asset sale to a new entity; today the reorganized automaker (General Motors Company → General Motors LLC) is the owner of record for this patent, and General Motors LLC is the current assignee listed by Google Patents. The old entity was renamed Motors Liquidation Company and wound down through the MLC GUC Trust (administered by Wilmington Trust Company, S.D.N.Y. Case No. 09-50026 (REG)).

---

Assignment timeline

Fourteen recorded entries for this patent. The chain is entirely internal to GM plus its 2008–2010 lenders/trustees. No third-party acquirer ever appears.

1. 2004-08-17 (executed) / recorded 2004-08-19 — Reel 015713/0943

• Conveyance: Assignment
• Assignor: Anthony J. Sumcad; Shpetim S. Veliu; Hitan S. Kamdar
• Assignee: General Motors Corporation (Michigan)
• Correspondent: Not exposed in source data — unverified.
• Context: Original inventor-to-corporate assignment at filing.

2. 2008-12-31 (executed) / recorded 2009-02-03 — Reel 022191/0254

• Conveyance: Security Agreement
• Assignor: General Motors Corporation
• Assignee: United States Department of the Treasury (District of Columbia)
• Correspondent: Not exposed in source data — unverified.
• Context: Securitization — collateral pledge of GM IP under the December 2008 bridge financing.

3. 2009-04-09 (executed) / recorded 2009-04-16 — Reel 022552/0006

• Conveyance: Security Agreement
• Assignor: General Motors Corporation
• Assignee: Citicorp USA, Inc., as agent for the Bank Priority Secured Parties and as agent for the Hedge Priority Secured Parties
• Correspondent: Not exposed in source data — unverified.
• Context: Securitization — further collateral pledge of the same IP to the bank/hedge lender group.

4. 2009-07-09 (executed) / recorded 2009-08-20 — Reel 023119/0491

• Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
• Assignor: United States Department of the Treasury
• Assignee / owner of record: Motors Liquidation Company (f/k/a General Motors Corporation)
• Correspondent: Not exposed in source data — unverified.
• Context: Internal restructuring / bankruptcy — clearing the Treasury lien to permit the §363 sale.

5. 2009-07-09 (executed) / recorded 2009-08-21 — Reel 023119/0817

• Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
• Assignor: Citicorp USA, Inc. (both agent capacities)
• Assignee / owner of record: Motors Liquidation Company (f/k/a General Motors Corporation)
• Correspondent: Not exposed in source data — unverified.
• Context: Internal restructuring / bankruptcy — clearing the Citicorp liens.

6. 2009-07-09 (executed) / recorded 2009-08-21 — Reel 023129/0236

• Conveyance: Change of Name
• Assignor: General Motors Corporation
• Assignee: Motors Liquidation Company (Michigan)
• Correspondent: Not exposed in source data — unverified.
• Context: Change of name only — the "old GM" debtor entity renamed as part of the Chapter 11.

7. 2009-07-10 (executed) / recorded 2009-08-27 — Reel 023148/0248

• Conveyance: Assignment of Interest
• Assignor: Motors Liquidation Company
• Assignee: General Motors Company (Michigan) — the "new GM" purchaser
• Correspondent: Not exposed in source data — unverified.
• Context: Bankruptcy asset transfer — the §363 sale of substantially all assets, including this patent, to the reorganized automaker. Not a fire-sale to a third party; the acquirer is the same business.

8. 2009-07-10 (executed) / recorded 2009-08-27 — Reel 023155/0814

• Conveyance: Security Agreement
• Assignor: General Motors Company
• Assignee: United States Department of the Treasury
• Correspondent: Not exposed in source data — unverified.
• Context: Securitization — re-pledge of GM IP to Treasury under the new financing.

9. 2009-07-10 (executed) / recorded 2009-08-27 — Reel 023155/0849

• Conveyance: Security Agreement
• Assignor: General Motors Company
• Assignee: UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust (Michigan)
• Correspondent: Not exposed in source data — unverified.
• Context: Securitization — concurrent pledge of the same IP to the VEBA retiree trust.

