US 7793332

Of course, here is the requested analysis of U.S. Patent No. 7,793,332.

Patent Information Summary

• Title: Signal processing apparatus and methods
• Assignee: The current assignee of record is Contentnexus LLC, as of a reassignment on June 9, 2025. The original assignee was Personalized Media Communications LLC.
• Inventors: John C. Harvey, James W. Cuddihy
• Filing Date: June 7, 1995
• Issue Date: September 7, 2010
• Abstract: The patent describes an integrated system for processing electronic signals, covering television, radio, and computer communications. The system involves methods and apparatus for automatically handling, recording, retransmitting, regulating, metering, and monitoring the use of programming. It details a signal processor that detects embedded digital information in broadcast signals. This information can control various station apparatus, manage decryption, and create personalized content for individual users. The system is designed to be flexible, allowing for a wide range of subscriber-specific information options and secure, conditional access to programming.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims

Based on the full text of the patent, here is a plain-language explanation of its independent claims:

Claim 1:
This claim describes a method for creating a personalized information presentation for a user. It involves a central "information provider" (like a TV station) that transmits a main program along with a set of instructions. At the user's location, a processor receives this program and the instructions. The processor uses these instructions to access a separate database of information that is specific to that user. It then processes this personal information to create new, "user-specific" information and combines it with the main program to create a unique, personalized presentation for that user.

Claim 13:
This claim focuses on a method for controlling a television receiver. It starts with a broadcaster transmitting a TV signal that contains both the regular program and embedded digital control signals. At the receiving end, these control signals are detected and separated from the program. A processor then uses these control signals to operate another device, like a VCR or a computer, in a way that is synchronized with the television program being shown.

Claim 20:
This claim outlines a method for delivering a personalized message to an individual as part of a broadcast. A broadcaster sends out a single, unencrypted television program to many people. This program signal contains encrypted digital information. At an individual's television receiver, a device decrypts this hidden information to get a message. It then processes this message to create a personalized, human-perceptible message (like text or a graphic) and displays it on the screen at a specific time dictated by the broadcaster, making it appear as part of the main program.

Claim 26:
This claim describes a method for controlling a local device using a broadcast signal. A television signal containing both a program and embedded control instructions is broadcast. At the user's location, a device receives this signal, detects the control instructions, and uses them to operate a local apparatus (like a home appliance or a recording device) according to the instructions sent by the broadcaster.

Claim 37:
This claim details a method for creating a combined, personalized media presentation. A broadcaster transmits a primary program (like a TV show). Separately, a database of personal information for a user is stored locally. A processor, using instructions also sent by the broadcaster, selects specific data from the user's personal database, processes it to create new information relevant to that user, and then combines this new information with the primary program to create a customized presentation. This is done in a way that the user's private data is never sent to the broadcaster.

To the best of my knowledge, based on a diligent search of publicly available litigation databases, U.S. Patent No. 7,793,332 has not been directly involved in any publicly recorded litigation.

It is important to note that the original assignee, Personalized Media Communications, LLC (PMC), and the current assignee, Contentnexus LLC, have been active in patent litigation.

Notably, Personalized Media Communications, LLC was involved in a prominent case against [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) regarding a different patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,191,091. This case, Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Apple, Inc., was filed in the Eastern District of Texas and involved a significant jury verdict that was later overturned on the grounds of prosecution laches. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

The current assignee, Contentnexus LLC, has also been party to several patent infringement lawsuits. For example, recent cases in 2026 include actions against Zinwell Corporation, Agora, Inc., Rakuten, Inc., Express LUCK Technology Ltd., and Wipro, LLC, all filed in the Eastern District of Texas. These cases, however, assert other signal processing patents in their portfolio and do not list US 7,793,332.

While the patent in question, US 7,793,332, shares a subject matter area and assignee history with patents that have been litigated, there is no public record of it being asserted in court to date. This can be for a variety of strategic reasons, and its status could change.

Proceedings overview

There are no publicly recorded AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for U.S. Patent No. 7,793,332 as of May 30, 2026. This means the patent has not been subjected to PTAB challenges, and all its claims remain untested in this forum, offering no specific defensive posture from prior PTAB outcomes.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,793,332 remain untested in AIA trial proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. There is no public record of any IPR, PGR, or CBM trials having been filed against this patent. Consequently, there are no claims that have been canceled or sustained by a PTAB Final Written Decision, and no estoppel has been established under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2).

