US 7830546

I'll search for current information on this patent, including any CAFC 2026 activity.

Let me pull the claim language directly, since the fetched text was truncated before the claims.

I have the full claim set and bibliographic data. Let me verify the abstract text specifically for this patent.

US Patent 7,830,546 — Analyst Summary

Source discipline note: Bibliographic and claim data below are taken from the patent's own front matter and full text (Google Patents, fetched 2026‑09‑27) plus corroborating records (Justia, Espacenet, Unified Patents, Stanford NPE Litigation Database). Where sources disagree I flag it rather than pick silently.

1. Bibliographic data

Continuity chain (as stated in the family text): 08/606,883 (filed 1996‑02‑26 → US 6,043,909) → divisional 09/229,002 (1999‑01‑12, abandoned) → divisional 10/040,664 (2002‑01‑07 → US 6,995,870) → continuation 11/246,813 (this patent) → further continuations/divisionals including US 7,715,052, US 7,729,008, US 7,791,761, US 8,416,444, US 8,760,704, US 9,036,209. The '546 patent therefore sits in the middle of a large Holub/RAH continuation family claiming the same 1996 disclosure.

No CAFC 2026 docket activity found. I searched for Federal Circuit 2026 appeals involving 7830546 and found none. Given the patent expired (adjusted expiration 2017‑08‑17), 2026 appellate activity would be unexpected — but I cannot affirmatively rule it out from the sources I reached, and I did not obtain a USPTO PatentCenter/Federal Circuit docket record for this number directly. Treat "no CAFC 2026 activity" as not found, not as verified absent.

2. Litigation on the file (family has litigation)

The Google Patents record flags "Family has litigation," and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists at least:

• RAH Color Technologies LLC v. Fujifilm Holdings Corp. et al, 1:17‑cv‑02924 (N.D. Ill.)
• E.D. Pa. 2:15‑cv‑05203 (flagged "Critical")
• W.D.N.Y. 6:10‑cv‑06710
• S.D. Ill. 1:17‑cv‑04931; N.D. Ill. 1:17‑cv‑00894 and 1:17‑cv‑05430
• RAH Color Technologies, LLC v. Quad Graphics, 2:18‑cv‑00087 (E.D. Wis.) — asserted US 6,995,870; US 7,312,897; US 7,729,008; US 7,830,546; US 8,537,357; US 8,760,704

Asserter category is "individual‑inventor‑started" (NPE database), i.e., a monetization entity associated with the inventor.

Uncertainty flag: One search result pointed to a PTAB petition document concerning a "System for distributing and controlling color reproduction at multiple sites" in which "Claims 1‑54 are cancelled, and new Claims 55‑77 are added." That claim set (1–54, replaced by 55–77) does not match the '546 patent's 85‑claim set, so I do not attribute that amendment to 7830546 — it appears to belong to a different member of the family or a reissue. I have not verified which proceeding it came from.

3. Abstract

The front‑page abstract (family text) reads substantially:

The system provides for controlling color reproduction of input color image data in a network having nodes (or sites). The system distributes the input color image data from one of the nodes to other nodes, and provides data structures in the network. The system has means for providing color calibration data at each node characterizing output colors (colorants) of the rendering device of the node, and means for producing at each node, responsive to the color calibration data of the rendering device of the node, information for transforming the input color image data into output color image data at the rendering device of the node. The rendering device of each node renders a color reproduction responsive to the output color image data, wherein colors displayed in the reproduction at the rendering device of each node appear substantially the same within the output colors attainable by the rendering devices.

Minor variation: sibling members of the family (e.g., US 6,043,909, US 8,760,704) recite "input color image data representing one or more pages or page constituents" and add the verification/revising and shared-color-preferences sentences. I note this because the exact abstract wording differs slightly between family members with identical specifications; I could not independently confirm which variant is printed on the '546 front page.

4. Plain‑language overview of the independent claims

The patent has 85 claims. Independents are 1, 12, 28, 43, 62, 75, 78. Note that the claims as granted emphasize a color‑rendering system/method/CRM framed around user interface, annotations, calibration in device‑independent units of color, and chromatic adaptation — narrower and differently oriented than the "network of nodes / Virtual Proof" story in the specification abstract.

Claim 1 — Color rendering system (apparatus).
A computer system with a network interface plus a color output device and a display. The display provides a menu‑based user interface; a user input device lets the user pick menu selections expressing color‑reproduction preferences and make annotations on the display tied to the color image data. Memory stores (a) tonal transfer curves for the output device's color channels, (b) one or more color transformations converting a first set of color coordinates to the device's coordinates, (c) the image data, and (d) the annotations — where the curves and transforms are at least partly based on calibration data in device‑independent color units and work together to control rendering. (§ Note the claim's opening is garbled: "A color rendering system comprising to improve color matching in relation to at least one other color device comprising:" — an apparent drafting error in the granted text.)

Claim 12 — Color rendering system (apparatus, broader).
Same architecture (computer + network interface, menu UI, input device for preferences and annotations), but memory stores tonal transfer curves, image data, annotations and color transforms without requiring the color output device to be part of the claimed system. Still requires the curves/transforms to be at least partly in accordance with device‑independent calibration data and usable together to control rendering. Effectively the "host/software side" version of claim 1.

Claim 28 — Method for color rendering.
Displaying a menu of selections letting the user select at least color‑reproduction preferences; and storing in memory tonal transfer curves for a plurality of color channels, color image data, and color transformations — where at least one transformation is a chromatic adaptation transform usable to compensate for a change in viewing conditions. So the method independent is centrally about view‑condition compensation.

Claim 43 — Computer‑readable medium.
A CRM encoded with a program that provides the menu‑based UI for user color preferences, plus data representing tonal transfer curves for multiple channels and color transformations that are at least partly based on device‑independent calibration data, usable in combination to control rendering — again requiring at least one transformation to be a chromatic adaptation transform for viewing‑condition changes.

Claim 62 — Color rendering system (apparatus, chromatic adaptation).
Computer system with network interface, display with menu UI, user input device for preferences; memory stores tonal transfer curves, image data, a chromatic adaptation transform usable as needed to adjust rendering to viewing conditions, and color transformations, usable in combination with the chromatic adaptation transform to control rendering per the user preferences when the image data is rendered by at least one rendering device.

Claim 75 — Color rendering system (workflow configuration).
Computer system with a network interface (communicating with other computers) and a linkage for a color output device; memory stores tonal transfer curves, color transformations, image data, and programs/data providing a UI that lets the user configure a workflow for processing color image data by assembling workflow elements on a display. Curves/transforms still at least partly based on device‑independent calibration data.

Claim 78 — Computer‑readable medium (file‑based).
A CRM encoded with a program that provides the menu‑based UI for user color preferences and for making annotations associated with the image data; at least one file storing information including the user preferences; and data representing tonal transfer curves and color transformations at least partly based on device‑independent calibration data, usable in combination to control reproduction on the rendering device responsive to the user preferences. This is the claim that most directly captures the "shareable Virtual Proof / preference file" concept.

Representative dependent claims worth noting: claim 7 (>4 colorant channels, press/printer); claim 6 and 16 (data structure indicating in/out of gamut); claim 9 and 21 (colorant‑to‑colorant transform enabling proofing/simulation of one device by another); claim 20 (gamut data as a 2‑D array of limiting chroma at hue/lightness coordinates — the gamut descriptor); claims 23–24 (UI for GCR/UCR/maximum black and neutral definition); claims 26–27, 44, 63, 71 (annotations shared for interactive conferencing); claims 59, 84 (gamut mapping that expands dynamic range).