10. 2009-10-16 (executed) / recorded 2009-11-12 — Reel 023504/0691

• Conveyance: Change of Name
• Assignor: General Motors Company
• Assignee: General Motors LLC (Michigan)
• Correspondent: Not exposed in source data — unverified.
• Context: Change of name only, in connection with the October 2009 holding-company reorganization (the operating company became GM LLC; a new holding company took the General Motors Company name).

11. 2010-04-20 (executed) / recorded 2010-11-04 — Reel 025245/0442

• Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
• Assignor: United States Department of the Treasury
• Assignee / owner of record as recorded: GM Global Technology Operations, Inc. (Michigan)
• Correspondent: Not exposed in source data — unverified.
• Context: Securitization unwind — Treasury lien discharged. ⚠️ Recorded-owner discrepancy: this entry and the next name GM Global Technology Operations, Inc. as the owner, yet no assignment from General Motors LLC into GM Global Technology Operations, Inc. appears in this dataset, and the 2010-11-08 and 2014 entries revert to General Motors LLC. The intermediate ownership of GM GTO is unexplained on this record and should be checked in Assignment Center — it may be an owner-name convention in the recording, or an internal transfer indexed under a different reel.

12. 2010-10-26 (executed) / recorded 2010-11-04 — Reel 025311/0770

• Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
• Assignor: UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust
• Assignee / owner of record as recorded: GM Global Technology Operations, Inc.
• Correspondent: Not exposed in source data — unverified.
• Context: Securitization unwind — VEBA lien discharged.

13. 2010-10-27 (executed) / recorded 2010-11-08 — Reel 025327/0196

• Conveyance: Security Agreement
• Assignor: General Motors LLC
• Assignee: Wilmington Trust Company (Delaware), as collateral agent
• Correspondent: Not exposed in source data — unverified. (See signal 3 below for a plausible but unconfirmed GM in-house correspondent.)
• Context: Securitization — post-bankruptcy credit facility collateral pledge.

14. 2014-10-17 (executed) / recorded 2014-11-07 — Reel 034183/0436

• Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
• Assignor: Wilmington Trust Company
• Assignee / owner of record: General Motors LLC
• Correspondent: Not exposed in source data — unverified. (See signal 3.)
• Context: Securitization unwind — final lien cleared; chain terminates at General Motors LLC, the operating automaker.

Maintenance-fee record (supporting evidence of a live asset): 4th-year fee 2011-03-30; 8th-year fee 2015-04-15; 12th-year fee 2019-04-18 (large entity). All three maintenance windows were paid, so the patent was never abandoned mid-term; Google Patents records it as Expired – Lifetime with an adjusted expiration of 2025-12-08.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7289024
    2004 : Filed 19 Aug by Sumcad et al
         : Assigned to General Motors Corporation
    2007 : Patent granted 30 Oct
    2008 : US Treasury takes security interest
    2009 : Citicorp group takes security interest
         : GM Corp renamed Motors Liquidation
         : Liens released to Motors Liquidation
         : Assets sold to General Motors Company
         : UAW trust takes security interest
         : Owner renamed General Motors LLC
    2010 : Treasury and UAW liens released
         : Wilmington Trust takes security interest
    2014 : Wilmington Trust lien released
    2025 : Patent reaches adjusted expiration