The absence of PTAB activity suggests a few possibilities: either the patent has not been extensively asserted, potential petitioners have not identified strong prior art grounds for challenge under the PTAB standards, or any challenges have been settled before institution or a final decision, without public record. The patent's priority date of November 3, 1981, and its filing date of June 7, 1995, indicate it is a relatively older patent in the context of AIA trials (which became available for patents filed on or after March 16, 2013, or patents that issue from applications subject to a first-to-file system). However, given its issue date of September 7, 2010, it would be eligible for IPR.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of U.S. Patent No. 7,793,332, the absence of PTAB proceedings means that an IPR, PGR, or CBM challenge is a potential avenue to explore. There are no prior PTAB decisions to consider regarding claim cancellation or patentability. Therefore, a thorough prior art search and an assessment of potential invalidity grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (and potentially § 112, depending on the claims) would be the critical first step to evaluate the viability of filing a petition.

Inventors

• John Christopher Harvey: Employer at the time of filing not determinable from the patent text.
• James William Cuddihy: Employer at the time of filing not determinable from the patent text.

No unusual patterns, such as inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing, can be determined from the provided information.

Original assignee

Personalized Media Communications LLC. The patent text describes the "present invention" as an "integrated system of methods and apparatus for communicating programming." The description of "Wall Street Week" as an example of "television based combined medium programming" suggests a focus on the delivery of personalized content, but it is not explicitly stated that Personalized Media Communications LLC shipped a product embodying the claims. The primary line of business appears to be related to integrated media communication and personalized programming. Its current status is acquired, as it reassigned the patent to Contentnexus LLC.

Assignment timeline

• 2000-09-22 (executed) / recorded 2000-09-22 — Reel 011571/0612
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: HARVEY, JOHN C., CUDDIHY, JAMES W.
  • Assignee: PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, L.L.C.
  • Correspondent: NOT LISTED
  • Context: Transfer from inventors to original assignee.
• 2025-06-09 (executed) / recorded 2025-06-09 — Reel 059085/0793
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
  • Assignee: CONTENTNEXUS LLC
  • Correspondent: Stephen S. Mosher, ESQ., MOSHER LAW, L.L.C., 2701 N. Rocky Point Drive, Suite 100, Tampa, FL 33607.
  • Context: Transfer to asserter.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7793332
    1995 : Filed by PMC LLC
    2000 : Assigned inventors to PMC LLC
    2010 : Issued
    2025 : Assigned to Contentnexus LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The transfer from Personalized Media Communications, LLC to Contentnexus LLC on 2025-06-09 (Reel 059085/0793) suggests this pattern. Contentnexus LLC, as discussed in the litigation summary, is a known plaintiff in patent infringement lawsuits. The name "Contentnexus LLC" is also indicative of a licensing-focused entity.
2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Contentnexus LLC is the current assignee (Reel 059085/0793). As noted in the litigation summary, Contentnexus LLC has been party to several patent infringement lawsuits in 2026 against various companies, asserting other signal processing patents in its portfolio.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. Stephen S. Mosher of MOSHER LAW, L.L.C. is listed as the correspondent for the 2025-06-09 assignment to Contentnexus LLC (Reel 059085/0793). Without further data on other patents handled by this correspondent, it is unclear if this represents a repeat pattern across this chain or other tracked patents. The first assignment from the inventors to PMC LLC does not list a correspondent.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. There are only two assignments recorded, and they are separated by 25 years.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While Contentnexus LLC is a known asserter, and the transfer to Contentnexus occurred on 2025-06-09, the litigation summary does not indicate that this specific patent, US 7,793,332, has been asserted in court. Therefore, it cannot be confirmed if this transfer was within 6 months of the first infringement suit for this patent.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No indication of bankruptcy for either Personalized Media Communications LLC or Contentnexus LLC in the provided information.
7. Privateering — unclear. There is no information provided to suggest an operating company transferred the patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf against competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain ends with Contentnexus LLC, which is identified as a known asserter, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The transfer to Contentnexus LLC (Reel 059085/0793), a known patent asserter that has recently filed multiple infringement suits, strongly indicates an NPE pattern. The name "Contentnexus LLC" itself is suggestive of a licensing entity, and the previous assignee, Personalized Media Communications LLC, was also involved in significant patent litigation.