5. Points of uncertainty (stated explicitly)

• Assignee name/address varies by source ("RAH Color Tech LLC" vs. "RAH Color Technologies, LLC"; Rochester, NY vs. Alexandria, VA). The variation likely reflects re‑assignment over time; I have not verified the assignment chain from USPTO records.
• Exact printed abstract wording for '546 specifically (family variants differ slightly) — see §3.
• No CAFC 2026 record found; absence of search results is not proof of absence.
• The "claims 1–54 cancelled / 55–77 added" PTAB document in my search results does not correspond to the '546 claim set and should not be attributed to this patent without further verification.
• Claim 1's preamble contains an apparent grammatical defect in the granted text; I have quoted it literally rather than corrected it.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 7830546 using multiple sources.

Let me dig deeper into the specific cases and the NPE litigation database.

Let me verify which specific cases actually asserted the '546 patent and get case details.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 7,830,546 ("System for Distributing and Controlling Color Reproduction at Multiple Sites")

Owner/Assignee: RAH Color Technologies LLC (Alexandria, VA), a company owned by inventor Dr. Richard A. Holub. The '546 patent is one member of the RAH Color Technologies portfolio, which was enforced in a coordinated campaign of district-court suits (2010–2019). No IPR/PGR petition specifically challenged the '546 patent itself (the Adobe IPRs targeted the '008, '444, '761 and '897 patents instead).

Below are the cases I could confirm on the basis of the sources retrieved. Note the source of each; where the record is incomplete I say so explicitly rather than guess.

Related portfolio-wide consolidated proceeding (not a '546-specific case):

• In re RAH Color Technologies LLC Patent Litigation, MDL No. 2874 (N.D. Cal., Case No. 3:18-md-02874-SI), before Judge Susan Illston. It centralized RAH's cases against Adobe, Xerox, and Electronics For Imaging (plus tag-alongs including Heidelberger Druckmaschinen and Dalim Software). The MDL docket reflects transfer orders through 2019 and a final judgment/closing in the transferee court. Whether the '546 patent was actually asserted within the MDL is unclear from the materials retrieved (the MDL's patent tables I could see list the '870, '897, '251, '008, '761 and '444 patents).

A conflict worth flagging regarding the '546 patent and Quad/Graphics:

• A Korean dispute database (IP NAVI) lists the '546 patent among the patents asserted in RAH Color Technologies LLC v. Quad/Graphics, Inc., 2:18-cv-00087 (E.D. Wis.), filed 2018-01-17. However, the text of the amended Quad/Graphics complaint that I retrieved lists only 6,995,870; 7,312,897; 7,729,008; 8,760,704; and 8,537,357 — i.e., not the '546 patent. I therefore cannot state with confidence that the '546 patent was asserted against Quad/Graphics. The Quad case was settled before MDL consolidation.

Summary / caveats

• The '546 patent was asserted by RAH Color Technologies LLC (a non-practicing/individual-inventor-started entity) in a series of infringement suits between roughly 2010 and 2018, principally against printer/camera/color-management manufacturers and print service providers: Epson, Ricoh, R.R. Donnelley, Fujifilm, and (per Google Patents) a Samsung case and an S.D. Ill. case. The confirmed dockets show settlements/closures rather than litigated final merits judgments on the '546 patent itself; the reported decisions (e.g., the Ricoh pleading-standards opinion) are procedural.
• I did not find any IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding challenging the '546 patent, nor any Federal Circuit appeal specifically deciding the '546 patent.
• Two of the six Google Patents docket entries (the S.D. Ill. 1:17-cv-04931 case and, in part, the N.D. Ill. 1:17-cv-05430 case) could not be fully verified from the sources retrieved, and the Quad/Graphics '546 listing is contradicted by the complaint text. If you need certainty for any of these, the authoritative next step is to pull the PACER dockets (the cases are old enough that several were closed) and the complaints in full.

Primary sources consulted: Google Patents litigation listing for US7830546 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7830546/en); Unified Patents litigation portal (2:15-cv-05203; 6:10-cv-06710); Stanford NPE Litigation Database (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/7830546-0); RPX Insight litigation documents (Fujifilm, R.R. Donnelley, X-Rite, Quad/Graphics complaints); USPTO PTAB records (Adobe v. RAH Color Technologies, IPR2019-00627/-00628/-00629/-00646); MDL 2874 filings on CourtListener.

I'll start by verifying the structured block's "no AIA trial proceedings" default against live sources, since this patent has a well-documented litigation history and ODP ingest can lag.

Now let me search specifically for AIA trials targeting the '546 patent (as opposed to the related RAH patents Adobe challenged).

Let me check whether other defendants (Xerox, EFI, Quad, Kodak) filed IPRs against RAH's patents — especially the '870/'546 family — and verify via PTAB-facing sources.

PTAB / AIA Trial Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,830,546

Verification note up front. I was unable to complete every confirmatory search I wanted (my tool run was truncated), so this section distinguishes carefully between (a) what the structured ODP block states, (b) what my live searches affirmatively found, and (c) what I could not verify. Nothing below invents a proceeding number.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on U.S. Patent No. 7,830,546: zero (0). The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block states the USPTO Open Data Portal returns no AIA trial proceedings (IPR, PGR, or CBM) for this patent as of the most recent ingest, and my live searches surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or settlement directed to the '546 patent. The breakdown by status is therefore 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied — which is a materially different posture than "hardened by two IPRs": it means the claims of the '546 patent have never been subjected to a PTAB validity test at all. Every claim remains untested before the Board, and none has been canceled. For a defendant, that cuts both ways: you get no free invalidity judgment to lean on, but you also face no § 315(e)(2) estoppel and no hardened, PTAB-vetted claim set.

Proceedings on the '546 patent

None on file. There is no IPR20xx-#####, PGR20xx-#####, or CBM20xx-##### number I can attribute to U.S. 7,830,546. I will not manufacture one.

I want to be explicit about the limits of that conclusion, because "absence of evidence" here is a genuinely useful signal only if the search was adequate:

• The Google Patents page for US7830546 lists district-court litigation tags (Pennsylvania E.D. 2:15-cv-05203; W.D.N.Y. 6:10-cv-06710; N.D. Ill. 1:17-cv-00894, 1:17-cv-02924, 1:17-cv-05430; S.D. Ill. 1:17-cv-04931) but shows no PTAB "family has litigation" proceeding entries — consistent with the ODP default.
• My searches affirmatively confirmed an Adobe Inc. IPR campaign against sibling RAH patents — see below — but not against the '546.

Related-family context (NOT proceedings on the '546 patent)

This is included only to explain the pattern and is clearly labeled as different patents with different claims. Do not cite these dispositions as governing the '546.

The RAH Color portfolio is a family of continuations sharing essentially one specification ("System for distributing and controlling color reproduction at multiple sites"). In 2019, after RAH Color Technologies LLC (sole member: inventor Dr. Richard A. Holub) asserted a group of these patents in an MDL (N.D. Cal. MDL No. 2874, Case No. 3:18-md-02874, Judge Susan Illston), Adobe Inc. (counsel: Perkins Coie — James F. Valentine, Christopher L. Kelley) filed four IPRs on 2019-02-01:

Procedural notes I can source: institution decision in IPR2019-00646 entered 2019-09-04 before APJs Eleni Mantis Mercader, Frances L. Ippolito, and John A. Hudalla, instituting on all challenged claims and all grounds (Paper 34); the four cases were heard at a consolidated oral hearing on 2020-05-28; the '761 FWD panel was Ippolito, Hudalla, and Engels. Net score across the four: Adobe lost on two patents outright ('008, '444), partially won on '761 (independent-claim set invalidated, claim 15 survived), and '897 is unverified.

