US 7797367

I'll search for the specific patent number as requested.

Let me search for the specific claims and any litigation involving this exact patent number.

Let me check specifically for any Federal Circuit (CAFC) activity on this exact patent number.

US Patent 7,797,367 — Summary

Bottom line: I found solid bibliographic and claim-level data for this exact number. I found no CAFC (Federal Circuit) 2026 docket activity specific to 7,797,367, and I could not verify from authoritative sources that it is among the patents asserted in the pending 2025–2026 Intellectual Ventures cases that surfaced in searching. Treat that as "not found," not "does not exist."

Bibliographic data

Abstract (as published)

The Wireless Integrated Network Sensor Next Generation (WINS NG) nodes provide distributed network and Internet access to sensors, controls, and processors that are deeply embedded in equipment, facilities, and the environment. The WINS NG network is a new monitoring and control capability for applications in transportation, manufacturing, health care, environmental monitoring, and safety and security. The WINS NG nodes combine microsensor technology, low power distributed signal processing, low power computation, and low power, low cost wireless and/or wired networking capability in a compact system. The WINS NG networks provide sensing, local control, remote reconfigurability, and embedded intelligent systems in structures, materials, and environments.

Independent claims (49 claims total; two independents)

Claim 1 — a sensor node (hardware apparatus claim). Components: at least one processor; at least one energy source; a multiple-mode radio frequency modem that selectively operates in a master mode and a slave mode; and at least one substrate that couples the processor, energy source and modem and that itself comprises at least one sensor.

• Master/slave election is relative, not fixed: the node goes to master mode when its number of neighbor-node connections exceeds by a threshold number the number of connections each of those neighbors has to its neighbors; it goes to slave mode when a neighbor's connection count exceeds the node's by that threshold.
• In master mode the node controls the frequency hopping pattern for each neighbor; in slave mode it acquires and follows a master neighbor's hopping pattern.
• Plain-language gist: a self-organizing, frequency-hopping sensor node that dynamically promotes/demotes itself between cluster-master and cluster-member based on local connectivity count — the "multi-cluster, multihop" assembly idea described in the spec — packaged on a substrate that doubles as a sensor.

Claim 42 — a sensor node (flexible-substrate/"PicoWINS"-style apparatus claim). Components: a flexible substrate configured to operate as an acoustic sensor and an acoustic source; a processor on/in the substrate configured to automatically join at least one other node to form a network; and an antenna in or on the flexible substrate for wireless communication.

• Functionally: the acoustic sensor is used to determine the node's position; the node communicates that position to the other node; the node synchronizes with the other node via RF; and that synchronization lets the node compensate for wind when determining range (this maps to the specification's discussion of upwind/downwind two-way ranging to cancel wind-induced error).
• Plain-language gist: a flexible, tape-like sensor node that is its own acoustic transmitter and receiver for self-location, joins a network automatically, and uses radio-based timing synchronization to make acoustic ranging wind-robust.

Notable dependent claims (for claim-charting context)

• Claims 2–16 (from claim 1): active/passive substrates; thin-film substrate with piezoelectric polymer film, "polyvinylidenedifloride (PVF.sub.2)" (claim 3, as printed); conformal substrate; RF physical-layer power management; sensor menu (seismic, acoustic, optical, IR, magnetic, thermal, accelerometer, bi-static); thin-film photovoltaic device serving as both energy source and optical presence sensor; sensor "tape" with adhesive; substrate as vibration/acoustic sensor; and battery cells doubling as proof masses for an accelerometer (claim 16).
• Claims 17–38: remote programmability and wireless internetworking; node reports node resource cost and message priority to the network and data processing is distributed in response (claim 18); redundant communication pathways; layered network-element sets; overlay of a first node-type network by a second (claim 23); predistribution of code/data via low-priority messages; processing hierarchy; adaptive message aggregation; API supporting remote reprogramming of sensors/actuators/comms/signal processors/storage/node controllers/power supplies (claim 28) and distributed resource management/synchronism hierarchy (claim 29); event-probability-driven processing/transmission; search-and-acquisition self-assembly with random-interval network surveys; database-driven alerting (coincident signal arrival, node power status, network comms status); energy-detection-triggered routing/processing/storing/fusing; node position determination.
• Claims 39–41: bi-static sensor; joining two node clusters when in slave mode; package-opening/closing sensing.
• Claim 42 dependents (43–49): flexible substrate as accelerometer; photovoltaic on substrate; aerodynamic (maple-seed-like) shape; gateway linking to another network such as the Internet; client-device programmability; network detects an attachable second node; PVF₂ layer on a flexible support as acoustic sensor/source.

Confidence and caveats

• High confidence on title, number, application number, filing/issue dates, inventor list, assignee chain, expiration (2027‑07‑19), abstract, and the two-independent-claim structure (source: Google Patents and uspto.report/Sumobrain records).
• Moderate confidence on exact claim wording: the "full patent text" you supplied is truncated inside the description and does not include the claims, so I drew claim text from third-party reproductions (uspto.report, Sumobrain). Note claim 1 as reproduced ends the slave-mode operation with "…in response to the modem operating in the master mode," which is facially inconsistent with the preceding master/slave logic and with the specification; the listed Certificate of Correction may account for the discrepancy. Verify against the USPTO PatentCenter/Google Patents claim text before relying on that clause.
• Priority date discrepancy: Google Patents shows 1999‑10‑06 for this patent, while several siblings in the same family display 1999‑10‑05. I did not verify the controlling priority chain.
• No CAFC 2026 activity found for 7,797,367. Search hits for 2025–2026 were other Intellectual Ventures matters (e.g., IV I LLC v. Southwest Airlines, 7:24‑cv‑00277; IV I LLC v. American Airlines, 4:24‑cv‑00980, asserting 7,949,785 / 8,332,844 / 8,407,722 / 7,257,582 / 7,324,469 / 8,027,326; IV I LLC et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 3:26‑cv‑00978). Notably, 7,797,367 was not among the patents-in-suit listed in the American Airlines joint claim construction statement. Absence of a specific 2026 CAFC docket entry for this patent is reported as an absence of evidence, not as a verified negative.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7797367B1](/patent/US7797367B1)/en · https://uspto.report/patent/grant/7797367 · https://www.sumobrain.com/patents/us/Apparatus-compact-internetworked-wireless-integrated/7797367.html · https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69338895/67/intellectual-ventures-i-llc-v-american-airlines-inc/ · https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/63826252/Intellectual_Ventures_I_LLC_et_al_v_Government_Employees_Insurance_Company

I'll research litigation involving US patent 7797367. Let me search multiple sources.

Let me search more specific litigation databases.

Let me query the litigation databases directly.

Summary of findings — US Patent 7,797,367 ("Apparatus for compact internetworked wireless integrated network sensors (WINS)")

I ran targeted searches against patent-litigation sources (Google Patents litigation/"Family has litigation" data, the Unified Patents portal, CourtListener, the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, and general litigation reporting). I could not confirm, from the sources retrieved, any specific lawsuit in which US 7,797,367 (or "the '367 patent") is identified by caption and asserted against a named defendant. I want to be explicit about that limitation rather than supply case numbers I cannot verify.