USPTO Assignment Center Search for US7793332

Analysis of Prior Art for U.S. Patent No. 7,793,332

This analysis details the prior art cited during the prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 7,793,332. Each reference is examined for its potential to anticipate the patent's claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The information is based on the patent's file history and the content of the cited documents.

The examiner's citations on the face of the patent are categorized as "Cited by Examiner." These references were considered during the examination process and determined not to invalidate the claims as granted. The potential for anticipation is assessed against the key independent claims (1, 13, 20, 26, and 37) previously summarized.

Cited by Examiner

1. U.S. Patent No. 4,025,851: "Broadcast Signal Identification System"

   • Full Citation: Haselwood, D. et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,025,851, issued May 24, 1977. Filed May 20, 1975.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a system for embedding an identification code into a television signal's video portion. The code, which can identify the program, broadcast station, and time of transmission, is inserted into a single line within the vertical blanking interval. A monitoring device at a remote location can then detect and decode this information for program verification and audience measurement.
   • Potential Anticipation: This reference is relevant to the concept of embedding data in a television signal.
     • Claim 13: Partially addresses the concept of receiving a TV signal with embedded digital control signals. However, it focuses on identification for monitoring purposes, not on controlling a separate apparatus in synchronization with the program.
     • Claim 20 & 26: Discloses embedding and detecting digital information but does not teach the decryption of this information to create a human-perceptible message for display or to control a local apparatus as claimed. The primary purpose is passive monitoring.

2. U.S. Patent No. 4,264,925: "Special Effects and Control System for a Plurality of Television Programs"

   • Full Citation: Freeman, M. H. et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,264,925, issued April 28, 1981. Filed June 29, 1978.
   • Brief Description: This patent details a system that transmits multiple, related video signals simultaneously over different channels. A special subscriber terminal allows the user to switch between these channels to view different camera angles of an event or select different program versions. It also describes generating a composite display with picture-in-picture effects.
   • Potential Anticipation: This reference relates to enhancing a broadcast with multiple video streams but relies on user-initiated manual selection.
     • Claim 1 & 37: Fails to anticipate these claims as it does not involve processing a user-specific database to generate and combine personalized information with the broadcast. The content variations are pre-produced and broadcast to all users.
     • Claim 13 & 26: Does not teach the use of embedded control signals to automatically operate a separate apparatus; instead, it requires direct manual control by the user to switch between channels.

3. U.S. Patent No. 4,337,480: "Apparatus for Interconnecting a Television Receiver with a Plurality of Video Signal Sources"

   • Full Citation: Bourassin, J. et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,337,480, issued June 29, 1982. Filed Feb. 11, 1980.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a switching system for connecting multiple television peripheral units (like a VCR, video game console, or teletext decoder) to a single television receiver. The system allows a user to select which peripheral's output is displayed on the TV screen and supports features like superimposing an image from one source onto another.
   • Potential Anticipation: The relevance is in managing multiple signal sources for a single display.
     • Claim 13 & 26: Does not disclose control signals embedded in a broadcast transmission that automatically operate these peripherals. The control is local, typically initiated by the user interacting with the switching device. The patent is about local signal management, not broadcast-based automation.

4. U.S. Patent No. 4,381,522: "Viewer-Controlled Television Programming System"

   • Full Citation: Lambert, J., U.S. Patent No. 4,381,522, issued Apr. 26, 1983. Filed Aug. 29, 1980.
   • Brief Description: This system allows cable television viewers to influence program scheduling. Viewers can call a central computer to vote for programs they wish to see. The computer then compiles these requests to generate a schedule and automatically controls video players at the cable headend to broadcast the most-requested programs at designated times.
   • Potential Anticipation: This reference involves a level of user-influenced programming but lacks the core elements of the '332 patent's claims.
     • Claim 1 & 37: This system does not create personalized presentations at the user's location. The result of user input is a single, uniform broadcast schedule for all subscribers. It does not process a local, user-specific database.
     • Claim 13, 20 & 26: The control signals are generated at the headend to control headend equipment (the video players). It does not teach embedding control signals into the broadcast to control equipment at the individual subscriber's premises.