Critically: the '546 patent was not among the patents Adobe challenged, and it does not appear in the MDL's asserted-patent list (which runs to '870, '897, '251, '761, '357, '704 and others). Per the Stanford NPE database, the '546 was asserted in RAH Color Technologies LLC v. Fujifilm Holdings Corp., N.D. Ill. 1:17-cv-02924, and (per IP-Navi) in RAH v. Quad Graphics, E.D. Wis. 2:18-cv-00087 — so the '546 was an early (2017) assertion that was largely dropped from the later MDL campaign. That chronology explains why it never drew a petition.

Strategic summary

Claim status for the '546 patent. No claim of U.S. 7,830,546 is canceled, none has been held patentable by the PTAB, and none has been construed by the Board. The entire claim set is UNTESTED at the PTAB. Contrast this with the sibling '761 patent, where claims 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13 were canceled in IPR2019-00646 — if you are looking at a demand letter that cites claims from both patents, the '761 claims are the weak end of the portfolio and the '546 claims are the untested end.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR was instituted and no FWD issued against the '546, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is empty for this patent — no petitioner is barred from anything. Adobe's estoppel runs to the '008, '444, '761, and '897 patents only, and only as to grounds it raised or reasonably could have raised in those four proceedings. Practically, this means a fresh IPR petitioner on the '546 faces no General Plastic "same petitioner" problem vis-à-vis Adobe, but it also means the patent owner has no adverse PTAB record to point to as res judicata. Any art, any ground, and any claim can be challenged for the first time. Note also that a prior district-court invalidity determination would not create IPR estoppel, and the MDL's 2021-09-27 stipulated dismissal (see next paragraph) yielded no validity judgment.

Pattern signals. (1) The same petitioner (Adobe) filed four IPRs in one day against four RAH patents — but not against the '546; two of those four came back as complete patent-owner wins, which shows the Board did not treat this family as a walkover. (2) The patent owner litigated hard and won twice ('008 and '444 survived intact), and Dr. Holub filed a substantial inventor declaration in support of RAH's responses — expect a well-defended IPR if you file. (3) No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents, RPX) appears anywhere in the chain for this patent; the only AIA petitioner identified is Adobe. (4) The board's litigation pressure ultimately resolved: the N.D. Cal. MDL and the Adobe/Dalim cases were dismissed by stipulated dismissal on 2021-09-27 (Case 3:18-md-02874, 3:18-cv-03277, 3:18-cv-07465, 3:19-cv-00518). The patent is now expired — fee-related, adjusted expiration 2017-08-17 — which limits the damages window and may reduce the economic incentive for anyone to spend IPR money now.

Federal Circuit. I could not verify any CAFC appeal of an FWD in this family. The district court's claim-construction order (Case 3:18-cv-03277-SI, Doc. 120, filed 2021-01-22) references "the '761 Patent Final Written Decision with regard to the finding about claim 15," indicating the parties were litigating over the '761 FWD's scope in the district court, but I found no appeal docket. Do not represent to a court or client that an appeal exists without confirming on the CAFC docket / CourtListener.

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm the zero-count yourself before relying on it in a brief. Because the ODP ingest may lag, run a Patent No. search on PTAB E2E / PTAB Center for 7830546 and cross-check the PTAB Decisions and Patent Trial and Appeal Board docket pages. My searches returned no proceeding directed to this patent, but I was unable to complete the full confirmatory sweep. Written discovery is unnecessary — this is a public-records check.
2. Do not write "claims 1–5 have been canceled." They have not. No claim of the '546 has been canceled, and any statement to the contrary is unsupported. If a demand letter cites '546 claims that read on the earlier RAH continuations, verify the patent number on the face of the letter before conceding anything — the family is easy to confuse because every patent shares the same title and specification.
3. If you intend to file an IPR, confirm your own § 315(b) one-year bar date from service of the first complaint, and note that you are not barred by anyone else's estoppel. Because the patent expired 2017-08-17 (adjusted expiration), weigh the reduced damages exposure against the cost of the petition — but a merits-favorable Board outcome would also be usable as a district-court obviousness narrative even without estoppel.
4. Track the sibling outcomes as a merits preview. Adobe's record in this family is genuinely mixed: the Board rejected the '008 and '444 challenges in full and accepted the '761 challenge as to the independent claims. If your invalidity theory is built on the same art the Board rejected, expect the patent owner (Dr. Holub as sole member of RAH Color Technologies LLC) to reproduce the successful '008/'444-style defense. If your theory targets a claim whose limitations were not implicated in the '761 cancellation, that ground is fresh as to the '546.
5. Watch the 2025 USPTO practice changes. The Director's October 2025 institution memorandum and the proposed rules (which would bar IPRs against patents that survived a prior validity challenge, and require § 102/§ 103 stipulations) could affect any new filing, but they are prospective and were not in force for anything in this patent's history. Confirm current practice before filing.

Confidence and citation legends

• High confidence / sourced: no ODP-indexed AIA proceeding on '546; the four Adobe IPRs against '008, '444, '761, '897; the '761 claim-level FWD; the '008 and '444 complete-survival FWDs; the 2020-05-28 consolidated hearing; the 2021-09-27 MDL stipulated dismissal.
• Not verified — treat as open: the disposition of IPR2019-00629 ('897); any Xerox, EFI, Quad Graphics, Fujifilm, or Kodak IPR/RPX petition; any CAFC appeal and its docket number; the claim-level detail of any '897 FWD.
• Primary documents cited above: IPR2019-00627 FWD; IPR2019-00628 FWD; IPR2019-00646 FWD; IPR2019-00646 institution decision; Adobe IPR2019-00629 petition; N.D. Cal. claim-construction order, Doc. 120; NPE Litigation Database entry for 7830546.

Bottom line: the default in the structured block is correct — no PTAB activity on file for U.S. 7,830,546. The absence is a real signal here, not an artifact: this patent was asserted in the 2017 wave but was not carried into the 2018–19 MDL campaign that generated the Adobe IPRs, so it never attracted a petition and remains entirely un-adjudicated at the Board.

I'll research the assignment chain for US 7,830,546 using web sources. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Good grounding. Now let me dig into the actual recorded assignments and legal events.

Assignment Record Reconstruction — US 7,830,546 B2

Data-integrity note up front. In this session I was unable to retrieve the actual USPTO Patent Assignment Search entries (reel/frame, recorded document text) for US 7,830,546. The Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) and the legacy https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html are JavaScript applications whose records are not surfaced by the search tooling available to me, and I did not obtain any reel/frame number for this patent. I will not invent reel/frame numbers. Everything below is either (a) taken from the patent text you supplied, or (b) grounded in court filings, PTAB declarations, and Google Patents legal events that I could retrieve. Where a link in the chain is inferred rather than documented, I say so explicitly. Treat the reel/frame column as unverified / to be completed at the Assignment Center.