What the searches did establish (with citations)

1. Ownership chain / monetization posture — The patent is now held by Intellectual Ventures I LLC (current assignee), following the chain: Sensoria Corporation → Borgia/Cummins, LLC → Benhov GmbH, LLC → Intellectual Ventures I LLC (2021-10-14). This is an entity that litigates its portfolio. Source: Google Patents record, https://patents.google.com/patent/US7797367/en (assignment and "Current Assignee" entries); see also Unified Patents patent page listing US‑7797367‑B1 under Intellectual Ventures I LLC.

2. The patent family is flagged as litigated. The Google Patents record for US7797367 carries the banner "Family has litigation / First worldwide family litigation filed" with a Darts‑IP deep link (family=27496316). This indicates that litigation exists involving the family (Family ID 27496316 — the Sensoria/WINS family), but the Google Patents page does not itself list the case caption, court, or docket number, and my retrieval did not return those details. I therefore cannot tell you whether the flag reflects a case asserting the '367 patent specifically or a sibling patent in the same family.

3. Sibling patents in the same family that have been the subject of enforcement activity. The '367 patent shares its specification and priority (Oct. 5–6, 1999) with a group of continuations/contenuations, including US 6,826,607; US 6,832,251; US 6,859,831; US 7,020,701; US 7,484,008; US 6,735,630; and US 8,836,503 (the "Method and Apparatus…" and "Apparatus for Internetworked…" siblings). These are the WINS-family patents most often referenced in litigation-database cross-citations. I did not find a case in the retrieved results that names '367 (the number in your query) as an asserted patent.

What I did NOT find (and therefore will not assert)

• No district-court case caption, case number, jurisdiction, filing date, or outcome that specifically identifies 7,797,367 as an asserted patent appeared in the retrieved results. Several results that superficially matched (e.g., the Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprises, N.D. Cal. 3:23‑cv‑01241, and Intellectual Ventures v. American Airlines, E.D. Tex. 4:24‑cv‑00980) assert different IV patents (e.g., RE 42,153; 6,618,736; 7,949,785; 8,332,844; etc.), not '367.
• The IPR record surfaced (Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2017‑01538) concerns an unrelated thermoplastic patent, not '367.
• I did not retrieve a California—or any jurisdiction—docket tying the '367 number to a defendant. Any case list I gave you would be speculation.

Caveats on the tooling

• Do not auto-correct the identifier: I treated "7797367 / 7,797,367" literally and did not merge it with look-alike numbers such as 7,797,011, 7,799,897, or 7,799,637.
• Live sources can override training data, but here the authoritative Google Patents text and the litigation portals did not yield a clean, verifiable case list for this specific number, so I am reporting absence of confirmation rather than a fabricated docket.
• The Darts‑IP "family litigation" flag is a family-level indicator only; it is not proof that '367's claims were asserted.

Recommended next steps to confirm

To obtain a definitive, citable answer, the following would resolve it:

1. Open the Darts‑IP family link from the Google Patents page (family 27496316) — it should enumerate the family's cases.
2. Query the Unified Patents litigation case list (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/) and the Stanford NPE Database (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/7797367) directly by patent number.
3. Search PACER/RECAP (CourtListener) for "'367 patent" within cases filed by Intellectual Ventures I LLC, and check the ITC EDIS if a Section 337 action is suspected.

Bottom line: Based on the sources I could retrieve, I cannot list a specific case asserting US 7,797,367 with plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, and outcome. The evidence indicates the patent belongs to an actively litigating owner (Intellectual Ventures I LLC) and its family carries a "has litigation" flag, but I have no verified case caption or docket for '367 itself and will not invent one.

I'll start by verifying the canonical source (no AIA proceedings on file per ODP) against public web sources, in case older or recently-filed proceedings exist.

Initial searches don't surface any proceeding on 7797367 specifically. Let me query more precisely, including litigation/enforcement history that would have spawned PTAB filings.

Let me check the Unified Patents portal entry, litigation campaign usage, and any reexamination or CAFC activity for this patent.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 7,797,367: 0 — 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained on the merits, 0 settled, 0 institution denied (source: the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block from the USPTO Open Data Portal, which returned no AIA trial proceedings; the patent's Google Patents record likewise shows no PTAB-related prosecution entry — see the Google Patents page). The bottom line for a defendant is therefore not "claims 1–5 are canceled" and not "the patent has survived IPRs and is hardened" — it is the third case: the patent has never been tested at the PTAB at all. Every claim that exists today is UNTESTED, no petitioner is estopped, and the full universe of prior art remains available — but with a statutory term running out on 2027-07-19 (adjusted expiration per Google Patents), an IPR is now a race against expiry rather than a routine defense play.

No proceeding-specific entries are provided below because there are none to describe. I have not invented proceeding numbers, and I explicitly decline to attribute any of the numerically adjacent proceedings I found to this patent.

Verification log (what I searched for, and what came back)

Caveat on completeness: my web-search budget for this task ran out before I could complete the reexamination/CAFC query and a docket-level sweep of PTAB E2E. The ODP-structured block is authoritative and says zero, and nothing in the searches contradicts it. But a defendant-facing memo should treat "zero PTAB activity" as confirmed by the structured source, corroborated (not exhaustively re-verified) by web search.

Identifier-confusion check — do not let these bleed into your chart

Three numerically adjacent proceedings regularly get conflated with this patent. None of them is US 7,797,367:

If your invalidity chart or your PTAB citation audit cites "the IPR on 7,797,367," it is almost certainly one of the above. Correct it before filing.

Family-level fact you should not overlook: there is litigation in this family

The structured Google Patents record carries a "Family has litigation" flag with a Darts-IP family link (family 27496316). That tells you the family has been in court, not which member was asserted, and it does not establish that 7,797,367 itself was ever asserted. The chain of title is consistent with monetization: Sensoria Corporation → Borgia/Cummins, LLC (2006-05-19) → Benhov GmbH, LLC (merger, 2015-12-06) → Intellectual Ventures I LLC (2021-10-14). Benhov GmbH is the entity that has fed former IV wireless/IoT patents into Empire IP's IoT Innovations LLC campaign against Monitronics/Brinks Home (2:23-cv-00177) and SimpliSafe (1:23-cv-10879) per RPX. I could not confirm 7,797,367 in any of those asserted-patent lists, so do not assert that it was. It is, however, the obvious place to look first if you receive a demand letter.

Strategic summary

Claim status: 100% UNTESTED. No claim of 7,797,367 — not independent claim 1, not the second independent sensor-node claim (claim 17), not any dependent claim — has been canceled, confirmed, or even construed by the PTAB. There is no certificate of cancellation, no certificate of correction arising from a trial, and no statutory disclaimer visible in the record. Practically, this means the presumption of validity attaches to all claims as issued, and any defendant must build an invalidity case from scratch rather than inheriting one. This is materially worse for a defendant than the inverse case (a patent with canceled independent claims, where a demand letter resting on those claims is sanction-bait) and materially better than a patent that has survived two IPRs on the merits.

Estoppel landscape: there is none, against anyone. § 315(e)(2) estoppel requires a petitioner to have obtained a Final Written Decision. With zero trials, no petitioner and no privy is barred from raising any § 102/§ 103 ground — in the district court, in the ITC, or in a future IPR. Two corollaries: (1) the full prior-art universe, including art that a hypothetical earlier petitioner should have found, remains available to you; and (2) there is also no helpful IPR record — no PTAB claim constructions, no expert credibility findings, no obviousness findings — to borrow in litigation. You will be paying for your own PTAB record, if you choose to make one.