5. U.S. Patent No. 4,547,804: "System and Method for Verifying Broadcast of Television Commercials"

   • Full Citation: Greenberg, D., U.S. Patent No. 4,547,804, issued Oct. 15, 1985. Filed Apr. 20, 1981.
   • Brief Description: Describes a method for automatically monitoring television channels to verify that specific commercials have been broadcast. A monitor at a remote site sequentially tunes to different channels, captures frames of the video, and compares them against a library of stored commercials to confirm their broadcast.
   • Potential Anticipation: Similar to Haselwood ('851), this patent focuses on monitoring and verification, not user-side control or personalization.
     • Claim 1, 13, 20, 26, 37: The system is for remote monitoring of broadcast content. It does not disclose embedding signals for controlling user-side equipment, processing local user data, or creating personalized presentations.

6. U.S. Patent No. 4,694,490: "System and method for remote control of a plurality of receiver stations"

   • Full Citation: Harvey, J. C. et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,694,490, issued Sep. 15, 1987. Filed Nov. 3, 1981.
   • Brief Description: This patent, from the same inventors, is a parent to the '332 patent and describes a system where a broadcast signal contains embedded, encrypted codes. These codes are used to control functions at a subscriber station, such as enabling or disabling reception, recording programs, or displaying messages. It introduces the core concept of using broadcast signals for remote control of user equipment.
   • Potential Anticipation: As a parent patent, it discloses foundational concepts but may not anticipate all specific limitations of the continuation-in-part '332 patent claims.
     • Claim 1 & 37: While it teaches controlling a local apparatus, it does not explicitly describe the combination of a broadcast program with information from a pre-existing user-specific database to create new, personalized information for a combined presentation. The focus is more on command and control.
     • Claim 20: This reference is highly relevant. It teaches transmitting a program with encrypted information that, when decrypted, can control the display of a message. It strongly anticipates the core elements of this claim.
     • Claim 13 & 26: This reference appears to directly anticipate the concept of a broadcast TV signal with embedded control instructions that are detected and used to operate a local apparatus. The '490 patent is centrally focused on this functionality.

7. U.S. Patent No. 5,444,365

   • Full Citation: As there appears to be a transcription error in the provided patent text, and a search for US Patent 5,444,365 reveals a patent titled "Programmable clock generator" unrelated to signal processing, it's highly likely this is a typo in the '332 patent's data. The intended citation was likely another patent from the same family or subject matter. Without the correct number, a direct analysis is not possible. However, given the context, it would likely relate to signal processing or broadcasting, but its specific teachings and relevance cannot be determined.

Based on this analysis, U.S. Patent No. 4,694,490 appears to be the most significant prior art, particularly against claims 13, 20, and 26. The novelty of the '332 patent's claims likely resides in the more specific application of these control signals, such as the processing of a local user-specific database to generate new information and combine it with the primary program, as detailed in claims 1 and 37.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for U.S. Patent No. 7,793,332

The analysis of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires determining whether the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would have been obvious to a "person having ordinary skill in the art" (PHOSITA) at the time the invention was made. A PHOSITA is a hypothetical person possessing the normal skills and knowledge in the relevant technical field, not a genius, and is presumed to have known all relevant prior art. The Supreme Court case KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. emphasized that obviousness rejections cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements and require articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning. The analysis also considers factors such as the scope and content of the prior art, differences between the prior art and the claimed invention, and the level of ordinary skill in the art. Secondary considerations like commercial success or long-felt needs can also be considered to rebut an obviousness argument.

The '332 patent, as a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent No. 4,694,490, builds upon concepts of embedding control signals in broadcast transmissions for remote control of subscriber station apparatus. The key independent claims of the '332 patent introduce elements related to personalization, processing of user-specific databases, and combining generated information with broadcast content.

Here are potential combinations of prior art references that could render certain claims of US 7,793,332 obvious, along with a motivation for a PHOSITA to combine them:

Combination 1: U.S. Patent No. 4,694,490 in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,337,480 and general knowledge of computing