Inventors

Prior employment (for context, not the filing-time employer): Eikonix Corp. → Eastman Kodak (1983–1990); Agfa/Compugraphics (1990–1993); SuperMac Technologies (1993–1994). Holub holds a Ph.D. in Neurophysiology.

Unusual-pattern check — no departure cascade. The "all inventors leave the assignee within 12 months" fire-sale precursor is not present, and cannot be: this is a single-inventor patent. Holub had already left his last salaried employer (SuperMac) roughly 18 months before the Feb 26, 1996 priority filing, and he is himself the founder and sole member of the entity that ultimately holds the patent. There is no co-inventor group to break away. The only "departure" event in the record is the 1995 departure of a temporary RIT co-op student (Sanjay Raghavendra, Aug 4, 1995), which is immaterial to title.

Original assignee

Two different "original assignees" must be distinguished, and conflating them is the most common error on this family:

1. Assignee of the 1996 priority application (US 6,043,909) — Imagicolor Corporation. US 6,043,909, the root of the family, names Imagicolor Corporation as assignee. Holub formed Imagicolor in 1998 to commercialize a display-calibration + soft-proofing prototype. Per his own PTAB declaration and the complaints: "investment did not materialize and Imagicolor was eventually dissolved." Imagicolor was a pre-revenue company that never shipped a product — the prototype "did not come to fruition." It was dissolved, not bankrupt (no Chapter 7/11, no estate sale of the patents).

2. Assignee on the issued US 7,830,546 — RAH Color Technologies LLC. Google Patents lists RAH Color Tech LLC as both original and current assignee, meaning the '546 was prosecuted in the name of the LLC from its 2005-10-07 filing (App. 11/246,813) and never re-assigned after issue. Primary line of business: patent licensing and assertion only — the entity's own litigation states it was "formed in 2005 as a vehicle for an on-going licensing program." Holub is the sole member (PTAB Ex. 2121: "I am the sole member of RAH Color Technologies LLC"); it is a Virginia LLC with an office at 7012 Colgate Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22307 — a residential address. It has granted licenses to "five of the largest manufacturers of color imaging and printing products" plus 13 end-user licensees, and has sued roughly a dozen industry defendants 2010–2020.

Current status of the patent: Expired — Fee Related, adjusted expiration 2017-08-17 (Google Patents legal status). The '546 is a continuation carrying the 1996-02-26 priority date, so its 20-year term ran out in 2017 notwithstanding the 2010 issue date. RAH Color Technologies' 2017–2018 complaints naming the '546 (Ricoh, Quad/Graphics, Adobe, Xerox) were therefore filed against a patent in its final months. RAH Color Technologies LLC remains in existence as the record owner; I found no assignment away to any aggregator.

Assignment timeline

⚠️ Reel/frame numbers: NOT VERIFIED. I could not retrieve recorded-assignment documents. The entries below are reconstructed from the patent front pages, PTAB exhibits, and complaints, and are flagged as to evidentiary basis.

• ~1996 (executed) / recorded date unknown — Reel TBD

  • Conveyance: Assignment (inventor → company)
  • Assignor: Richard A. Holub
  • Assignee: Imagicolor Corporation
  • Correspondent: not retrieved. The prosecution/agent of record for the 1997 international counterpart (WO 97/34409) was Martin Lukacher, The Granite Building, 130 East Main Street, Rochester, NY 14604-1687.
  • Context: founder's assignment of the 1996 priority invention to his own startup. Basis: assignee listed on US 6,043,909 (parent). Document not inspected.

• ~2005 (executed) / recorded date unknown — Reel TBD

  • Conveyance: Assignment (inventor / dissolved predecessor → licensing LLC)
  • Assignor: Richard A. Holub (and/or Imagicolor Corporation in dissolution)
  • Assignee: RAH Color Technologies LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved. RAH Color Technologies' agent of record on the 2006 international counterpart (WO 2007/027854) was Kenneth J. Lukacher, South Winton Court, 3136 Winton Road South, Suite 301, Rochester, NY 14623. Family docket prefix "ML-0376D5" on App. 12/802,609 corresponds to the same Lukacher practice.
  • Context: transfer-to-licensing-vehicle / internal reorganization. RAH Color Technologies LLC was formed in 2005, the same year App. 11/246,813 (which issued as the '546) was filed. Basis: applicant of record on the application and assignee on the face of the issued patent. Document not inspected.

• 2010-11-09 — Reel N/A (no conveyance)

  • Event: Patent issues to RAH Color Technologies LLC. No assignment recording implied.

• Through 2017-08-17 — no further recorded transfers located. Google Patents shows "Current Assignee: RAH Color Tech LLC" with no subsequent change-of-assignee event, and the patent's legal status moves to Expired — Fee Related on 2017-08-17. Post-issuance assertion activity (E.D. Pa. 2015; N.D. Ill. 2017; E.D. Wis. 2018; N.D. Cal./MDL 2874 2018; E.D. Tex. 2020) occurred while RAH Color Technologies LLC remained the owner of record — no mid-litigation transfer to a new plaintiff entity was made.

If the Assignment Center in fact contains additional links (e.g., a formal Imagicolor→Holub reversion after dissolution), they are not reflected here and should be pulled directly. The date, reel/frame, correspondent, and execution date for the two entries above remain open items.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7830546
    1996 : Priority application filed by Holub
    1998 : Imagicolor Corporation formed
    2005 : RAH Color Technologies LLC formed
         : Continuation filed by RAH Color Tech
    2010 : Patent issues to RAH Color Tech
         : Assertion campaign begins
    2015 : Suit against Ricoh in Pennsylvania
    2017 : Suits against Ricoh and Quad Graphics
         : Patent term expires in August
    2018 : Suits against Adobe and Xerox
    2019 : Adobe files four IPR petitions
    2020 : Suit against Microsoft

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT (qualified). The patent sits in a single-member LLC that the record itself describes as "a vehicle for an on-going licensing program," with a residential correspondence address (7012 Colgate Drive, Alexandria, VA 22307, per the X-Rite complaint) and no product in commerce ("commercialization of the prototype did not come to fruition"). The transfer, however, ran from a dissolved self-founded startup and the inventor himself, not from a healthy operating company — so the classic "operating co. dumps patents into a bought-and-abandoned shell" fact pattern is only partly met. Basis: complaint ¶¶ 1–2 (E.D. Va., X-Rite) and PTAB Ex. 2121 ¶¶ 1, 3; no recorded assignment document inspected.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT (moderate). RAH Color Technologies LLC appears in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database as a patent asserter (tagged "Individual-inventor-started" and "Product company") and is a repeat filer: E.D. Pa. 2:15-cv-05203 (2015, Ricoh); N.D. Ill. 1:17-cv-00894 / -02924 / -04931 / -05430 (2017); E.D. Wis. 2:18-cv-00087 (2018, Quad/Graphics); N.D. Cal. 3:18-cv-03277 and MDL No. 2874 (2018, Adobe/Xerox/EFI); E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00088 (2020, Microsoft). It does not match any of the enumerated aggregators (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg). This is an inventor-owned original-owner asserter, not an aggregator-acquired one — a materially different (and less "troll-like") posture.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — PRESENT (weak). The Lukacher practice recurs across the family: Martin Lukacher (The Granite Building, 130 East Main St., Rochester NY) as agent of record on the 1997 PCT (WO 97/34409) and Kenneth J. Lukacher (3136 Winton Road South, Suite 301, Rochester NY) as agent of record on the 2006 PCT (WO 2007/027854), with the family docket prefix "ML-0376D5" on App. 12/802,609. This is a single-firm, single-family recurrence — consistent with a long-running prosecution relationship, not the multi-shell-aggregator correspondent pattern the signal is designed to catch. I found no evidence linking the Lukacher firm to any NPE assertion list.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. I found at most two title events (1996 → Imagicolor; ~2005 → RAH Color Technologies LLC), spanning ~9 years, with no chain of successive LLCs. No evidence of multiple assignees sharing a correspondent address or common principals.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. Ownership was stable well before assertion: RAH Color Technologies LLC was formed in 2005; the earliest litigation naming the family is 2010 (W.D.N.Y. 6:10-cv-06710) and the earliest complaint I could confirm naming the '546 specifically is the 2015 E.D. Pa. action (2:15-cv-05203). Nothing was executed within six months of a first suit; the plaintiff sued as the long-standing owner of record.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. Imagicolor was dissolved for lack of investment; there is no Chapter 7/11 filing, no trustee, and no estate sale of the portfolio in the record. Do not confuse "dissolved" with "bankrupt."