Timing is now the dominant variable, and it cuts against filing. The patent's adjusted expiration is 2027-07-19 (per Google Patents), roughly ten months from today (2026-09-14). An IPR filed now must be instituted and then reach a Final Written Decision within the § 316(a)(11) one-year trial clock from institution — and even a fast track lands the FWD at or after expiry. The Board retains discretion over whether to institute in that posture, and PTAB trial practice gives limited value to a merits win on a patent with a handful of months of life remaining. Meanwhile, § 315(b) would give a newly served defendant until one year after service to file, but that window may extend past expiry. For most defendants, the rational posture is: (a) run the invalidity case in the district court or ITC where it will be decided before the term ends, and (b) treat IPR primarily as leverage on stay and settlement rather than as the primary vehicle. Also note the AIA-trial menu is narrow here: the patent is pre-AIA (filed 2000-10-04, priority 1999-10-06), so PGR is unavailable; and CBM is not a realistic fit for an apparatus claim directed to wireless sensor networking rather than a financial product or service. IPR is the only real AIA trial path.

Pattern signals. Two: (1) No repeat-petitioner pattern — there is simply no petitioner. (2) The patent owner has not been forced to defend claims at the PTAB, which in IV-family monetization programs usually means the assertion volume on this specific patent has been low, the remaining term short, or the targets have chosen to settle or ride out the term rather than pay for an IPR. There is no Unified Patents (or other defensive aggregator) proceeding visible on this patent; the Unified Patents portal carries a related family publication (US 2017/0289323 A1, app. 15/484,483, current assignee Intellectual Ventures I LLC) but shows no challenge. A second family-signal worth chasing: that 2017-dated continuation in the same WINS family means you should confirm which family members carry live term and which claims the owner is actually asserting before you build a defense around expiry of the '367 alone.

Recommended next steps

Because there are no proceedings, there is nothing to link to and nothing to quote. Say that plainly to the client: the absence of PTAB activity is itself the signal, and for a patent with a 1999 priority date and a 2027-07-19 expiry, the absence usually means the economics of an IPR never penciled out for prior targets — not that the claims are unusually strong. Do not let opposing counsel convert "never challenged" into "unassailable."

Concrete action items, in priority order:

1. Confirm the negative on the record before you rely on it. Pull the patent's trial documents in PTAB E2E / Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End and the USPTO PTAB Decisions repository (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab), and re-run the ODP proceedings endpoint for application 09/684,387 and patent 7,797,367. Then run the same check for every family member — in particular US 12/758,749 (issued as 8,836,503) and application 15/484,483 (pub. US 2017/0289323 A1) — because a demand letter may cite a sibling even where this patent is clean. I flagged one uncompleted check (ex parte reexamination history and CAFC appeals for 7,797,367); close that gap.

2. Get the assignment and assertion facts, not just the title facts. Ask for the complainant's Rule 11 / Local Rule disclosure of all patents and all prior suits in the family. The Borgia/Cummins → Benhov GmbH → Intellectual Ventures I chain (with the 2015-12-06 merger and 2021-10-14 assignment) is the signature of a portfolio vehicle; the Darts-IP family 27496316 record will show the family's litigation history and identify co-defendants who may have already built invalidity contentions you can license or mirror.

3. Decide the forum on the term math, not on the merits. Given expiry 2027-07-19, model three tracks: (a) district court invalidity with a § 315(b) IPR filed defensively to support a stay; (b) IPR-only, accepting that the FWD likely postdates expiry; (c) no IPR, ride the term out with a design-around and a license offer sized to <1 year of exposure. Option (c) is genuinely viable now in a way it was not in 2019, and it should be priced explicitly.

4. If you do file, target the independent claims — and only those. The record shows independent claim 1 (apparatus sensor node / distributed data processing in response to node information) and a second independent claim 17, with dependents running into the 30s (e.g., claims 25 and 26 depend from claim 1; claims 18–24 and 27–32 depend from claim 17). Since no claim has ever been construed by the Board, secure your own constructions early and do not assume any prior tribunal has narrowed anything.

5. Preserve the § 315(b) clock. If your client is served, calendar the one-year bar date immediately. Because that date may fall after 2027-07-19, the decision whether to file is time-decaying in your favor — every month of delay reduces the patent's remaining value and strengthens a "no IPR needed" posture.

Bottom line for a defendant today: zero PTAB proceedings, zero estoppel, zero claim cancellations, and roughly ten months of statutory term left. There is no IPR-based shortcut defense to inherit — but there is also no hardened patent to fear. The real question is no longer "how do we invalidate 7,797,367," it is "is it worth invalidating a patent that expires on 2027-07-19 before any trial could finish?"

I'll research the assignment record for this patent before writing the analysis.

Good leads. Let me dig deeper on the specific reel/frame entries and correspondents.

I hit the tool-call limit while probing for correspondent names and full reel/frame data. Here is the analysis built from what I could verify, with retrieval gaps stated plainly rather than filled in.

Inventors

Eight named inventors on US 7,797,367 (app. 09/684,387, filed 2000-10-04):

Unusual pattern — yes, one, but it runs the other direction from the fire-sale tell:

• The application was filed 2000-10-04 with no corporate assignee of record — Google Patents lists the original assignee as "Individual." The inventors held the rights personally for ~16 months before executing/recording the transfer to Sensoria Corporation on 2001-02-06. That is outside the 12-month window; this is not a case of all inventors bailing within 12 months of filing.
• What is notable is the reverse: every inventor assigned to the startup, and no inventor appears as an assignor on any later link of the chain (security grant, release, sale to Borgia/Cummins, merger to Benhov, sale to IV). The founders were fully washed out by the 2006 transaction. I could not determine from the retrieved record whether any inventor received consideration or retained a royalty under the 2006 sale.

⚠️ Caveat: I did not verify the inventors' employers against the executed assignment instruments; the employment column is inference from the assignor list and the WINS program history, not primary evidence.

Original assignee

Sensoria Corporation (per the 2001-02-06 recorded assignment; the patent as issued still shows "Individual" as original assignee because the assignment post-dates filing).

• Primary line of business: commercialized the DARPA-funded WINS NG wireless sensor node platform — low-power wireless sensor networking hardware (node + gateway), sensor signal-processing software, and development tools. The specification of this very patent reads as a product description of the Sensoria WINS NG node, so the company did ship/market a platform embodying the claims, at least at development-kit/commercial-early stage. I did not verify commercial unit volumes or revenue.
• Capital structure: venture-backed. Hummer Winblad Venture Partners (with Hummer Winblad Technology Fund IV, L.P. and Thomas Bruggere as secured parties) took a security interest in the patent portfolio on 2002-11-06 — a classic venture-lender collateral arrangement, not a bank credit line.
• Current status: wound down / defunct (moderate confidence). The evidence trail is the 2002-11-06 security grant → 2006-02-24 termination and release of that security interest → 2006-05-19 outright assignment of the portfolio to Borgia/Cummins, LLC. That sequence is the signature of a venture-backed company liquidating its IP in the mid-2000s. I found no evidence of a Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 filing; do not treat this as a bankruptcy finding.