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. No "IP / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" transferee appears anywhere in the chain. Every non-GM assignee is either a lender/agent (Citicorp USA, Wilmington Trust Company), a government creditor (US Department of the Treasury), or a creditor trust (UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust) — and each of those appears only in Security Agreement or Release by Secured Party entries, i.e. as collateral holder, never as title owner. The only title transfers are Reel 023148/0248 (MLC → General Motors Company) and the two change-of-name recordings (Reels 023129/0236 and 023504/0691), all within the GM corporate family.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. The chain contains none of Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, MOSAID/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or any Spangenberg-linked entity. Current assignee is General Motors LLC. Directional corroboration: GM appears in the NPE dockets as a defendant, not a plaintiff — e.g. PJC Logistics LLC v. General Motors LLC, General Motors Company and OnStar LLC, D. Minn. No. 0:12-cv-00234 (filed 2012-01-31, with OnStar counterclaiming), and K.Mizra LLC v. General Motors LLC (E.D. Tex. Marshall Div., 2021, asserting US 7,394,423, an unrelated 911/telematics patent). I found no infringement suit in which the '024 patent is the asserted patent.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (not verifiable on this record). Correspondent fields for Reels 015713/0943, 022191/0254, 022552/0006, 023119/0491, 023119/0817, 023129/0236, 023148/0248, 023155/0814, 023155/0849, 023504/0691, 025245/0442, 025311/0770, 025327/0196 and 034183/0436 are not exposed in the Google Patents legal-events feed and I could not retrieve the Assignment Center abstract-of-title pages. One related data point, offered as inference only: GM's own assignment recordings for other GM property use an in-house correspondent at 300 Renaissance Center, Detroit — e.g. in TTABVUE Opposition No. 91226921, GM's Wilmington Trust security-interest Release of Security Interest at Reel 5389/0932 (recorded 2014-10-22) carries correspondent Timothy G. Gorbatoff, General Motors LLC, MC 482-C22-A68, 300 Renaissance Center, Detroit, MI 48265; the same file mentions a Lisa Benkarski correspondent line on a GM assignment. Because the '024 patent's 2014 release (Reel 034183/0436) is the same instrument type, same secured party (Wilmington Trust), same month-window and same owner as the trademark release, Gorbatoff is a plausible but unconfirmed correspondent for Reel 034183/0436. This is one in-house corporate attorney for a single operating company, which is the opposite of the NPE "one lawyer running a stable of shells" pattern — it is not a repeat-player signal even if confirmed.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. There is a dense cluster (five recordings between 2009-08-20 and 2009-08-27, Reels 023119/0491 through 023155/0849), but it is a single Chapter 11 with a defined purpose: release old liens → rename debtor → sell assets → re-pledge to new creditors. The multiple assignees do not share a registered-agent service address, do not share a correspondent, and do not have common NPE principals — the "assignees" are GM entities, the US Treasury and a union VEBA. That is a reorg signature, not a shell cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. No infringement action naming US 7,289,024 was located in any docket or NPE assertion directory searched; consequently there is no pre-suit transfer to time. The final title movements (2010, 2014) are lien releases that predate nothing.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — PRESENT (fact), but not an NPE signal. General Motors Corp. filed Chapter 11 on 2009-06-01 as S.D.N.Y. Case No. 09-50026 (REG); the '024 patent was among the assets transferred out of the debtor (renamed Motors Liquidation Company, Reel 023129/0236) to the purchaser General Motors Company (Reel 023148/0248, executed 2009-07-10). However, this was a §363 reorganization sale to a newly organized continuation of the same automaker, not a distressed patent liquidation to a speculator, and no NPE, broker, or bankruptcy-claims purchaser ever appears as assignee. The residual debtor is wound down through the MLC GUC Trust (Wilmington Trust as trustee/administrator) — a creditor-distribution vehicle, not a patent-buying vehicle. Compare the classic fire-sale pattern (Nortel, Kodak): here the patents stayed with the operating business.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. No transfer to an NPE asserting on GM's behalf; GM is not a plaintiff on any patent suit found, and the only GM–NPE relationship surfaced is adversarial. No SEC filing, EFF or Patent Progress coverage was found indicating GM stockpiled this patent with an outside assertion vehicle.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT. No RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents or OIN entity appears in the chain. The chain does not terminate at a defensive aggregator; it terminates at the operating automaker, and the asset simply ran to term.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion. ⚠️ Label caveat: the "assertion" prong is unmet on this record — I found no infringement suit naming US 7,289,024 — so this verdict is selected because GM is the operating-company owner, not because GM is enforcing it.

The entire recorded chain is a corporate continuous-ownership story: the original 2004 inventor assignment (Reel 015713/0943) plus a 2009 Chapter 11 restructuring that moved the patent by change of name (Reel 023129/0236) and §363 assignment (Reel 023148/0248) to the reorganized General Motors Company, later General Motors LLC (Reel 023504/0691). Every intervening recording is a lien — Treasury (022191/0254, 023155/0814), Citicorp (022552/0006), UAW VEBA (023155/0849), Wilmington Trust (025327/0196) — each of which was released (023119/0491, 023119/0817, 025245/0442, 025311/0770, 034183/0436). There is zero movement to a licensing entity, zero known asserter, and zero litigation activity; all three maintenance fees were paid (2011, 2015, 2019) and the patent ran to its adjusted expiration of 2025-12-08. The single open verification item is the correspondent of record on each reel/frame, which is not exposed in any source I could reach and which should be pulled from Assignment Center directly.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center (search by patent number 7289024 or application 10/922,013) · assignment.uspto.gov · Google Patents — US7289024B2 · Public PAIR / PatentCenter for the sibling CIP 11/058,349.