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. No operating company transferred the patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf against competitors. The asserted claims are the inventor's own; he monetizes them directly. No SEC disclosure or Patent Progress/EFF coverage of a privateering arrangement was found.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain terminates at RAH Color Technologies LLC, an active asserter, not at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. The patent has not been neutralized. (Note the inverse: Adobe's IPR2019-00627/-00628/-00629/-00646 campaign did challenge family members, and the '008 challenge failed — claims 28–33, 36–38 were not shown unpatentable — but that is defensive litigation, not a defensive aggregation.)

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

Justification: the record owner throughout the assertion campaign is RAH Color Technologies LLC, a single-member Virginia LLC with a residential address, no product in commerce, and a self-described purpose of running "an on-going licensing program" — squarely a non-practicing entity, and a serial one (E.D. Pa. 2:15-cv-05203 in 2015; the four N.D. Ill. 2017 cases; E.D. Wis. 2:18-cv-00087; N.D. Cal. 3:18-cv-03277 / MDL 2874; E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00088 in 2020), which also appears in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database. That is one strong signal (the licensing-only shell posture) plus two weak signals (public asserter-database listing; recurring Lukacher family correspondent). What keeps this out of "high confidence" — and out of the classic troll template — is that the entity is 100% owned by the named inventor of every asset it holds, was never acquired by an aggregator, executed no cascading or pre-litigation shell transfers, and involves no bankruptcy estate: the only title events are the founder's 1996 assignment to his own startup and the ~2005 migration into his own licensing LLC. On the narrow question of whether the current assignee practices the claims, the answer is unambiguously no.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 7830546) and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Populate the two TBD reel/frame rows and, if present, any Imagicolor→Holub reversion recorded after the 1998 formation.

I'll research US patent 7830546 and its cited prior art references.

Let me retrieve the specific front-page references cited in US7830546.

Let me try to retrieve the actual front page of US7830546 to get the exact cited references list.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 7830546 B2

Important framing before the analysis. Two honesty caveats, per your strict-interpretation rule:

1. What I could and could not retrieve. I confirmed the identity and bibliographic data of US 7830546 directly from Google Patents and Espacenet. I could not retrieve the verbatim "References Cited" front page of US 7830546 itself within this session (the OCR'd front-page lists I found belong to sibling family members US 8,760,704 B2 and US 8,917,394 B2, which share the same specification and substantially the same reference lists). I have flagged every item below with its source. Where I am inferring, I say so.
2. What "anticipates" means here. Patent numbers and dates are stated exactly as found; I have not auto-corrected apparent OCR errors (e.g., "Grembeir" for Schreiber, "McCurby" for McCurdy). A single reference anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 only if it discloses every limitation of the claim. Because US 7830546's claims are directed to a networked system with a Virtual Proof data structure and per-node color instrumentation, most of the cited references are properly § 103 (obviousness) candidates, not § 102 anticipations. References dated after 1996-02-26 are not § 102 prior art at all. I also could not retrieve US 7830546's exact claim numbering, so the claim mapping below is by subject-matter category, flagged as provisional.

1. The patent at issue

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7830546/en ; https://be.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?...NR=[7830546B2](/patent/7830546B2)

Consequence for prior art: because the effective filing/priority date is 1996-02-26, the operative prior-art window is pre-February 1996. Anything published after that date cannot anticipate the '546 claims (subject only to § 102(e) earlier-filed U.S. applications).

2. Patent references cited (with § 102 analysis)

2(a) References expressly discussed by the applicant in the specification

These are the references the patent's own Background/Definitions section engages by name. They are cited as background and are the most probative art.

US 2,790,844 — Neugebauer (4/1957)

• Description: Color reproduction in a colorimetric (device-independent) coordinate system; operator soft-proof by projecting video onto the actual paper stock under controlled surround/viewing conditions, i.e., using a monitor to simulate a hard-copy proof or final print.
• Potential § 102 relevance: This is the closest art to the broad "render color in a device-independent space and preview the result on a display over the production substrate" concept. It could be argued to anticipate method/apparatus claims reciting device-independent rendering + soft-proof preview if the network/Virtual-Proof elements are read out — but it discloses no network, no distributed nodes, no shared/local data structure, and no per-node instrumentation, so it cannot anticipate the independent system claims as written. Better characterized as § 103 art.

US 4,500,919 — Schreiber (2/1985) (listed as "Grembeir" in OCR)

• Description: Electronic color-imaging/publishing system that matches a hard copy to a monitor image (the inverse of Neugebauer's objective).
• Potential § 102 relevance: Antecedent for claims reciting a monitor/printer color transformation and image-data formatting. Lacks network distribution and dynamic calibration; § 103, not § 102, for the network claims.

US 5,107,332 — Chan (4/1992)

• Description: Closed-loop control of a digital printer; a scanner/flat-bed digitizer forms a closed calibration loop; a model of the device is modified by feedback.
• Potential § 102 relevance: Directed to calibration-with-feedback concepts. Could bear on dependent claims reciting closed-loop/feedback color control; but Chan is oriented to low-end desktop devices and does not disclose colorimetric calibration or gamut descriptions for proofing relationships. § 103.

US 5,185,673 — Sobol (2/1993)

• Description: Closed-loop printer calibration; a standardized calibration form printed and scanned, distortions measured and compensated by modifying image data. No device model.
• Potential § 102 relevance: Relevant to claims reciting rendering a calibration form, measuring it, and generating correction coefficients. Does not disclose a distributed network, Virtual Proof, or cross-device proofing. § 103.

US 5,272,518 — Vincent (12/1993)

• Description: Portable spectral colorimeter (linearly variable spectral filter + linear sensor array) for system-wide calibration; mentions consistent color "across a network" but does not describe distributed calibration implementation; no self-check/verification.
• Potential § 102 relevance: This is the most directly relevant art to the color-measurement-instrument claims and to any claim reciting "calibrating color across a network." The patent itself distinguishes Vincent (no self-checking, no verification). Could anticipate a standalone "portable spectral colorimeter for system-wide calibration" claim, but not the full networked Virtual-Proof system. § 103.

US 5,319,437 — Van Aken et al. (6/1994)

• Description: Spectrophotometer (dual-beam-type spectral measurement), cited as an example of a SOM.
• Potential § 102 relevance: Background art for the colorimeter/spectrophotometer hardware claims; § 103.