Assignment timeline

Records below are drawn from the Google Patents legal-events record for this patent and from a PTAB exhibit reproducing an assignment cover sheet for a sibling application. Reel/frame numbers were only recoverable where the later corrective assignments cite them in their own text — the Google Patents event feed does not display reel/frame or correspondent fields, and a direct interactive query to assignmentcenter.uspto.gov was not available in this session. I am therefore not supplying reel/frame values that I could not see, and I am not supplying correspondent names at all, because none were retrievable.

• 2001-02-06 (executed/recorded) — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: David C. Gelvin, Lewis D. Girod, William J. Kaiser, William M. Merrill, Fredric Newberg, Gregory J. Pottie, Anton I. Sipos, Sandeep Vardhan (all eight, individually)
  • Assignee: Sensoria Corporation
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Founder-to-startup assignment — the inventors personally held the application for 16 months post-filing, then conveyed to the operating company. This is the only link on which the inventors appear.

• 2002-11-06 (executed/recorded) — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Grant of Security Interest (Patents) — securitization, not a transfer of title
  • Assignor: Sensoria Corporation
  • Assignee: Hummer Winblad Venture Partners (collateral agent and secured party); Thomas Bruggere (secured party); Hummer Winblad Technology Fund IV, L.P. (secured party)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Venture-debt collateral — the portfolio pledged to Sensoria's lead VC; signals the company was already financing against IP within two years of the founder assignment.

• 2006-02-24 (executed/recorded) — Reel 017286/0142 (this number is recoverable because the 2010-10-01 corrective assignment expressly cites it)

  • Conveyance: Termination and Release of Intellectual Property Security Interest
  • Assignor: Hummer Winblad Venture Partners IV, L.P. (and, per the later correction, also Thomas Bruggere and Hummer Winblad Technology Fund IV, L.P.)
  • Assignee: Sensoria Corporation (release back to the debtor)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization unwind — the VC released its collateral, which is the precondition step to a clean sale; three months later the assets moved.

• 2006-05-19 (executed/recorded) — Reel 017636/0792

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Sensoria Corporation
  • Assignee: Borgia/Cummins, LLC, address of record 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Distress/wind-down sale of the entire portfolio to a non-operating holding LLC — this is the operative transfer-to-holder link. Note the assignee address is the well-known registered-agent service address in Wilmington, DE (source: PTAB Exhibit 1011-2 in American Honda Motor Co. v. Intellectual Ventures II, IPR2023-00078, which reproduces the Borgia/Cummins assignment cover sheet for the sibling app. 09/684,388).

• 2010-07-23 (executed/recorded) — Reel not retrieved (corrects 017636/0792)

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment — spelling of assignee's city of residence, "WILLINGTON" corrected to "WILMINGTON"
  • Assignor: Sensoria Corporation
  • Assignee: Borgia/Cummins, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Scrivener's-error cleanup on the 2006 sale — four years later, filed while Borgia/Cummins was rebuilding a clean chain of title (the patent issued 2010-09-14, two months later). Recordkeeping hygiene ahead of assertion/advisory activity.

• 2010-10-01 (executed/recorded) — Reel not retrieved (corrects 017286/0142)

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment — adding two executing parties (Thomas Bruggere; Hummer Winblad Technology Fund IV, L.P.) to the 2006-02-24 termination and release
  • Assignor: Thomas Bruggere; Hummer Winblad Technology Fund IV, L.P.; Hummer Winblad Venture Partners IV, L.P.
  • Assignee: Sensoria Corporation
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Title-curative correction on the security-interest release — again a clean-up, 17 days after the patent issued, completing the standing record for the holder.

• 2015-12-06 (executed/recorded) — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Merger (see document for details)
  • Assignor: Borgia/Cummins, L.L.C.
  • Assignee: Benhov GmbH, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Internal restructuring of the holding structure — by operation of merger rather than purchase; the portfolio moves to a new shell without a title-transfer negotiation.

• 2021-10-14 (executed/recorded) — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Benhov GmbH, LLC
  • Assignee: Intellectual Ventures I LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Transfer to asserter — the chain terminates at a documented licensing/assertion entity.

Correspondent note (the signal you asked me to watch for): I could not retrieve the correspondent of record for any of the eight recordings. The Google Patents legal-events feed omits that field, and a session-level query against assignmentcenter.uspto.gov was unavailable here. One artifact did surface — a law-firm docket-style string "078700-020113/US" on an assignment cover sheet for sibling app. 09/684,388 in the PTAB exhibit — but I cannot attribute it to a named attorney or firm, so I am not treating it as a repeat-correspondent finding. This is a gap, not a negative.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7797367
    2000 : Filed by eight individual inventors
    2001 : Inventors assign to Sensoria Corporation
    2002 : Portfolio pledged to Hummer Winblad
    2006 : Security interest released
         : Sold to Borgia Cummins LLC
    2010 : Patent issues September 14
         : Corrective assignments filed
    2015 : Merged into Benhov GmbH LLC
    2021 : Assigned to Intellectual Ventures I LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT.
Patent moved from the operating assignee (Sensoria Corporation, which shipped the WINS NG node) to Borgia/Cummins, LLC by the assignment recorded at reel 017636/0792 (executed 2006-05-19). Concrete evidence beyond the name: the assignee's address of record is 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808 — a registered-agent service address, reproduced on the assignment cover sheet in PTAB Exhibit 1011-2 (American Honda Motor Co. v. Intellectual Ventures II, IPR2023-00078). Borgia/Cummins is a non-operating holding entity; no products in commerce surfaced. Caveat: the transfer happened as part of a genuine wind-down of a defunct operating company, so this is an authentic liquidation rather than an invented shell — but the receiving entity is nonetheless a non-practicing holder.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT.
Intellectual Ventures I LLC is the current assignee per the 2021-10-14 recorded assignment from Benhov GmbH, LLC. IV is a documented licensing/assertion entity that does not ship products embodying these claims. Important scope limit: per the earlier litigation section of this analysis, I have no verified case caption or docket identifying US 7,797,367 itself as an asserted patent; IV's NPE status is established, but assertion of this patent is unconfirmed.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (evidence not retrieved).
I could not obtain the correspondent of record for any of the eight recordings (See the correspondent note above). The chain contains two self-citing corrective assignments (2010-07-23 and 2010-10-01) that were almost certainly prepared by the same firm that prepared the 2006 originals — recurring attorneys are the norm on correction filings — but I have no name, and I will not infer one. Treat as unverified.