Residual items I could not close: (a) correspondent of record for all fourteen recordings — not verified; (b) the unexplained appearance of GM Global Technology Operations, Inc. as owner of record on the 2010-11-04 releases (Reels 025245/0442, 025311/0770) with no corresponding assignment in this dataset — unclear; (c) no litigation search is exhaustive, so "never asserted" is a negative finding, not proof.

I'll research the prior art citations for US 7,289,024. Let me search for the specific patent and each cited reference.

Let me research the other cited references.

Let me research the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,289,024

1. Reference check: did I find the right patent?

Searching for the literal identifier 7289024 returns exactly one match, and it is internally consistent across sources:

• US 7,289,024 B2, "Method and system for sending pre-scripted text messages"
• Application No. US 10/922,013, filed 2004-08-19; granted 2007-10-30
• Inventors: Anthony J. Sumcad, Shpetim S. Veliu, Hitan S. Kamdar
• Original assignee: General Motors Corporation; current assignee General Motors LLC
• Pre-grant publication: US 2006/0038674 A1 (2006-02-23)
• CIP child: US 11/058,349 → US 2006/0030298 A1 (priority 2004-08-19, filed 2005-02-15)
• Legal status: Expired – Lifetime (adjusted expiration 2025-12-08)

This matches the authoritative full text supplied in the record, so I am treating the identifier as confirmed. The critical (priority) date for § 102 purposes is 2004-08-19.

I did not substitute any near-miss number (e.g., 7,289,786, which is the Krasner emergency-notification patent discussed below, or 7,289,138, etc.).

---

2. Claim framework used for the mapping

The relevant independent claims, simplified:

• Claim 1 (system): telematics unit (first module + first set of pre-scripted text messages) + telematics call center (second module + second set); the first module (a) enters a pre-scripted text message mode in response to (i) failure of an impedance test of at least one audio circuit, (ii) airbag deployment, or (iii) receipt of an emergency mode input; (b) provides a plurality of pre-scripted messages via an interface; (c) receives a user selection of one; and (d) transmits the selected message to the call center.
• Claim 4 (method): same four steps as claim 1 in method form.
• Claim 11: means-plus-function version of claim 4.
• Dependent claims: 2 (protocol: SMS, CDMA, AMPS, SDARS, GSM, PCS, Bluetooth, 802.11, FCC Part 15), 3 (activation command from vehicle/mobile phone), 5 (store message at telematics unit), 6 (emergency button press), 7 (receive return message from call center), 8–9 (display on screen; navigation/monitor/DIU/radio display), 10 (set a diagnostic trouble code).

The patent lists nine references under "Patent Citations." For each I give the citation, dates, a brief description from what I retrieved, and a candid § 102 assessment. Bottom line up front: none of the nine discloses the full set of claim elements; they are element-level references more naturally deployed under § 103. I flag that explicitly rather than overstate "anticipation."

---

3. The nine cited references

Reference 1 — US 5,630,207 A

• Full citation: Methods and apparatus for bandwidth reduction in a two-way paging system, Gitlin et al., assignee Lucent Technologies Inc.
• Dates: filed 1995-06-19; issued 1997-05-13. (EP family member EP 0 750 284 A3.)
• Description (verified): A two-way paging system in which a base station (or the pager) computes "reply codes" corresponding to reply components of a received message. The pager stores the message text and reply codes; the user presses a soft key to select a component (e.g., "DINNER," "BALLGAME," "THEATRE"), and the pager transmits a reply message incorporating the selected text, using the short reply code to cut bandwidth.
• § 102 mapping: This is the closest structural read on the selection-and-transmission core of claim 1/4/11 — providing a plurality of candidate text selections to a user, receiving a user selection, and transmitting the selected text. However, it is a pager, not a vehicle telematics unit/call-center pair, and it discloses none of the three mode-entry triggers (impedance-test failure, airbag deployment, emergency input). It therefore does not anticipate claims 1, 4, or 11 as a whole. Best characterized as a § 103 element reference on the "pre-scripted/selectable text and transmit" concept.