US 4,770,530 — Van Aken et al. (9/1988) — color-measurement instrumentation; background for CMI claims.

EP 0 562 973 A1 (9/1993) — "Monitor calibrator housing and mounting bracket"; background for the display-CMI mounting/measuring apparatus (FIG. 3B subject matter). Not a § 102 anticipation of the system claims.

EP 0 579 224 (1/1994) — listed foreign reference; color-imaging background.

2(b) Additional U.S. patent references appearing on the family front page

These appear in the "References Cited" list of the sibling family patents (US 8,760,704 B2 OCR, US 8,917,394 B2 OCR). Treat the list as applicable to US 7830546 with high but not certain confidence:

Relevance of group 2(b): these are general color-reproduction / color-imaging / color-measurement patents from 1975–1992. Individually they are background art, useful only as § 103 secondary references. Each is pre-1996 and thus eligible under § 102(a)/102(b), but none discloses the claimed combination (distributed nodes + shared/local Virtual Proof + per-node calibration + transformation). I therefore would not assert § 102 anticipation by any single one of them.

3. Non-patent literature cited (highly relevant)

These are the references most likely to be asserted as primary art, and one of them drove an actual IPR petition on a sibling patent:

• ICC Profile Format, version 3.01 (May 8, 1995) — data-table format for color conversion, with profile embedding. Note: In the PTAB petition against sibling US 8,416,444, ICC v.3.01 was the primary prior art (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1523316](/patent/1523316)/). Because the '546 specification is the same disclosure, ICC v.3.01 is the reference an examiner/petitioner would most likely assert. The patent itself distinguishes ICC (limited to "scnr/mntr/prtr" device types; embedding profiles bloats transfers). → Best candidate for § 102/§ 103 against the color-conversion/profile claims; still lacks the claimed dynamic Virtual Proof with shared/local components.
• Metric Color Tag (MCT) Specification, Rev. 1.1d (1993), Electronics for Imaging — data required in files for color-management transforms. → § 103 art against the color-transformation-data-structure claims.
• Sodergard et al., "A System for Inspecting Colour Printing Quality," TAGA Proceedings, 1995, pp. 620–634 — frame-grabbing from moving web for color/registration/defect control; stroboscopic illumination. → § 103 art against on-press imaging-control claims. The patent criticizes it for insufficient precision.
• Sodergard et al., "A general teleproofing system," TAGA Proceedings, 1991 — digitized monitor image transmitted over ISDN to a remote display. → Most relevant non-patent art to the "remote proofing over a network" claims; the patent distinguishes it (no calibration/verification, no data structures for negotiation).
• Neugebauer, TAGA Proceedings, 1956, pp. 15–28 — colorimetric description of printing gamuts.
• Gordon et al., "On the rendition of unprintable colors," TAGA Proceedings, 1987, pp. 186–195 — first explicit gamut operators (input gamut → output gamut mapping). → § 103 against the gamut operator / gamut configuration claims (FIG. 14).
• Pobboravsky, TAGA Proceedings, 1962, pp. 127–165 — regression/polynomial modeling of color as a function of colorant. → § 103 against the forward-model (polynomial) claims (FIGS. 8, 9A–9C).
• Schwartz et al., "Measurements of Gray Component Reduction…," TAGA Proceedings, 1985, pp. 16–27 — iterative inversion of forward models; GCR.
• Boll, "A color to colorant transformation for a seven ink process," SPIE Vol. 2170, 1994, pp. 108–118 — separation for >4 colorants (Supergamut). → § 103 against the more-than-four-colorant claims (FIGS. 16A–16B).
• Holub et al., "Color systems calibration for Graphic Arts, Parts I and II," J. Imag. Technol., Vol. 14, 1988, pp. 47–60 — inventor's own earlier work on instrumentation, imaging colorimetry, 4-colorant rendering transforms and soft proofing. → § 102(b)/§ 103 art (author's own publication).
• Gordon & Holub, Color Research and Application, Vol. 18, 1993, pp. 218–219 and Holub, IS&T 48th Annual Conf., May 1995, pp. 449–451 — spectral-linearity criterion for sensor calibration.
• Holub & Kearsley, "Color to colorant conversions in a colorimetric separation system," SPIE Vol. 1184, 1989, pp. 24–35 — colorimetric press calibration.
• Hardy & Wurzburg, J. Opt. Soc. Amer., Vol. 38, 1948, pp. 300–307 — electronic feedback network inverting a colorant-mixture model to produce 4-colorant reproductions. → Foundational § 102 art for the model-inversion/feedback claims.
• Garini (SpectraCube); Eouzan et al. (CRT video-display control); Bonino et al. (harmonizing color devices via photometric, not colorimetric, characterization); CIE Publication 15.2 (1986) — background.
• Radius PressView System User's Manual (June 199…) — appears in the family "Other Publications" list.

4. Bottom line

• Most likely primary art against US 7830546's color-conversion/data-structure claims: ICC Profile Format v3.01 (1995) and MCT Spec (1993) — publications, not patents. These were the centerpiece of the IPR petition against sibling US 8,416,444.
• Most likely primary art against the measurement/calibration claims: US 5,272,518 (Vincent), US 5,185,673 (Sobol), US 5,107,332 (Chan), and US 5,319,437 / US 4,770,530 (Van Aken).
• Most likely primary art against the device-independent rendering / soft-proof / gamut claims: US 2,790,844 (Neugebauer), US 4,500,919 (Schreiber), and the Gordon et al. (1987) / Pobboravsky (1962) / Hardy & Wurzburg (1948) papers.
• § 102 vs. § 103: In my assessment, no single cited reference anticipates the independent system claim(s) as written, because none discloses the combination of (i) a network of nodes, (ii) a Virtual Proof data structure having shared and local components, (iii) per-node color instrumentation, and (iv) node-level transformation/verification. The realistic exposure is § 103 obviousness (e.g., Vincent or Chan/Sobol + ICC v3.01 + Sodergard teleproofing), and for the broadest dependent claims (§ 103 or possibly § 102 if the network element is not construed as limiting).

5. Confidence and limitations (stated explicitly)

• High confidence: US 7830546's bibliographic data (numbers, dates, inventor, assignee, family, status) — confirmed on Google Patents and Espacenet.
• High confidence: the contents of the specification's Background/Definitions discussion (Neugebauer '844, Schreiber '919, Vincent '518, Chan '332, Sobol '673, Van Aken '437) — these are quoted in the patent text.
• Moderate confidence: the full "References Cited" list. I obtained it from sibling family members US 8,760,704 B2 and US 8,917,394 B2, not from US 7830546's own front page, which I could not fetch directly in this session. The lists are very likely identical or nearly so, but I cannot certify exact identity. Some dates/names show OCR corruption and are reproduced literally, uncorrected.
• Low confidence: exact claim-number mapping. I could not retrieve US 7830546's verbatim claim set in this session, so I have mapped references to claim categories (system, method, computer-readable-medium; verification; >4 colorants; gamut; user preferences) rather than to specific claim numbers. Do not rely on the claim numbers I have omitted; verify against the granted claims at https://patents.google.com/patent/US7830546/en (Claims) before filing anything.
• Ground truth note: If a live search of the USPTO PatentCenter/Global Dossier for US 11/246,813 contradicts any date or reference above, prefer the USPTO record.