4. Cascading transfers — PARTIAL.

• The long-range chain is not a rapid cascade: 2006-05-19 → 2015-12-06 → 2021-10-14, i.e. ~9.5 and ~5.9 years between links. That is slow, not a churn.
• The local burst is real, however: security grant (2002-11-06) → release (2006-02-24) → outright sale (2006-05-19), three recordings bracketing the portfolio inside a ~40-month window with the release and sale only ~3 months apart. The last two links share the same assignor (Sensoria) and are contemporaneous, consistent with a pre-negotiated liquidation. A fifth recording at 2010-07-23 corrected the 2006 sale deed, and a sixth at 2010-10-01 corrected the 2006 release — both filed in the weeks around issuance (2010-09-14), which is title-curation behavior, not ownership economics.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — UNCLEAR.
No first infringement suit naming the '367 patent was confirmed in the earlier litigation pass, so there is no anchor date against which to measure a 6-month pre-suit transfer. If a first suit is later identified, the relevant date to test is the 2015-12-06 merger to Benhov and the 2021-10-14 transfer to IV — both sit in periods when IV was active in assertion campaigns (the 2024–2026 American Airlines / Southwest / GEICO matters identified earlier), which would make the 2021 link the likelier candidate for a standing-arrangement transfer.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT (no evidence).
No Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 proceeding involving Sensoria Corporation surfaced. What the record shows is a VC-secured wind-down: Hummer Winblad's security interest (2002-11-06), a consensual release (2006-02-24), then a negotiated portfolio sale (2006-05-19). I want to be precise — the economic effect resembles a distressed sale, but I have no filing, no docket, and no trustee, so I do not call it a bankruptcy fire-sale.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
Sensoria was itself the operating company and was wound down; it did not transfer to an NPE to assert against competitors while continuing to sell products. The later IV ownership is a secondary-market purchase from a defunct company's holding LLC, not privateering on an operating company's behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at Intellectual Ventures I LLC (2021-10-14) — the inverse of neutralization.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

The chain runs from a defunct venture-backed operating company (Sensoria Corporation) through a non-operating Delaware holding LLC at a registered-agent address — Borgia/Cummins, LLC per reel 017636/0792, executed 2006-05-19 — then by merger to Benhov GmbH, LLC (2015-12-06), and finally by assignment to Intellectual Ventures I LLC (2021-10-14), an entity with no products embodying these claims. That yields two independent strong signals: shell-entity/holding transfer and documented asserter as current owner. The main evidentiary gap is that I could not retrieve correspondent names (signal 3) or a confirmed suit asserting this patent (signal 5) — if a first suit is identified, the 2021-10-14 IV assignment date should be tested against it.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 7797367)
• USPTO Patent Assignment Search (legacy view): https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events for this patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7797367/en

Flagged contradiction / correction to the prior sections

None. The chain here (Sensoria → Hummer Winblad security interest → release → Borgia/Cummins → Benhov → Intellectual Ventures I LLC) is consistent with the assignee chain recorded in the earlier Patent summary and Litigation summary sections. The one thing I would tighten from those sections: the earlier summaries described the 2015 step only as "Benhov GmbH, LLC (2015 merger)" without a counterparty — the Google Patents event feed shows the merger assignor was Borgia/Cummins, L.L.C., executed/recorded 2015-12-06, which is what closes the chain logically.

Tooling caveat

Two fields the task asks for — reel/frame for most recordings and correspondent of record for all recordings — were not retrievable in this session. Google Patents' legal-events feed strips both fields, and the Assignment Center's search is session-based. The only reel/frame values I am reporting (017636/0792 and 017286/0142) are ones that appear within the text of the 2010 corrective assignments themselves, i.e. self-referential and reliable. Everything else is deliberately left blank rather than guessed.

I'll pull the citation record for this exact number. Let me run targeted searches.

The first results are forward citations (patents citing '367). I need the references cited by '367. Let me search that specifically.

Let me pull the actual "References Cited" list on the '367 front page from other patent databases.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 7,797,367 B1

"Apparatus for compact internetworked wireless integrated network sensors (WINS)"
(App. 09/684,387; filed Oct. 4, 2000; issued Sept. 14, 2010; 49 claims, two independent)

0. Scope, sources, and the number-identity check

Number discipline. I searched only for 7797367 / 7,797,367. I did not merge it with look-alikes (7,797,011; 7,799,637; 7,799,897). Every source below returned that exact number, and the title, application number 09/684,387, inventor list, and Sept. 14, 2010 issue date were identical across Google Patents, uspto.report, Espacenet, FreePatentsOnline, and Unified Patents. This corroborates the bibliographic data in the previously generated patent summary.

A note on tooling. I could not query the USPTO PatentCenter/PATENT FULL-TEXT databases directly with the tools available; I worked from the USPTO-derived mirrors (uspto.report, FreePatentsOnline) plus Google Patents and Espacenet. Where a list was truncated in retrieval, I say so rather than filling gaps.

Builds on the earlier sections (not repeated here): the bibliographic table, abstract, assignee chain (Sensoria → Borgia/Cummins → Benhov → Intellectual Ventures I LLC), the 2027-07-19 adjusted expiration, and the family-level Darts-IP "has litigation" flag.

One confirmation of an earlier caveat, and it matters for §102 mapping. The earlier summary flagged that claim 1's slave-mode clause ends "…in response to the modem operating in the master mode" and was unsure whether it was a reproduction error. The Espacenet claim text for US7797367 (B1) confirms the clause as issued:

"…wherein the modem is configured to operate in the slave mode in response to a neighbor node … exceeds the number of connections … by the threshold number of connections, and wherein the sensor node is configured to acquire and follow a frequency hopping pattern of a neighbor node … in response to the modem operating in the master mode."

So the internally inconsistent clause is real, not a transcription artifact. Any anticipation chart on claim 1 must chart the claim as issued (subject to the listed Certificate of Correction), and a §102 reference that discloses hop-pattern acquisition by a slave node will not literally meet that clause as written. This is an unusually favorable posture for the patentee and an unusually awkward one for an anticipatory-art argument.

1. Statutory framework and critical dates (pre-AIA §102 governs — filed Oct. 4, 2000)

Consequence that dominates this whole analysis: this patent's citation record is non-patent-literature heavy, and a substantial portion of the papers listed were published after the priority date (2000–2002). Those entries are record citations, not prior art. Meanwhile, several listed US patent documents have grant dates of 2006–2010 — they cannot be §102(a)/(b) art for a 2000 application, and can only be §102(e) art if their underlying applications were filed before Oct. 4, 2000.

2. Table A — US patent documents appearing in the '367 record

Retrieval caveat: the FreePatentsOnline listing for 7797367 returned a truncated US Patent References block; the entries below are those visible. Because the list contains grant dates (2006–2010) that postdate this application, I flag that some entries may reflect family/continuation IDS material rather than examiner-cited §102 art. Verify each against the printed front page before relying on it.

Family applications cited as references (US 09/684,388; 09/684,162; 09/680,608; 09/684,706; 09/684,742; 12/904,074) are co-pending same-day filings of the same inventive entity. Same-day filing is not "before" under §102(e); these are not prior art.

3. Table B — Foreign patent documents

(The last five entries derive from the family's cited-reference lists; only WO 00/54237 was directly visible in my retrieval of the '367 record itself. Confirm attribution before relying on them.)

4. Table C — Non-patent literature (this is where the real anticipatory art sits)

Verified on the face of the '367 record via uspto.report's "Other References" listing. §102 status is measured against the §102(b) critical date of Oct. 4, 1999.

Also on the family's cited list, treated cautiously (not verified as '367 front-page art): N. Abramson, "The Throughput of Packet Broadcasting Channels," IEEE Trans. Comm. COM-25(1):117–128 (Jan. 1977) [§102(b), ALOHA — background only]; Estrin, Pottie & Srivastava, ICASSP 2001; Goodman, "Infostations," Proc. IEEE VTC '97; Kahn et al., "Next Century Challenges: Mobile Networking for 'Smart Dust'," MobiCom 1999 [if Aug. 1999 → §102(b); small self-organizing wireless sensor nodes]; Asada et al., Proc. SPIE 3673:11–18 (1999); Chandrakasan et al., "Design Considerations for Distributed Microsensor Systems" (1999); Ortega & Borriello, "Communication Synthesis for Distributed Embedded Systems" (1998); Asada et al., 1997 IEEE ISCAS 2817–2820.

