US 7859380

Based on my searches of the public databases (Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline) and cross-checks for CAFC/USPTO records, here is the requested summary. I found no CAFC 2026 docket entries or pending litigation records for this patent number in any of the searches performed.

US Patent 7,859,380 (US7859380B2) — "Bobbin assembly"

Bibliographic data

• Patent number: US7859380B2 (application no. 12/027,485)
• Title: Bobbin assembly
• Inventors: Tim Hasenour; Dan Johnson; Kurt T. Zarbock
• Original assignee (recorded at grant): Tyco Electronics Corporation (Wilmington, DE)
• Current assignee (per recorded chain): TE Connectivity Solutions GmbH (Switzerland) — via name change to TE Connectivity Corporation (2017), assignment to TE Connectivity Services GmbH (2021), and merger (2022)
• Filing date: February 7, 2008 (priority date same)
• Issue date (grant): December 28, 2010
• Pre-grant publication: US20090201114A1 (published August 13, 2009)
• Legal status: Active; adjusted expiration September 18, 2028; maintenance fees paid through the 12th year (large entity, 2022)
• Classifications: H01F5/02 (coils wound on non-magnetic supports) and H01F5/04 (arrangements of electric connections to coils); Y10T29/49071 (winding/coiling method)

Abstract (verbatim)

"A bobbin assembly is disclosed that includes a first bobbin and a second bobbin. The second bobbin is configured substantially similar to the first bobbin. The first and second bobbins include a first flange and a second flange disposed at opposite ends of a central core. The first flanges include terminal receiving cavities and wire posts for terminate a wire wound around the central core. The bobbin assembly may be formed by mating either the first flanges or the second flanges together."

Overview of the invention

The patent is directed to an inductive-device bobbin that is "split" into two substantially identical (hermaphroditic) bobbins. Each bobbin half has a central core with flanges at each end. Terminal-receiving cavities (and associated wire-termination posts, later removable) sit in the first flange, letting each half be pre-wound and pre-terminated independently before being mated with its twin. Two identical halves can be mated either flange-to-flange at their second flanges, or at their (stepped) first flanges, to form a complete bobbin assembly that can carry primary/secondary windings with different characteristics selected per application. The mated assembly is held together by an inductor core.

Claims structure

The patent has 9 claims: 1 independent claim (claim 1) and 8 dependent claims (2–9).

Independent claim 1 (plain-language): A bobbin assembly for an inductive device made of (a) a first bobbin having a first flange, a second flange, and a central core between them, with terminal-receiving cavities in a first side surface of the first flange sized to receive and secure wire and wire terminals for terminating the ends of magnetic wire wound around the core; and (b) a second bobbin configured substantially the same, with the same flange/core/cavity structure. The two bobbins are mated to form the assembly, and the first and second bobbins have substantially identical top and bottom surfaces (hermaphroditic halves).

(Note: the granted claim text contains apparent typographical errors — "for use in a inductive device," "the fist bobbin," and a malformed concluding phrase — which appear verbatim in the issued patent.)

Dependent claims (plain-language):

• Claim 2: Adds terminal-receiving cavities on a second side surface of the first flange of each bobbin (opposite the first side surface).
• Claim 3: The assembly is formed by mating the second flanges of the two bobbins.
• Claim 4: The assembly is formed by mating the first flanges of the two bobbins.
• Claim 5: In the first-flange-mated assembly of claim 4, each first flange has a thicker first section containing the cavities, a thinner second section, and a step between the sections (for alignment when mating).
• Claim 6: The wire posts used on the first flanges to terminate winding ends are removed before the two bobbins are mated.
• Claim 7: The second flanges of both bobbins have slots configured to secure wires that electrically connect the terminals in the cavities to the inductive system.
• Claim 8: Adds a first wire winding around the first bobbin's core (ends secured to posts on its flange) and a second wire winding around the second bobbin's core (ends secured to posts on its flange) — i.e., windings pre-secured to posts rather than terminals.
• Claim 9: Adds a first and second wire winding whose wire ends are terminated at wire terminals received in the terminal-receiving cavities of each bobbin's first flange — i.e., windings terminated at installed terminals.

Caveats / uncertainty

• CAFC 2026 dockets: My searches of CAFC docket databases returned no results for this patent number. I cannot confirm whether any appeal exists; based on available data, there is no publicly indexed CAFC 2026 matter citing US 7,859,380.
• USPTO Patent Center: I could not directly query USPTO Patent Center in these searches; bibliographic and assignment-chain data were confirmed via Google Patents/FreePatentsOnline, which agree with the authoritative full text provided.
• Identifier caution: The digit string "7859380" also appears in unrelated foreign documents (e.g., Japanese application JP7859380A, a vacuum-metallizing method, and a European family member EP0041850A2 that references JP7859380 as a priority document). Those are not the U.S. patent and should not be conflated with it. The correct U.S. patent is US7859380B2, "Bobbin assembly."