Reference 2 — US 6,871,067 B2

• Full citation: Method and system for communicating telematics messages, Clark, Noel E. & Sinicki, Steven J., assignee Electronic Data Systems Corporation (Plano, TX). Prior publication US 2003/0083079 A1.
• Dates: filed 2001-10-15 (App. 09/977,806); issued 2005-03-22.
• Description (verified): A standardized telematic message router inside a vehicle interconnects telematic devices (vehicle data bus, wireless transceiver, navigation system, user interface). It can detect an airbag-deployment message and transmit to a terrestrial network/server for roadside assistance; it handles message priority, time-to-live, and delivers messages to a display.
• § 102 mapping: Pertinent to the telematics-unit–plus–remote-server architecture and the airbag-deployment trigger element of claims 1/4, and to the display element of claims 8–9. It does not disclose pre-scripted text message sets with user selection, nor the impedance-test or emergency-input triggers. Element-level only; a good § 103 companion to Reference 3.

Reference 3 — US 6,810,323 B1

• Full citation: System and method for storing and using information associated with geographic locations of interest to a mobile user, Bullock, James Blake; Fuchs, Axel; et al., assignee Motorola, Inc.
• Dates: filed 2000-09-25; issued 2004-10-26.
• Description (verified): An in-vehicle mobile apparatus plus a remote service-center apparatus. The vehicle user stores/transmits information tied to a geographic position ("waypoints"), and the specification expressly describes text messages "including preprogrammed messages such as 'Thanks' and 'I will attend,' which can be selected by the user," with a vehicle input interface/faceplate and a remote server.
• § 102 mapping: This is the most on-point reference for the "set of pre-scripted text messages" that a user selects and sends (claims 1, 4, 5, 8). Its express disclosure of user-selectable preprogrammed text in a vehicle-to-service-center context is directly material. It still lacks the telematics emergency-mode triggers (impedance/airbag/emergency input) and the DTC element (claim 10), so it does not wholly anticipate. Strong § 103 reference in combination with Reference 2 or 4.

Reference 4 — US 2004/0142678 A1 (issued as US 7,289,786 B2)

• Full citation: Method and apparatus for communicating emergency information using wireless devices, Krasner, Norman F. (Qualcomm). CIP of US 10/441,514 (filed 2003-05-20).
• Dates: filed 2003-01-16; published 2004-07-22; issued 2007-10-30.
• Description (verified): A wireless mobile device with position-location capability receives a short-range wireless transmission about an emergency event from vehicle sensors — expressly including airbag-release sensors, accelerometers, heat/fire, and impact sensors — and automatically places an E911/PSAP call with location and event data. Uses a short-range link (Bluetooth / 802.11) plus a cellular link (CDMA / GSM).
• § 102 mapping: Directly material to the "deployment of an airbag" trigger in claims 1/4, to the emergency-notification context, and to the protocols recited in claim 2 (Bluetooth, 802.11, CDMA, GSM). It does not disclose a pre-scripted, user-selectable text message set or a call-center interface, transmitting instead to a PSAP. Not full anticipation; a § 103 reference on the emergency-trigger and protocol elements.

Reference 5 — US 6,956,831 B1

• Full citation: Wireless initiated messaging, assignee Converse Ltd.
• Dates: filed 2000-08-28; issued 2005-10-18.
• Description: I was not able to retrieve the specification in this session; the verified data is limited to the title/assignee/dates from the citation list. On the title alone it concerns messaging initiated from a wireless device.
• § 102 mapping: Cannot map with confidence. Flagged as unverified; treat as a cumulative/background reference.

Reference 6 — US 2003/0078033 A1

• Full citation: Messaging system for mobile communication, Sauer, David.
• Dates: filed 2001-10-22; published 2003-04-24.
• Description: Not retrieved in full; title indicates a mobile-communication messaging system.
• § 102 mapping: Likely § 103 background on text/data messaging to mobile devices. Cannot map elements with confidence from the citation alone.