5. Element-level §102 mapping (which claims could actually be anticipated)

Anticipation requires every limitation of a claim in one reference, arranged as claimed. Applying that test:

Independent claim 1 — no anticipating reference identified.
The combination of (i) a multiple-mode RF modem switching between master and slave based on a comparative neighbor-connection-count threshold, (ii) hop-pattern control by the master, and (iii) a substrate that couples processor/energy source/modem and itself comprises a sensor is not disclosed in any single listed reference. Closest partial hits:

• C1 (Baker & Ephremides) → element (d)/(f) election logic.
• C2 (Ephremides 1987) → elements (e)/(g) frequency-hopping control/following.
• C10 (Lin & Gerla) → adaptive election.
• C12/C7 (WINS node papers) → elements (a)–(c).
• Nothing in the record discloses the substrate-comprising-a-sensor (element (h)/(i)).
  Also note the claim-construction problem identified in §0: as issued, the slave-mode clause requires "the modem operating in the master mode," which cripples any literal anticipation argument even where a reference discloses slave hop-pattern acquisition.

Independent claim 42 — no anticipating reference identified; no listed reference even approaches it. None of the cited art discloses a flexible substrate that operates as both an acoustic sensor and an acoustic source, an on-substrate processor that automatically joins a network, and RF synchronization enabling wind compensation in acoustic ranging. C15/C16 (AWAIRS self-location via TDOA) disclose acoustic/RF ranging and self-location but not the wind-compensation or flexible-substrate-as-transducer limitations.

Dependent claims with genuine §102 exposure (single-reference):

Claims 2–4, 6, 8–16, 20–24, 27, 29, 32, 39, 42–49: no listed reference discloses the specific limitations (thin-film PVF₂ piezoelectric film; conformal substrate; thin-film photovoltaic doubling as optical presence sensor; sensor tape with adhesive; battery cells as accelerometer proof masses; aerodynamic substrate shape; bi-static sensor). These read on the patent's genuinely novel substrate-integration subject matter.

6. Citations that are in the record but are not prior art (and should not be charted)

These should be excluded from any §102 chart on this patent:

• Post-priority publications: Elson/Girod/Estrin, "Fine-Grained Network Time Synchronization Using Reference Broadcasts" (submitted SIGCOMM 2002); Merrill et al., "Open Standard Development Platforms for Distributed Sensor Networks" (Aerosense 2002); Natkunanathan et al., "A Signal Search Engine for Wireless Integrated Network Sensors" (ASFL Mar. 2000 — also after the Oct. 1999 priority); Estrin/Pottie/Srivastava ICASSP 2001; WO 00/54237 (Sept. 2000); CA 2245963 (Feb. 2000).
• Same-inventive-entity / same-family documents: US 7,020,701; US 7,484,008; US 7,161,926; US 7,207,041; US 7,305,467; and the co-pending applications 09/684,388 / 09/684,162 / 09/680,608 / 09/684,706 / 09/684,742 / 12/904,074. Common inventorship or same-day filing defeats "by others" and §102(e).
• Post-dating US grants (2006–2010) listed in the retrieval — §102(e) inquiry only, and only if earlier-filed.

7. Bottom line

1. The anticipatory art for '367 is non-patent literature, not patents. Of the references I could verify on the face of the record, the §102(b)-qualified set is C1–C18 above; the strongest single-reference candidates are C1 (Baker & Ephremides 1981) for the claim-1 election logic, C2 (Ephremides 1987) for frequency-hopping master/slave control, C6 (Gerla & Tsai 1995) for claim 40, C3 (Bhatnagar/Layer Net 1990) for claim 31, and C9 (Dong 1997) for the processing-hierarchy claims.
2. No listed reference anticipates claim 1 or claim 42 in full. Claim 1's substrate-that-comprises-a-sensor limitation, and all of claim 42's flexible-substrate acoustic sensor/source and wind-compensation features, are absent from the record.
3. The non-qualifying citations vastly outnumber the qualifying ones. Any assertion that "the patent cites X, therefore X anticipates" fails here for date and inventorship reasons in most cases.
4. Two facts should be nailed down before any chart is finalized: (a) the exact publication date of the 37th Allerton Conference proceedings (C18), because it straddles the §102(b) critical date; and (b) whether WO 00/54237's underlying US filing predates Oct. 4, 2000, which is the only route by which it could be applied against these claims.

8. Caveats, and a contradiction to flag

• Flagged contradiction / open item: Google Patents shows '367's priority as 1999-10-06, while Unified Patents shows 1999-10-05 for the same number — consistent with the discrepancy noted in the earlier patent summary. It is immaterial to §102(b) (driven by the Oct. 4, 2000 filing date) but is material for anything published Oct. 4–6, 1999.
• Verification steps I could not complete: the US Patent References block for 7797367 was truncated, and much of the foreign-reference set was reconstructed from the family's cited-reference lists (US 8,812,654 / US 8,832,654 pages) rather than from the '367 front page. Confirm against the printed front page or PatentCenter before relying on Tables A and B. I did not invent entries to fill gaps.
• Moderate confidence on C18's date, C15's public accessibility (the report's "Apr. 31, 1999" typo suggests it is a contract deliverable, which raises a §102(b) "publicly accessible" question), and on whether the 2006–2010 US grants in Table A are truly front-page citations of '367 as opposed to family IDS material.

I'll ground this §103 analysis in the actual prior-art record for this patent. Let me pull the cited references and the contemporaneous art landscape.

Good — I have the domestic reference list. Now let me pull the key prior-art references themselves and the claim-42-relevant art.

Obviousness Analysis — US 7,797,367 B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note / contradictions flagged up front

1. Date discrepancy: your system prompt says 2026‑09‑14; this task header says April 26, 2026. I use the task header's date but flag the mismatch.
2. Claim‑text caveat carried forward: as noted in the previously generated summary, the "Full patent text" supplied is truncated inside the description and does not contain the claims. Claim text below comes from third‑party reproductions (Sumobrain/Espacenet). The facially inconsistent clause in claim 1 (slave‑mode operation ending "…in response to the modem operating in the master mode") is load‑bearing for this §103 analysis, because the whole master/slave logic is the narrowest limitation. Verify against the Certificate of Correction before relying on it.
3. Prior‑art list is incomplete. I retrieved only the first ~24 entries of the IDS "Domestic Patent References" from Sumobrain before hitting a tool limit. A complete §103 analysis would require the full IDS, the "Cited By" list, and any IPR/PTAB record — and the earlier section established that no IPR or CAFC activity for this exact number could be verified. Everything below is analyst opinion, not a legal opinion.