I'll search for litigation involving US Patent 7,859,380 across multiple sources.

Initial searches returned no litigation hits. Let me try more targeted litigation databases.

Still no specific results. Let me check litigation-specific databases directly.

Based on my searches, no litigation involving US Patent 7,859,380 ("Bobbin assembly") is known.

What I searched

I ran multiple web searches across general and litigation-oriented sources, including queries designed to surface district-court dockets, PACER-indexed filings, CourtListener, Unified Patents, RPX, and other patent-litigation trackers. The queries included:

• "7859380" patent litigation
• "US 7859380" OR "US7859380" lawsuit
• "7,859,380" patent infringement case
• 7859380 docket OR PACER OR "complaint" OR "defendant"
• "7859380" site:unifiedpatents.com
• "7859380" site:courtlistener.com OR site:docketalarm.com OR site:rpx.com

Findings

• No district-court complaint, docket, judgment, or other litigation filing naming US Patent 7,859,380 surfaced in any of the searches.
• Search results that did appear were not relevant to this patent — they included cases involving unrelated patent numbers (e.g., 7,594,360; 7,814,170; 6,963,859) or unrelated references to "9380"-style numbers, none of which correspond to US 7,859,380.
• The patent's assignment history (per Google Patents) shows only corporate transfers (Tyco Electronics Corp → TE Connectivity Corp → TE Connectivity Services GmbH → TE Connectivity Solutions GmbH) and maintenance-fee payments — no litigation-related legal events.

Caveats

• This conclusion is based on the search tools and databases available to me, which may not include every district-court docket or every case captured only in paywalled litigation databases (e.g., full Docket Navigator, LexMachina, or Westlaw docket content).
• If you need a definitive clearance, I'd recommend a direct search of PACER (full-text and party searches), the Unified Patents Portal case list, and Docket Navigator using the exact patent number 7,859,380 (or the application number 12/027,485).

Bottom line: As of today (April 26, 2026), I am not aware of any known litigation involving US Patent 7,859,380, and my searches did not identify any.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings (IPR/PGR/CBM) have ever been filed against US Patent 7,859,380. The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) record for the patent lists no AIA trial proceedings, and supplementary web searches of PTAB decision databases, CourtListener, and general sources surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, settlement, or Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent. (Searches that appeared to hit "7859380" were false positives — e.g., Japanese application JP7859380A, an unrelated vacuum-metallizing case.) The defensive posture for a defendant is therefore: the patent is completely untested before the PTAB — no claim has ever been canceled or sustained in an AIA trial, and all nine claims remain in force as issued (subject only to the patent's 2028-09-18 adjusted expiration).

Because there are no proceedings, there are no per-proceeding entries to report. What follows is the strategic read of that absence and the options it leaves open.

Strategic summary

Claim status: all nine claims are UNTESTED — nothing canceled, nothing sustained

Claims 1–9 of US 7,859,380 stand exactly as issued on 2010-12-28:

• Claim 1 (independent) — two substantially similar bobbins, each with first/second flanges and a central core, terminal-receiving cavities in the first side surface of the first flange for securing wires and wire terminals, mated to form the assembly, with substantially identical top and bottom surfaces.
• Claims 2–9 (dependent) — claim 2 adds cavities on the second side surface; claims 3–4 define which flanges are mated; claim 5 adds the first/second-section step geometry; claim 6 requires removal of wire posts before mating; claim 7 adds slots on the second flanges; claims 8–9 add wire windings secured to posts or terminated at terminals.

No PTAB trial has challenged any of them, and no district court has been identified as having litigated them either (see the separate litigation summary: no known cases). This is a clean, un-narrowed patent.

Estoppel landscape: wide open — every ground is still available

Because no IPR/PGR/CBM has ever been instituted, there are no § 315(e)(2) estoppel bars running against any petitioner. For a defendant facing assertion today, the practical implication cuts both ways:

• Available prior art is unrestricted. Any § 102/§ 103 ground — including art that could have been raised in a hypothetical earlier IPR — remains available in a new petition. There is no "reasonably could have raised" estoppel yet because no trial has occurred.
• The realistic constraint is statutory, not estoppel-based. The 2008 priority date means the patent is governed by pre-AIA §§ 102/103, and a would-be petitioner must build a case from art that qualifies under pre-AIA law (e.g., § 102(b) public-use/on-sale bar triggered by activities more than one year before 2008-02-07, or § 102(e) prior U.S. filings). The patent's own file history cites 14 references — mostly 1960s–2000s bobbin/coil-former patents (e.g., US 3,604,055 "Two-piece winding bobbin," US 3,750,073, US 4,165,265, US 6,348,787, US 6,598,824, US 6,630,880, US 7,154,366) — that the examiner already considered and allowed over.
• A district-court defendant still has the standard choice: file an IPR (9-month post-grant window has long passed; IPR is available at any time), or run validity defenses in court. Given zero PTAB history, there is no prior FWD to estop or bind a defendant, and no adverse claim-construction record to overcome.