Reference 7 — US 2003/0083060 A1

• Full citation: System for monitoring a service vehicle, Menendez, Robert J.
• Dates: filed 2001-10-25; published 2003-05-01.
• Description: Not retrieved in full; service-vehicle monitoring.
• § 102 mapping: Likely background on vehicle monitoring/telematics; no confident element mapping.

Reference 8 — US 2004/0185855 A1

• Full citation: Method and apparatus for continuing a call, Storm, Brian D.
• Dates: filed 2002-12-31; published 2004-09-23.
• Description: Not retrieved in full; concerns continuing/maintaining a call (e.g., across a condition change).
• § 102 mapping: Potentially relevant to claim 7 (receiving a return message/continuing the communication) as a background reference; no confident full mapping.

Reference 9 — US 7,071,821 B2

• Full citation: Method and system for alerting a person to a situation, assignee Bellsouth Intellectual Property Corporation.
• Dates: filed 2003-05-14; issued 2006-07-04.
• Description: Not retrieved in full; concerns alerting a person to a situation.
• § 102 mapping: General emergency-alerting background; no confident element-level mapping to the pre-scripted-message claims.

---

4. Synthesis

Most likely § 103 combinations a challenger would run:

1. Bullock (US 6,810,323) for preprogrammed, user-selectable text messages in a vehicle-to-service-center architecture, + Krasner (US 2004/0142678) for the airbag-triggered emergency transmission and the wireless protocols, + Clark (US 6,871,067) for the telematics message-router/call-center framework.
2. Gitlin (US 5,630,207) for the select-and-transmit reply mechanism, combined with a telematics/vehicle-art reference for the trigger and environment.

Distinguishing features appearing in the claims and not clearly met by any cited reference:

• The specific "failure of an impedance test of at least one audio circuit" trigger for entering the pre-scripted text mode — I found no cited reference that discloses impedance-testing audio lines as the mode-entry trigger.
• Setting a diagnostic trouble code (claim 10) in response to entering the text-message mode.
• The dually-stored message sets (one set in the telematics unit, one set in the call center) as a coordinated system.

Contextual note: The patent's "Cited By" list shows it was later cited by direct follow-ons such as Fayyad's Vehicle emergency communication device … transmitting emergency textual data (US 2008/0180237 A1) and Vehicle diagnostic code communication device (US 2008/0201032 A1), which corroborates that the emergency-text/DTC concept was a recognized advance over the cited art.

---

5. Caveats (per operating rules)

1. I confirmed the identity of US 7,289,024 from the authoritative record and a targeted number search; no similar-number substitution was used.
2. Descriptions marked (verified) were retrieved from the reference documents or their official bibliographic pages. Descriptions marked "not retrieved" (References 5–9) are based on title/assignee/date metadata only; I did not fabricate specification content for them, and their § 102 mapping is therefore stated as low-confidence or background.
3. My § 102 characterizations are analyst judgments, not legal conclusions. Several citations in the "Patent Citations" table are examiner citations that may have been cited as background art or § 103 combinations rather than as anticipatory art; the table alone does not state the examiner's category (X/Y/A). Anyone relying on this should pull the Image File Wrapper / USPTO PatentCenter for App. 10/922,013 to read the actual examiner citations and rejections.
4. The dates listed are the filing and issue/publication dates; for § 102(a)/(b)/(e) analysis, the controlling date is the 2004-08-19 priority date, and all nine references predate it (Krasner's 2004-07-22 publication and 2003-01-16 filing both predate it; Storm's 2004-09-23 publication is after the priority date but its 2002-12-31 filing is before, so it would be addressed under § 102(e)/103 rather than § 102(b)).

I'll ground this analysis in the actual references cited on the face of the '024 patent, verifying their disclosures where I can.

Let me verify the remaining cited references so I characterize each accurately.