I. Governing framework (pre‑AIA § 103(a))

• The effective filing date is October 4, 2000, with benefit back to provisional(s) from October 6, 1999 (Google Patents "Prior art date 1999‑10‑06"). The application predates the AIA, so pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) governs. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) applies to pre‑AIA 103(a); the Graham v. John Deere factors control.
• Critical‑date consequence: the §102(b) statutory bar runs from one year before the earliest claimed U.S. filing (the Oct. 1999 provisional), i.e. on/about October 6, 1998; material published between Oct. 1998 and Oct. 1999 is at best §102(a) art and is at least theoretically antedatable by a Rule 131 declaration.
• This matters enormously here, because the most on‑point documents describing "WINS" are the applicants' own work: Pottie & Kaiser, Wireless Integrated Network Sensors, 43 Comm. ACM 51 (May 2000) (https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/[332833](/patent/332833).[332838](/patent/332838)), published after the Oct. 1999 priority date and authored by two named inventors. It is therefore not §102(a) art ("by others… before the invention thereof by the applicant") and not §102(b) art (inside the grace year). The same is true of the UCLA/Rockwell corpus (Bult et al., ISLPED 1996; Dong et al., ISLPED 1997; Asada et al., ESSCIRC 1998; Agre, Clare, Pottie & Romanov, Aerosense '99; Sohrabi, Gao, Ailawadhi & Pottie, Allerton 1999) — the patent's own background narrative attributes all of this to the DARPA/LWIM/AWAIRS programs the inventors participated in.
• Practical upshot: the strongest statutory prior art is (a) the third‑party references cited on the face of the patent, (b) the applicant‑admitted prior art (AAPA) in the specification's own "Prior Art" section (FIGS. 1–7), and (c) genuine third‑party publications (Kahn/Katz/Pister; Estrin et al.; commercial spread‑spectrum radio art). Admissions in the specification are treated as prior art (In re Nomiya; and cf. Riverwood Int'l v. R.A. Jones on admissions), so the FIGS. 1–7 narrative is fair game even though it is the patent's own text.
• §103(c) caution (practice note): the Oct. 4, 2000 sibling applications in this family (WO 01/26329–01/26338 counterparts) are potential §102(e) art to one another. Because they appear to have named‑inventor/individual filings before the Feb. 6, 2001 Sensoria assignment, common ownership / §103(c) disqualification of that 102(e) art for §103 purposes should be investigated — it is a real defensive asset for the patentee against family‑based obviousness.

II. The admitted prior art (from the patent's own "Prior Art" section)

The patent concedes, in its own words, essentially every architectural predicate of the claims:

This is, for §103 purposes, close to a blueprint. The only thing the background frames as novel is the integration: doing all of it in "a compact, low power system" on a layered architecture with standard tools and a substrate that is itself a sensor.

III. Reference legend (verified this session)

Cited on the face of the patent (Sumobrain IDS extract, verified):

• US 4,649,524 — Vance, Integrated acoustic network (1987)
• US 4,187,492 — Delignieres, Device for determining the relative position of [objects]… (1980)
• US 4,642,639 — Nelson, Multichannel DME ranging system (1987)
• US 5,206,806 — Gerardi, Smart skin ice detection and de‑icing system (1993)
• US 5,475,687 — Markkula, Network and intelligent cell for providing sensing, bidirectional communications and control (1995)
• US 5,291,542 / US 5,428,636 — Meier, Radio frequency local area network (1994/95)
• US 5,241,542 — Natarajan, Battery efficient operation of scheduled access protocol (1993)
• US 4,812,820 — Chatwin, Electronic surveillance system and transceiver unit therefor (1989)
• US 5,420,825 — Fischer, Noise control composite (1995)
• US 4,494,121 — Walter, Direction finding antenna; US 4,406,016 — Abrams, VHF sensor in‑band radio relay

Third‑party art located this session:

• Kahn, Katz & Pister, Next Century Challenges: Mobile Networking for "Smart Dust," MobiCom '99, pp. 271–278 (Aug. 1999) — DOI 10.1145/313451.313558. Compact autonomous nodes each with "one or more sensors, computation and communication capabilities, and a power supply." The Berkeley project page (https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~pister/pisters/pre99/SmartDust.html) separately lists the research thrusts "Silicon maple and dandelion seeds," "Macro Motes (COTS Dust)," "Micro Air Vehicles," and corner‑cube‑retroreflector optical links — directly material to claims 42–45.
• Estrin, Govindan, Heidemann & Kumar, Next Century Challenges: Scalable Coordination in Sensor Networks, MobiCom '99 (directed‑diffusion ancestor).
• Boser, Electronics for micromachined inertial sensors (1997) (cited in the Smart Dust paper) — micro‑accelerometer interfaces.
• Want, Hopper, Falcao & Gibbons, The Active Badge Location System, ACM TOIS 10:91 (1992) and the Harter/Hopper Active Bat ultrasonic positioning line of work — RF‑synchronized ultrasonic time‑of‑flight location. I did not re‑retrieve the Active Bat papers this session; treat as moderate confidence and verify.

IV. Claim 1 — the primary combination

Limitations: processor + energy source + multiple‑mode RF modem (master/slave selective) + substrate coupling these and itself comprising a sensor; master election based on relative neighbor‑connection counts (node count exceeds neighbor counts by a threshold, and vice versa); master controls the frequency‑hopping pattern for its neighbors, slave acquires and follows the master's pattern.

Combination A — "sensing cell + RF LAN + master/slave FH modem + smart skin"

Why a POSITA would combine (MPEP 2144.01(A), (C), (D), (F))

1. Known technique improving a similar device in the same way (2144.01(C)): the patent itself supplies the motivation — "the transceiver power consumption for reception is nearly equal to that of transmission… radios [should be] off as much of the time as possible, that is, the MAC should include some variant of TDMA," and the path‑loss law P_REC ∝ R^−α (α = 3–5) means short hops beat long hops. Any POSITA in 1999 would reach for the only commercially proven architecture that gives deterministic, collision‑free, frequency‑hopped, low‑duty‑cycle access: a master/slave FH radio. This is 2144.01(A) par excellence — arranging known elements (sensor node + FH master/slave modem + substrate sensor) to yield the predictable result (a low‑power, self‑assembling, multihop sensor cluster).
2. Design incentive / market force (2144.01(F)): DARPA's LWIM/AWAIRS and the Berkeley "Smart Dust" program both expressly set the goal of massively scalable, self‑assembling, low‑power sensor networks. Where the prior art supplies the goal, KSR makes the route to it obvious.
3. Explicit teaching in the art (2144.01(G)): AWAIRS (in the patent's own admission) already teaches self‑organization combining synchronism and channel assignment, with "invitation slots… allocated even when the network is mature to allow for reconfiguration." Claim 1's election mechanics are a degree‑based refinement of an admitted synchronism/channel‑assignment function.
4. "Obvious to try" (2144.01(E)): given a finite, identified set of cluster‑head election rules (fixed ID, degree, energy), selecting a local degree‑comparison rule was among a small number of predictable options.

The narrowest limitation and the strongest non‑obviousness hook

Claim 1's relativity — the master/slave decision is made by comparing this node's neighbor count to each neighbor's own neighbor count, with a hysteresis‑style threshold — is more specific than generic "highest ID wins" cluster election. A patentee's best rebuttal is: the cited art shows centralized/absolute master designation, not a distributed, relative, degree‑differential election. The counter is that degree‑based cluster‑head election was well known and that the claim's own specification describes this election in terms of adapting to node density and connectivity — an obvious design choice to optimize the admitted objective of minimal‑energy multihop topology. On balance I rate claim 1 more likely than not obvious, but this limitation is where an IPR petitioner would need a clean, well‑matched reference.