Pattern signals: none — and that itself is informative

• No repeat petitioner, no defensive-aggregator involvement. Unified Patents, RPX, and similar actors do not appear in any proceeding on this patent.
• No aggressive PTAB prosecution by the owner. The patent owner (Tyco → TE Connectivity, now TE Connectivity Solutions GmbH) never had to defend the patent at the PTAB.
• Why the silence matters. The patent is an old-line electromechanical component patent (bobbin/flange geometry) in a mature area, owned by a large operating company (TE Connectivity) rather than a non-practicing entity. The cited-by record shows it has been cited in later transformer/bobbin filings by Delta Electronics, Sharp, Power Mate, and TE's own later thermal-protector patent (US 10,431,971) — i.e., it functions as a reference in the field. Patents that are actively asserted typically attract IPRs within a few years of the AIA going live (2012). The complete absence of any PTAB challenge across fourteen years (2012–2026) strongly suggests the patent has not been the subject of high-stakes assertion campaigns — or, if asserted, defendants have settled or won on other grounds without petitioning. That is a meaningful signal that the patent's commercial enforcement value is low, though it does not speak to its technical validity.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant and the patent has no PTAB history (the current state): there is no FWD to link or quote — the file is empty. Do not represent to a court or opposing counsel that any claim has been PTAB-tested, because none has. Instead, your lever is the clean slate: perform a fresh pre-AIA § 102/§ 103 search focused on two-piece bobbin and coil-former art from the 1960s–1990s (the patent's own cited references are a starting map, not a ceiling), and evaluate an IPR petition with a clear runway — no estoppel, no prior institution decision to distinguish.

2. Confirm the negative before you rely on it. The ODP ingest is the canonical source and shows no trials, but for litigation-grade certainty run a direct PTAB E2E search (https://ptab.uspto.gov) using the patent number 7,859,380 and application number 12/027,485, plus a PACER party search on "TE Connectivity" / "Tyco Electronics" if you suspect quiet enforcement. Any proceeding filed within the last several weeks may not yet appear in ODP; my web searches as of 2026-09-05 found nothing newer, but re-verify at filing time.

3. Mind the expiration clock. The patent's adjusted expiration is 2028-09-18. If you are facing an assertion, note that maintenance fees have been paid through the 12th year (2022-06-15 event), so the patent is alive and enforceable until expiry — but the remaining enforceable window is under two years from today. That short horizon can cut either way: it caps exposure (good for you on damages) but also means a patent owner has little reason to settle cheaply and may press a quick case.

4. If an assertion lands, act fast on the estoppel-free window. Because no IPR has been instituted, the first petitioner to file faces no § 315(e)(2) bar and can bring its best art. But be aware of § 315(b)'s one-year bar from service of a complaint — if you are sued, any IPR petition must be filed within one year of service or that route closes for you (and your privies). The strategic decision of IPR-vs-court should be made in the first weeks after service, not later.

Bottom line: US 7,859,380 is a wholly PTAB-untested, nine-claim, large-entity-owned component patent with under two years of life remaining. No claim has been canceled; none has been sustained in trial; every validity ground is still available to a defendant who moves promptly. The absence of any IPR in fourteen years is the single most informative data point — treat the patent as low-litigation-risk, but validate with a fresh prior-art search before relying on invalidity as your primary defense.

The web-search results are sparse on correspondent details. Let me try more targeted queries against the USPTO assignment records and related databases.

Inventors

The three named inventors, per the issued patent and the recorded assignment (Reel 020479/0315), are:

• Tim Hasenour
• Dan Johnson
• Kurt T. Zarbock

Employer at time of filing: Tyco Electronics Corporation. This is determinable from (a) the inventors' assignment of the application to Tyco Electronics Corporation, recorded at 020479/0315 on 2008-02-07, and (b) the specification itself, which identifies the compatible wire terminal as the "MagMate® wire terminal produced by TYCO Electronics Corporation of Wilmington, Del." — indicating the inventors were designing within Tyco's own product ecosystem.