Scope and verification note

I ran targeted searches to confirm what each cited reference actually discloses. Confirmed from primary text in this session: US 2003/0078033 A1 (Sauer/Kyocera), US 2004/0142678 A1 (Krasner), US 6,871,067 B2 (Clark/Sinicki, EDS), US 6,956,831 B1 (Converse Ltd.), US 2003/0083060 A1 (Menendez). Not independently re-verified this session (I relied on the titles/assignees in the Google Patents record and my prior knowledge, flagged accordingly): US 5,630,207, US 6,810,323, US 2004/0185855 A1 (Storm), US 7,071,821 B2.

One data-hygiene flag: the task header says "Current Date: April 26, 2026" while the system date is 2026-09-29. It does not affect the §103 analysis (the critical date is the 2004-08-19 priority date), but the two dates should be reconciled in the file.

I build on the prior sections' claim summaries rather than repeating them. The element decomposition below is new work oriented to §103.

---

1. The claim-construction point that drives the whole analysis

Claims 1, 4, and 11 all recite entry into the pre-scripted text message mode "in response to at least one of:" (a) impedance-test failure, (b) airbag deployment, or (c) emergency mode input.

This is a disjunctive (Markush-style) limitation. A prior-art combination need only meet one of the three alternatives to disclose this element. That single drafting choice is what makes the claims broadly vulnerable: the trigger that appears to be the novel contribution — the impedance test of an audio circuit — is the one my searches indicate the cited art does not teach, yet the claim falls to a combination that teaches only airbag deployment (US 6,871,067) or a sensor/emergency input (Krasner).

Practical consequence: an obviousness case does not need to reach the impedance test at all. It is not a saving limitation for claims 1/4/11. (It would matter only if a court read "at least one of" as somehow requiring all three, which the plain text does not support.)

---

2. Reference-by-reference disclosure map

---

3. Ground 1 — US 6,871,067 in view of Sauer (optionally with Krasner)

Claim 1. 6,871,067 discloses the telematics-side structure (processor/message router, wireless transceiver, in-vehicle user interface, remote terrestrial server = call center) and supplies the airbag-deployment trigger verbatim. Sauer supplies the reason and the mechanism for canned messaging: a set of predefined messages presented to a user for selection, minimizing keystrokes, transmissible by radio. Combining them yields: airbag deploys → telematics unit enters a text-message mode → Sauer's predefined-message menu is displayed on the in-vehicle user interface (6,871,067's visual display / car radio / navigation screen) → occupant selects one → wireless transceiver transmits it to the remote server.

The "second set of pre-scripted text messages" at the call center is met by Sauer's central-server embodiment (messages "transmitted by code to a central server which decodes and transmits the message") and/or is an obvious mirror-image provision at the receiving node. Krasner supplements the emergency framing and confirms that vehicle-mounted sensors sensing an emergency event and transmitting a message over a wireless link was known.

Element coverage:

Claim 4 (method): identical mapping minus the two-set architecture requirement — even easier.

Claim 11 (means-plus-function): same substance; note this claim also risks §112(f) indefiniteness under Williamson v. Citrix because "means for entering a pre-scripted text message mode" and "means for providing … via a pre-scripted text message mode interface" may not be tied to sufficiently definite corresponding structure. For §103 purposes, the same combination applies.

---

4. Ground 2 — US 6,871,067 in view of Converse (optionally with Sauer and Krasner)

Converse is the strongest single reference on the two-sided canned-message architecture, which is the only feature of claim 1 that Ground 1 reaches somewhat indirectly.

• Converse claim 14 is essentially the claim-1 architecture in a wireless-messaging (non-vehicular) setting: a personalized message database storing predefined messages plus a call control center that retrieves and sends them.
• Converse claim 19 is essentially the claimed interface: a mobile device with a display that receives "message information including messages predefined by or on behalf of a user and displays the received messages on the display as selectable messages."
• Converse claim 1 supplies the identifier-instead-of-full-text transmission model (relevant to bandwidth, cf. US 5,630,207).

What Converse lacks is (i) the vehicle/telematics host and (ii) the airbag/emergency trigger — both supplied expressly by 6,871,067 (airbag deployment → message transmitted to terrestrial network; in-vehicle display) and Krasner (vehicle sensors sensing an emergency event → wireless message). Read together, every element of claims 1, 4, and 11 is disclosed or rendered obvious.