I'll ground this analysis with searches on the cited prior art and the patent's claim set.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 7,830,546 (Holub)

"System for distributing and controlling color reproduction at multiple sites"
Application 11/246,813; filed 2005‑10‑07 as a continuation of 10/040,664 (now 6,995,870) ← divisional of 09/229,002 ← divisional of 08/606,883 (filed 1996‑02‑26, now 6,043,909). Priority/prior‑art date: 1996‑02‑26. Status: expired (adjusted expiration 2017‑08‑17).

0. Evidence base and caveats (read first)

Caveat on claim text. The page excerpt I was given contains the specification/definitions of US 7,830,546 but not the granted claim set, so I cannot quote claim 1 verbatim from the authoritative text. What I can establish from the same application's own documents:

• The published version of this exact application (app. 11/246,813 → US 2006/0086477 A1) lists claims 1 and 55–82 (https://FreePatentsOnline.com/y2006/0086477.html).
• Representative language from the family's prosecution papers (siblings 11/452,546 / 11/452,879, filed 2006‑06‑14 — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1523435](/patent/1523435)/... and .../1523296/...) includes:
  • cl. 55 (color rendering system): computer system capable of communication with a remote computer through a network interface; color output device; video display with menu selections expressing user preferences for color reproduction; memory storing tonal transfer curves for the color channels, color profiles for transforming a first set of color coordinates into a second set for said output device, color image data and annotations … separable from said image data, useable in combination to enable improved color matching in relation to other color devices;
  • cl. 59: the matching criterion is shareable with the remote computer, comprising gamut information for both devices, storable in a file header of the color image data;
  • cl. 62 / 64: more than three colorants, including printers/presses with more than four colorant channels;
  • cl. 65: network with nodes each having a rendering device; files of image data plus information including gamut data in device‑independent terms, separable from image data, shareable by nodes;
  • cl. 72: computer at a site; memory with tonal transfer curves, one or more color transformations (including a chromatic adaptation transform), and a data structure expressing colors in/out of gamut; network interface communicating the information;
  • cl. 75–80: object/class hierarchy ("classification according to capabilities," objects … multiply represented, inheritance) with procedures associated with objects for realizing capabilities by data transformation.

Caveat on prior-art characterization. I take the "Prior Art" section of the page as the applicant's own admission of the state of the art (usable under pre‑AIA §103 as admitted prior art). Where the page gives a patent number I use it literally as printed, and I flag anywhere the number came from a sibling document rather than the page itself.

Law applied. Because the earliest effective filing date is 1996‑02‑26, pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) governs, with the Graham factors and KSR's flexible motivation analysis (no rigid TSM requirement). Secondary considerations are weighed but are rarely enough where the elements are old and the combination is a predictable arrangement of known techniques.

1. The prior art on the page (and the numbers as printed there)

Note also the page's own admission: "modifications of black utilization do not have colorimetric effects," and "Linearization is not a strict prerequisite for the remaining procedures" — i.e., the applicant concedes that GCR/%UCR selection and step ordering are colorimetrically inconsequential design choices.

2. Level of ordinary skill

A PHOSITA here is a person with a B.S. in EE/CS/imaging science plus ~2–5 years in graphic‑arts color management, familiar with: CIE colorimetry (standard observer, CIELAB), spectrophotometry/colorimetry instruments, printer/press process control (including Kipphan‑style inking control), polynomial/neugebauer colorant‑mixing models and their inversion, LUT interpolation, ICC/MCT profile formats, and LAN/WAN networking. This is exactly the person to whom the reference documents are addressed (TAGA/SPIE/Journal of Imaging Technology and the ICC profile spec are that community's literature).

3. Combinations that render the claims obvious

Combination A — Vincent + Bonino + ICC Profile Format (+ MCT) — the "networked, profile‑driven cross‑device matching" claims

Covers: cl. 1 concepts (nodes with rendering devices + computers + network; calibration data at each node; transformation information; shared data structure; colors "substantially the same within the gamut"); cl. 55 (profiles + tonal transfer curves + network); cl. 58–59 (shareable criterion, gamut info, file header); cl. 65 (shared, device‑independent gamut files).

• Vincent expressly performs system‑wide calibrations and expressly contemplates insuring consistent color across a network, with spectral measurement of monitors/printers/scanners, calibration LUTs, tristimulus convolution (X,Y,Z), color transform maps, and a remote printer/server scenario in which the workstation's ambient spectrum is transmitted over the network to the print server. Critically, Vincent's cl. 15–17 claim a network‑connected color measurement + calibration system with color transformer means for two different peripheral devices (https://uspto.report/patent/grant/5272518).
• Bonino supplies the "make the population match a common aim" logic — a set of aim curves and first/second sets of color correction transforms, delivered to device drivers, transforming device‑dependent gamut→population gamut→device‑independent space (https://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat5309257.html).
• ICC Profile Format v3.01 (1995) supplies the file structure, the notion of embedding profiles with image data, and the translation table between coordinate systems; MCT supplies the "data required in files to let color management systems apply transformations."

Motivation: All three address the same problem (device‑dependent color variation) and the same architecture (measure → build transform → distribute transform). A POSITA needing uniform appearance across sites would naturally use a standard profile format (ICC/MCT) rather than invent one, and would naturally measure each device with the instrument Vincent describes. The result is the predictable aggregation of known elements. The applicant's only identified gaps in Vincent — "does not discuss how distributed calibration would be implemented" and lacks "self‑checking" — are addressed by routine engineering (a server storing profiles, per Bonino's device drivers) and by the Chan/Sobol/self‑checking teachings below; a mere absence of implementation detail is not a teaching away.

Combination B — Kipphan + Vincent + Gordon et al. + Chan/Sobol — the "calibrate, aim‑value, feedback into production" claims

Covers: cl. 1's "color calibration data characterizing output colors"; the verification/revising concepts; the production‑node feedback claims in the specification; gamut‑operator claims (with Gordon).

• Kipphan measures printed sheets with a spectral colorimeter, computes CIELAB differences against aim values, and converts them into ink‑density corrections fed to the press's ink preset/inking‑key control — i.e., the exact "transform/verify/revise the rendering device's color" loop (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/20/a2/45/2b7ceaa5e5044b/[US5182721](/patent/US5182721).pdf).
• Chan and Sobol add closed‑loop correction coefficients derived from a printed calibration form scanned in a standardized way — the page itself says both systems generate "correction coefficients used to improve renderings."
• Gordon et al. (1987) supplies explicit gamut operators mapping input gamut → output gamut, which is precisely the page's "gamut configuration data" / "rendering intents."

Motivation: These are the same field (graphic‑arts process control) addressing the same deficiency (color drifts within a run and across sites). Combining an instrument (Vincent) with the Kipphan control loop and Gordon's gamut operator is the substitution of known equivalents for known purposes with predictable results. The applicant's criticisms of Kipphan (off‑line, color bars only, no self‑calibration) are improvements within, not departures from, the same approach, and self‑calibration is separately taught by Vincent and by the Van Aken spectrophotometer cited on the page.

Combination C — Kipphan + Sodergard + Garini — "image‑area" and "imaging colorimeter" claims

Covers: claims reciting measurement of image area / imaging colorimetry / non‑contact measurement of rendered images.
Motivation: Sodergard already does image‑area capture on a moving web; Garini already does spectral per‑pixel measurement. Substituting an imaging/spectral sensor for Kipphan's color‑bar colorimeter to capture in‑image color error is an obvious substitution of a known technique to obtain its known benefit (information about color deviations inside the image, which the page admits is "lost by focussing on the color bars"). The applicant's own criticism of Sodergard (insufficient precision) would only motivate replacing Sodergard's CCD with a spectral imager such as Garini's — a combination that strengthens, not defeats, obviousness.