• Claims affected: Claim 13 (Method for controlling a television receiver) and Claim 26 (Method for controlling a local device using a broadcast signal).
• Reasoning for Obviousness:
  • US 4,694,490 (Harvey et al.): This patent, a parent to the '332 patent, explicitly teaches the core concept of transmitting broadcast signals with embedded, encrypted codes to control functions at a subscriber station. This includes enabling or disabling reception and recording programs. It is a foundational reference for broadcast-based remote control of user equipment.
  • US 4,337,480 (Bourassin et al.): This patent describes an apparatus for interconnecting a television receiver with a plurality of video peripheral units (e.g., VCRs, video game consoles, teletext decoders) and allowing a user to select which peripheral's output is displayed. It also mentions superimposing images. While Bourassin's control is local and user-initiated, it demonstrates the known desire and capability to interface multiple peripherals with a television and to manage their output.
  • Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA, seeking to enhance the utility and automation of the remote control system taught by Harvey et al. ('490), would be motivated to combine its broadcast-embedded control signals with the peripheral control capabilities of Bourassin et al. ('480). The '490 patent focuses on what can be controlled remotely via broadcast, and Bourassin ('480) focuses on how different peripherals can be interconnected and their outputs managed. It would be obvious to a PHOSITA to use the remote, embedded control signals of Harvey et al. to automatically actuate and control the switching and operation of the various peripheral units described in Bourassin et al., rather than relying solely on manual user input. For example, if Harvey et al. teaches a signal to record a program, and Bourassin et al. teaches connecting a VCR to a TV, it would be obvious to use the Harvey et al. signal to automatically activate the VCR disclosed in Bourassin et al. to record the broadcast.

Combination 2: U.S. Patent No. 4,694,490 in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,025,851 (Haselwood et al.) or U.S. Patent No. 4,547,804 (Greenberg)

• Claims affected: Claim 20 (Method for delivering a personalized message as part of a broadcast).
• Reasoning for Obviousness:
  • US 4,694,490 (Harvey et al.): This patent already teaches transmitting a program with embedded, encrypted information that, upon decryption, can control the display of messages or other functions at a subscriber station.
  • US 4,025,851 (Haselwood et al.) or US 4,547,804 (Greenberg): Both Haselwood ('851) and Greenberg ('804) teach embedding identification codes or signals into television signals for monitoring and verification purposes. While their purpose is monitoring, they demonstrate the technical feasibility and common practice of inserting digital data into a broadcast stream, specifically within the video portion or vertical blanking interval, and then detecting and decoding this information at a receiver.
  • Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA, aware of Harvey et al.'s ('490) system for transmitting encrypted control information and the methods of embedding and detecting data in broadcast signals as taught by Haselwood ('851) or Greenberg ('804), would find it obvious to apply these embedding and detection techniques to the encrypted message information of Harvey et al. The goal would be to reliably deliver the encrypted control signals (which could include messages) in a robust manner. The '490 patent already covers the concept of displaying messages based on decrypted information. The combination would simply apply known techniques for embedding and extracting data from broadcast signals to the already-disclosed encrypted control message system, thereby achieving the delivery of a personalized message (controlled by the encrypted data) as part of a broadcast.

Combination 3: U.S. Patent No. 4,694,490 in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,381,522 (Lambert) and general computing knowledge related to databases

• Claims affected: Claim 1 (Method for creating a personalized information presentation for a user) and Claim 37 (Method for creating a combined, personalized media presentation).
• Reasoning for Obviousness:
  • US 4,694,490 (Harvey et al.): This patent establishes the concept of broadcast-embedded control signals that can operate local subscriber station apparatus. While it doesn't explicitly mention user-specific databases or combining newly generated user information with broadcast content, it lays the groundwork for remote control and information processing at the subscriber's end.
  • US 4,381,522 (Lambert): This patent describes a system where viewers influence program scheduling by providing input to a central computer. While the personalization is at the scheduling level, it introduces the concept of user input affecting content delivery. More importantly, the system is designed to respond to individual viewer preferences. Although the processing is centralized, it highlights the desire for tailoring content based on user interaction.
  • Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA, faced with the desire to further personalize the content delivered by the remote control system of Harvey et al. ('490) and aware of the concept of user-influenced programming (Lambert, '522), would be motivated to integrate user-specific data processing at the subscriber station. Given the common knowledge in computing at the time (the filing date of the '332 patent is 1995), it would be obvious to store user-specific information in a local database (e.g., on a computer's disk drive as described in '332, FIG. 1, element 205) and use the broadcast-embedded instructions (from '490) to trigger local processing of this data. The output of this local processing could then be combined with the incoming broadcast stream, especially if the broadcast stream itself provided a "placeholder" or timing cue for such personalized content (as suggested by the "GRAPHICS ON/OFF" commands in the '332 patent's example). The motivation stems from a desire to move personalization from a centralized, pre-scheduling function (Lambert) to a real-time, user-side content generation and overlay function, leveraging the remote control capabilities of Harvey et al. and the readily available local computing power and storage. The example in '332, using a subscriber's stock portfolio, illustrates a clear and obvious application of combining remotely triggered local data processing with a broadcast for personalized financial reporting, a well-known desire.