---

5. Motivation to combine (the KSR prong)

The motivation is unusually well documented here, which matters because it is the element most likely to be contested:

1. Same field, same problem. Sauer and Converse are both about sending predefined messages to avoid typed entry; 6,871,067 and Krasner are both about vehicle telematics and emergency notification. All four are in the same art of mobile wireless messaging.
2. Sauer's own stated objective supplies the reason. Sauer: "An efficient method of transmitting messages between users of mobiles is needed where the number of keystrokes is minimized." A person in a crash, submerged vehicle, or with a failed mic is the paradigm case of a user who cannot produce keystrokes or speech. This is not hindsight invented for litigation — it is on the face of Sauer.
3. The '024 specification itself concedes the problem. Its Background states the occupant may be physically unable to speak, or that the mic/speaker/phone may be malfunctioning — and states that the invention "advances the state of the art in vehicle emergency communications." Under KSR, a known problem with an available known solution (canned messages) is strong evidence of obviousness; the patent's own admission of the problem is an admission against interest.
4. The trigger-to-menu linkage is a predictable, mechanical combination. 6,871,067 already describes the airbag controller generating a message on the vehicle bus and the telematics unit reacting to it and transmitting to a terrestrial network. Wiring that existing trigger to a known canned-message menu is a combination of familiar elements according to known methods, yielding no more than predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416–17.
5. Design choice / obvious to try. Which canned phrases to offer, whether the set is resident in the vehicle or at the center, and whether full text or an identifier is sent, were all recognized options in the art (Sauer's three embodiments; Converse's central database; Sauer's re-transmission-by-code). Selecting among them is a design choice, not invention.
6. Bandwidth incentive. US 5,630,207 (two-way paging bandwidth reduction) and Sauer's "messages … transmitted by code" both motivate sending identifiers rather than long text — which is exactly the Converse model and is further evidence the architecture was a known engineering preference.

---

6. Dependent claims 2–10

---

7. Where the art is thinnest — and why it likely does not save the claims

The single element I could not map to any cited reference is the "failure of an impedance test of at least one audio circuit." None of the nine references appears to disclose impedance-testing an audio line (mic/speaker/phone) as a trigger. This is almost certainly the feature on which allowance turned.

But that feature is not a limitation of claims 1, 4, or 11 in any binding sense, because of the disjunctive "at least one of." A rejection under §103 that relies on 6,871,067's airbag-deployment teaching (or Krasner's sensor teaching) for the trigger element meets the claim as written. The impedance test would matter only to a dependent claim reciting it — and there is none.

Secondary considerations are also weak on this record: the patent is expired, the prior sections found no litigation, and no evidence of unexpected results, long-felt unmet need tied to the impedance test, or industry praise appears in the record. Without a nexus between any such evidence and the claimed subject matter, secondary considerations do not rebut the prima facie case.

---

8. Bottom line

• Claims 1, 4, and 11 would likely be obvious over US 6,871,067 + Sauer, or over US 6,871,067 + Converse (each optionally with Krasner). Both grounds independently satisfy every element once the disjunctive trigger is read correctly, and 6,871,067's express airbag-deployment passage is a direct textual hit on trigger (b).
• Claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 9 fall with Sauer, Converse, Menendez, and 6,871,067; claims 3 and 6 with 6,871,067/Menendez/Krasner; claim 10 with 6,871,067/Menendez.
• The impedance-test trigger is the only genuinely distinguishing feature, and it is preserved only by a drafting artifact (the "at least one of" alternative) that does not protect the claim. That is precisely the kind of claim the Federal Circuit has repeatedly found obvious where the remaining elements are drawn from a finite set of known options (KSR; In re Kubin).
• Caveat: this is a paper analysis of cited-art disclosures, not a validity opinion. A complete §103 case would require (i) confirming the filing/publication dates of Sauer, Krasner, and Menendez to establish §102(a)/(e) prior-art status against the 2004-08-19 priority date, (ii) verifying that Storm, US 5,630,207, US 6,810,323, and US 7,071,821 say what their titles suggest, and (iii) an articulated claim chart with pinpoint citations to paragraphs and figures. Reference dates and paragraph cites above should be confirmed against the originals before being relied on.