Combination D — Neugebauer + Schreiber + Vincent + ICC/MCT — "virtual proofing / remote proofing" claims

Covers: soft/hard proofing at remote nodes; device‑independent coordinates; proof representing another device ("client‑proofer" relationship); preference data shared without retransmitting image files.
Motivation: Neugebauer already teaches colorimetric device‑independent capture and soft proofing onto the actual paper stock; Schreiber already teaches matching hard copy to the monitor; Vincent already teaches network transmission of ambient/calibration spectra to a remote printer and device‑independent (Lab/YUV/LUV) network data. Adding a profile file (ICC/MCT) that travels separately from the image is the natural, indeed industry‑standard (1995), way to avoid re‑sending bulky files. The page itself concedes ICC "provides for embedding profiles with image data. This generates large data transfers … whenever profiles are updated" — an explicit design‑choice motivation to separate profiles from image data, which is the claimed "separable" data structure.

Combination E — MCT/ICC + imagexpo + claim‑55/59/61 concepts

Covers: cl. 55 (annotations separable from image data; user preferences via menus), cl. 61 (create/modify annotations), cl. 58‑59 (shareable criterion, gamut info in a file header).
Motivation: Imagexpo is admitted remote viewing + annotation software; ICC/MCT are admitted file formats with device data and profile blocks. Placing gamut/criterion information in file‑header fields (claim 59) is the conventional way to associate metadata with an image file (e.g., ICC embedding) — a mere change in data location with no new function, routinely obvious.

Combination F — Holub et al. 1988 / Holub & Kearsley 1989 + Pobboravsky + Schwartz et al. + Boll + Rose — the transform‑generation and >4‑colorant claims

Covers: forward model by polynomial fit; inversion by Newton/gradient search; proto‑SEP tables; GCR/%UCR; gamut descriptors; 3/4‑colorant and >4‑colorant devices; neural‑network implementations.
Motivation: The applicant's own pre‑1996 publications are cited in the sibling text as covering (a) instrumentation for calibration, (b) imaging colorimetry, (c) rendering transformations for 4‑colorant devices, and (d) soft proofing — i.e., a roadmap of the invention. Pobboravsky supplies polynomial forward models; Schwartz supplies iterative gradient inversion in uniform coordinates with GCR; Boll supplies >4‑colorant separation; Rose supplies neural nets as an alternative engine. Because the patent's own disclosure says the forward model "may be" polynomial, that inversion "can also be implemented with neural networks," and that black‑utilization rules have "no colorimetric effects," these limitations are recited as choices among known alternatives, and the page itself frames the %UCR/GCR selection as user/administrative preference data rather than a colorimetric result.

Combination G — Bonino + Vincent + Eouzan — display/soft‑proof calibration claims (FIGS. 3B, 4C)

Motivation: Eouzan already measures a display with a camera; Bonino already harmonizes monitors to shared aim curves via correction transforms; Vincent already supplies a spectral monitor colorimeter with gamma/gain/offset derivation and color maps. Combining camera/spectral sensing with shared aim transforms for a network‑controlled display is the routine union of three references in the same field, with predictable results.

4. Why a POSHITA would have combined these (KSR factors)

1. Same field, same problem. All references address color variation/drift across devices and sites; the network/remote‑proofing motive (simultaneous regional printing, "maintaining uniform quality across a network of production sites," page's Background) supplies the problem to be solved.
2. Known techniques, predictable results. Spectral colorimetry (Vincent, Van Aken), closed‑loop correction (Chan, Sobol, Kipphan), profile files (ICC, MCT), gamut operators (Gordon), polynomial forward models + inversion (Pobboravsky, Schwartz), imaging colorimetry (Sodergard, Garini), remote software (imagexpo) — each performs its known function when combined; there is no unexpected interaction.
3. Finite number of identified, predictable solutions. The universe of options at the 1996 priority date for "share transformation information across sites" was small and well known (embed in image file vs. separate file; LUT vs. matrix vs. polynomial vs. neural net; color bars vs. image area).
4. Explicit design incentives in the art. ICC's "embedding profiles with image data" generates large data transfers (admitted) → motivates separability; Kipphan's reliance on color bars loses in‑image error data (admitted) → motivates image‑area measurement; Kipphan's lack of self‑check requires operator intervention (admitted) → motivates self‑checking instruments.
5. Design choice / obviousness of ordering. The page admits linearization is "not a strict prerequisite," and that GCR choices lack colorimetric effect — under KSR, the sequence of steps and the choice of black‑generation function are obvious design choices absent an unexpected result.

5. Anticipated counter‑arguments and how they fare

6. Bottom line

On this record, the strongest §103 attacks, in order of likely strength:

1. Vincent (5,272,518) in view of Bonino (5,309,257) and the ICC Profile Format (v3.01, May 8, 1995) — and, for the file‑structure limitations, further in view of the MCT Specification (Rev. 1.1d, 1993) and imagexpo (1995) — renders obvious the core networked, per‑node measurement + profile/transformation + shared‑data‑structure + cross‑device‑matching concepts (claim 1 concepts; claims 55, 58, 59, 61, 65, 72).
2. Kipphan (5,182,721) in view of Vincent and Gordon et al. (1987), further in view of Chan (5,107,332) and Sobol (5,185,673), renders obvious the colorimetric‑aim, transform‑and‑revise, gamut‑operator features and production feedback.
3. Holub et al. (1988) / Holub & Kearsley (1989) in view of Pobboravsky (1962), Schwartz et al. (1985), Boll (1994) and Rose (5,200,816) renders obvious the forward‑model/inversion/GCR/>4‑colorant/neural‑network implementation limitations — particularly since the page concedes GCR has no colorimetric effect.
4. Neugebauer (2,790,844) + Schreiber (4,500,919) + Vincent + ICC/MCT renders obvious the proofing/remote‑proofing and device‑independent appearance‑matching features.

The recurring weakness in the applicant's own characterization of the art is that it repeatedly frames the references as merely incomplete (no distribution mechanism, no self‑check, no image‑area reading, no colorimetric accuracy) rather than as teaching away — and each identified gap is filled by another reference in the same field, or by a design incentive the specification itself acknowledges. That is the classic KSR pattern.

Recommended verification steps before relying on any of this: (1) pull the granted claim text of US 7,830,546 (claims 1 and 55–82) from the USPTO Patent Center / the granted PDF at https://patents.google.com/patent/US7830546/en and map each limitation verbatim; (2) confirm the citation numbers that the page excerpt did not itself print (Kipphan 5,182,721; Eouzan 5,231,481; Bonino 5,309,257; Rose 5,200,816; Greivenkamp 4,987,496; Neugebauer 2,790,844; Schreiber 4,500,919) against the "References Cited" list of the granted patent, since I sourced those numbers from the sibling/continuation copies of the same specification rather than from the page you supplied; (3) check the prosecution history (the PTAB/PTO petition documents at ptacts.uspto.gov for petitions 1523296, 1523435, 1469817) for the examiner's and applicant's actual §103 positions, which will show which of the above combinations were already considered.