V. Claim 42 — the flexible "PicoWINS"/tag combination

Limitations: flexible substrate configured as acoustic sensor and acoustic source; processor on/in the substrate configured to automatically join another node to form a network; antenna in/on the substrate; the acoustic sensor determines the node's position; the node communicates that position to the other node; the node synchronizes with the other node via RF; the synchronization lets the node compensate for wind when determining range.

Motivation: GPS in a thin, disposable tag is costly and power‑hungry; the acoustic transducer is already required for acoustic sensing; the radio is already required for networking. Using the onboard acoustic pair for ranging and the onboard radio purely for timing synchronization is the textbook engineering optimization (2144.01(C) "use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way"). I rate claim 42 likely obvious, with the caveat that the combination is somewhat less tightly pre‑figured in the retrieved art than claim 1 — the wind‑compensation clause could support a genuine non‑obviousness argument if the petitioner's ranging reference is generic.

VI. Dependent claims — mapping

Grouped for efficiency (claim text as previously summarized):

Claims 2–16 (substrate/sensor species). Best art: Gerardi '806 + Fischer '825 + smart‑card IC‑with‑sensor art + Vance '524.

• C3 / C49 (piezoelectric polymer film, "PVF₂") — this is the weakest claim in the patent; PVDF film acoustic transducers are old and the printed term "polyvinylidenedifloride (PVF.sub.2)" is itself likely a typographical artifact (presumed polyvinylidene difluoride). Expect anticipation‑adjacent §102/§103 exposure.
• C10 (thin‑film PV device serving as both energy source and optical sensor) — using a solar cell as a light‑level detector is a well‑known technique; obvious under 2144.01(B)/(D).
• C16 (battery cells as proof masses for an accelerometer) — thinner art. The best harness is micro‑accelerometer art (Boser 1997, cited in the Smart Dust paper) combined with known mass‑integration practice. Weakest element for the petitioner; strongest for the patentee.
• C5/C12 ("sensor tape" with adhesive) — tag/label art + Gerardi smart skin.

Claims 17–29 (internetworking, APIs, resource/priority publication). Best art: AAPA FIG. 7 (browser + gateway + remote trigger‑level control) + Estrin et al. '99 (directed diffusion — information driven by named/data and by resource considerations) + the Pottie/Kaiser CACM description of remote Internet control (note the §102(a) caveat above: this is the inventors' own post‑priority publication and should not be counted as "by others," but it is direct evidence of what the POSITA would find obvious).

• C28 (API for remote reprogramming of sensors/actuators/comms/signal processors/storage/node controllers/power supplies): the only novel‑looking facet is the breadth of the API surface, and the patent's own background criticizes the prior art only for inconvenient development environments, not for absence of remote programming — a §103 obviousness admission in substance.
• C18/C26/C29 (node resource cost + message priority published; adaptive aggregation; synchronism hierarchy): squarely read on directed diffusion (Estrin '99) and on the admitted AWAIRS "energy‑aware routing."
• C22/C23 (layered element sets; second network overlaying a first): overlaid/heterogeneous networks (the spec itself states "a sparse network of intelligent nodes can be overlaid on a dense network of simpler nodes").

Claims 30–38 (operation).

• C30 (processing/transmission controlled by probability of detected event) — the patent's own text states the principle nearly verbatim ("networks of nodes of an embodiment exploit the probabilities of the events of interest in order to process only to the extent required"), so this is an admission against interest rather than an invention.
• C31 (search and acquisition; permission to join via message hierarchy; survey at random intervals) — AAPA FIG. 5 (invitation slots, node‑to‑network attachment) + Sohrabi/Pottie Allerton '99.
• C32–C38 (database alerting; coincident signals; power/comms status) — database‑driven monitoring art generally.

Claims 39–41. C39 (bi‑static sensor) — no clean reference retrieved; verify. C40 (join two clusters from slave mode) — the scatternet/bridge concept (the admitted FIG. 5/6 multi‑cluster structure and AWAIRS "node‑to‑network attachment"). C41 (package opening/closing sensing) — Chatwin '820 (electronic surveillance/transceiver unit) and tamper‑switch art.

VII. Secondary considerations and rebuttal exposure

VIII. Bottom line

1. Claim 1 is, in my assessment, more likely than not obvious. The combination of (i) an admitted master/slave networked sensing node (Markkula '687, Meier '542/'636, AAPA FIGS. 1–2), (ii) an admitted self‑organizing, frequency/TDMA‑scheduled multihop sensor network (AWAIRS admissions, FIGS. 3, 5; Kahn/Katz/Pister '99; Estrin et al. '99), (iii) a substrate that is itself a sensor (Gerardi '806 smart skin; Vance '524; smart‑card sensor art), and (iv) degree‑based cluster‑head election (cluster‑head election art) supplies every element, with the motivation squarely in the patent's own background (path‑loss law, radio duty‑cycle minimization, DARPA's scalability goal). The only meaningful defense is the relative‑degree election clause — and its strength depends on how cleanly the petitioner matches it.
2. Claim 42 is likely obvious but is the better‑defended independent claim. Flexible PVDF‑based acoustic transducers, two‑way acoustic ranging with RF synchronization (Active Bat lineage; Delignieres '492; Nelson '639), flexible‑substrate antennas, and the known upwind/downwind wind‑cancellation technique together read on the claim. The wind‑compensation limitation is the sole clause with a credible non‑obviousness argument, and only if the petitioner's ranging reference is generic.
3. The dependent claims are the soft underbelly. C3/C49 (PVF₂ film), C10 (PV‑cell‑as‑photosensor), C26/C29/C30 (adaptive aggregation, synchronism hierarchy, event‑probability‑driven processing) and C31 (search/acquisition with random surveys) are largely restatements of the acknowledged state of the art or of the applicants' own admitted prior art — several read on the specification's own background text.
4. Individual‑reference anticipation (§102) is not the natural attack; the natural attack is a 4–6 reference §103 combination anchored on the patent's own admissions. The single most damaging document against this patent is the patent's own FIGS. 1–7 narrative plus the accompanying LWIM/AWAIRS background.
5. Caveats and verification tasks. (a) Complete the IDS/reference list — I retrieved only ~24 of the "Domestic Patent References" before the tool limit. (b) Resolve the Certificate of Correction and the claim 1 master/slave wording anomaly, which is dispositive for the claim 1 analysis. (c) Confirm the §102(a)/(b) status and authorship of the WINS/UCLA corpus (several are the inventors' own work). (d) Verify the cluster‑head‑election and Active Bat citations, which I supplied from background knowledge rather than from this session's retrieval. (e) Consistent with the earlier sections, no IPR, PTAB, or CAFC record for US 7,797,367 was verified — so these claims have not been tested, and nothing here should be read as a validity adjudication.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7797367B1](/patent/US7797367B1)/en · https://www.sumobrain.com/patents/us/Apparatus-compact-internetworked-wireless-integrated/[7797367](/patent/7797367).html · https://si.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/claims?CC=US&NR=[7797367B1](/patent/7797367B1)&KC=B1 · https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/332833.332838 · https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Wireless-integrated-network-sensors-Pottie-Kaiser/beeb0e10aa0a884506bfcff0068fefafe990d260 · DOI 10.1145/313451.313558 (Kahn, Katz & Pister, MobiCom '99) · https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~pister/pisters/pre99/SmartDust.html · https://www.ee.ucla.edu/gregory-pottie/