Limitations and Secondary Considerations

It's important to acknowledge that the '332 patent's claims, particularly 1 and 37, emphasize the generation of new, user-specific information from a local database and its combination with the broadcast. While the combinations above suggest a path to obviousness for many aspects, the specific degree of "new" information generation and the seamless overlay might represent an inventive step. However, given the capabilities of microcomputers and graphics cards even by the filing date of the '332 patent (1995), a PHOSITA would possess the skills to develop programs for processing local data and generating graphics for overlay.

Furthermore, the '332 patent highlights advantages such as ease of use, transparency to the user, and privacy. While these are beneficial, they would need to be considered as secondary considerations to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. For instance, if there was evidence of a long-felt but unsolved need for such a personalized, private, and easy-to-use system, or unexpected results from the combination, it could weigh against a finding of obviousness.

The analysis hinges on the specific details of the "processing of said user-specific information to generate user-specific information" and "combining said user-specific information with said programming" recited in claims 1 and 37, and how a PHOSITA would interpret the scope of these terms in light of the cited prior art and general technical knowledge at the time of invention.

To provide a comprehensive overview of patent term adjustments, extensions, family members, and the projected expiration date for US Patent 7793332, I will access the USPTO's Patent Center (formerly Public PAIR) and Assignment Center. These are the authoritative sources for such information directly from the USPTO.

Patent Term Adjustments (PTA)

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) can extend the term of a U.S. patent to compensate for certain delays by the USPTO during the prosecution of a utility or plant patent application. This applies to applications filed on or after May 29, 2000.
Since US Patent 7793332 was filed on June 7, 1995, it is not eligible for Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) as it predates the May 29, 2000, effective date for PTA provisions.

Patent Term Extensions (PTE)

Patent Term Extensions (PTE) are available for patents on certain human drugs, food or color additives, medical devices, animal drugs, and veterinary biological products to restore time lost during premarket government approval from a regulatory agency.
Based on the subject matter of US Patent 7793332, which relates to signal processing apparatus and methods for electronic communication, it is not eligible for Patent Term Extension (PTE) under 35 U.S.C. § 156, as it does not cover products requiring regulatory approval from agencies like the FDA.

Continuation Applications

A continuation application allows an applicant to pursue new claims based on the same specification and drawings as a previously filed "parent" application, while retaining the earlier priority date.
According to the information provided on the patent's front page, US7793332B1 is a continuation-in-part of application numbers US06/317,510 (now US4694490A) and US08/113,239 (now US5444365A). A continuation-in-part application repeats a substantial portion of the parent's specification but allows for the addition of new material.

Divisional Applications

A divisional patent application presents claims that were originally filed in the parent application but were required by the USPTO to be withdrawn or canceled because the examiner found more than one invention in the initial application.
The provided information does not explicitly list any divisional applications for US Patent 7793332.

Related Family Members

The patent explicitly claims priority from:

• US06/317,510, filed 1981-11-03 (issued as US4694490A)
• US08/113,239, filed 1993-08-30 (issued as US5444365A)

Therefore, its related family members, based on priority claims, include US4694490A and US5444365A.

Projected Expiration Date

For U.S. utility patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, the patent term generally expires 20 years from the earliest filing date of the application, or if the application claims priority to an earlier filed application under 35 U.S.C. §§ 120, 121, or 365(c), 20 years from the filing date of the earliest such application.

US Patent 7793332 has a filing date of June 7, 1995. However, it claims priority from:

• US06/317,510, with a filing date of November 3, 1981.

Therefore, the patent term is calculated from the earliest priority date, which is November 3, 1981.
20 years from November 3, 1981, is November 3, 2001.

However, the provided patent information states an "Anticipated expiration" date of September 7, 2027. This suggests that the patent's effective term is not simply 20 years from the earliest priority date and that it may be subject to a terminal disclaimer or other specific circumstances that modify the standard calculation. Without access to the full prosecution history to determine any terminal disclaimers or specific legal interpretations made during prosecution, it is difficult to reconcile the disparity.

Assuming the "Anticipated expiration" date listed on the patent (September 7, 2027) is accurate as per USPTO records, this would be the projected expiration date.