Unusual patterns: None determinable. I have no public data showing any of the three departing Tyco/TE within 12 months of filing, and there is no indication of a portfolio fire-sale. Treat any departure theory as unsupported speculation.

Original assignee

• Entity named on the issued patent: Tyco Electronics Corporation (recorded owner at grant; Pennsylvania)
• Line of business: Tyco Electronics (now TE Connectivity) was and is a large operating manufacturer of electronic connectors, sensors, terminals (including the MagMate® wire-terminal line referenced in the patent), and related components for industrial, automotive, and data-communications applications. A bobbin for inductive devices is squarely within its component product lines.
• Product embodying the claims: Yes — the patent describes a bobbin designed around Tyco's own MagMate® terminal and pre-wound/modular winding workflow; Tyco/TE is an operating company that makes and sells such components, not a licensing shell.
• Current status: Operating. The original entity was renamed TE Connectivity Corporation (2017), then the patent moved within the group to TE Connectivity Services GmbH and then TE Connectivity Solutions GmbH (Switzerland) — all entities inside the public TE Connectivity plc group (NYSE: TEL). No bankruptcy, dissolution, or distress in the record.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Patent Assignment Search (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/; mirrored at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) is the authoritative source for correspondent-of-record data, but I could not retrieve correspondent names for these entries through the search tools available to me. Rather than fabricate attorneys, I report the fields that are confirmed (via Google Patents legal-event records and an INPADOC cross-check) and flag the correspondent field as not retrievable in this analysis. No assignment was found in this chain that moves the patent outside the Tyco/TE Connectivity corporate family.

1. 2008-02-06 (executed) / recorded 2008-02-07 — Reel 020479/0315

   • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest (employee invention assignment)
   • Assignor: Tim Hasenour; Dan Johnson; Kurt T. Zarbock
   • Assignee: Tyco Electronics Corporation
   • Correspondent: not retrievable via available tools
   • Context: Standard employee-to-employer assignment on the filing date; original acquisition of rights, not a transfer of an existing asset.

2. 2017-01-01 (effective) / recorded 2017-01-12 — Reel 041350/0085

   • Conveyance: Change of Name
   • Assignor: Tyco Electronics Corporation
   • Assignee: TE Connectivity Corporation
   • Correspondent: not retrievable via available tools (INPADOC cross-check at Espacenet confirms the same reel/frame and "CHANGE OF NAME;ASSIGNOR:TYCO ELECTRONICS CORPORATION")
   • Context: Pure corporate rename (effective 2017-01-01); the entity itself, not a new owner.

3. 2018-09-28 (effective) / recorded 2021-06-07 — Reel 056514/0048

   • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
   • Assignor: TE Connectivity Corporation
   • Assignee: TE Connectivity Services GmbH (Switzerland)
   • Correspondent: not retrievable via available tools
   • Context: Internal group restructuring connected to TE Connectivity's corporate-simplification/redomiciliation program; the ~2.7-year lag between effective and recording dates is typical of bulk, post-hoc recorded reorg packages.

4. 2019-11-01 (effective) / recorded 2021-06-07 — Reel 056514/0015

   • Conveyance: Change of Address
   • Assignor/Assignee: TE Connectivity Services GmbH
   • Correspondent: not retrievable via available tools
   • Context: Address update only — same entity, same day of recording as the transfer above (same bulk recording session).

5. 2022-03-01 (effective) / recorded 2022-04-28 — Reel 060885/0482

   • Conveyance: Merger
   • Assignor: TE Connectivity Services GmbH
   • Assignee: TE Connectivity Solutions GmbH (Switzerland)
   • Correspondent: not retrievable via available tools
   • Context: Swiss-law merger folding Services GmbH into Solutions GmbH; final link in the internal reorg chain. Current assignee of record: TE Connectivity Solutions GmbH.

Post-issuance assignment finding: The patent has recorded post-issuance activity, but every entry is an intra-family corporate rename, reorg, or address change. No assignment transfers the patent to any entity outside the TE Connectivity group.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7859380
    2008 : Filed by Tyco Electronics Corp
         : Inventors assign rights to Tyco
    2010 : Patent issued
    2017 : Name change to TE Connectivity Corp
    2021 : Transfer to TE Connectivity Services GmbH
         : Address change for TE Connectivity Services GmbH
    2022 : Merged into TE Connectivity Solutions GmbH

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. All five recorded conveyances run between Tyco Electronics Corp → TE Connectivity Corp → TE Connectivity Services GmbH → TE Connectivity Solutions GmbH (Reels 020479/0315, 041350/0085, 056514/0048, 056514/0015, 060885/0482). Every assignee is (or was) a TE Connectivity operating/group entity; no "IP Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" LLC appears, and no registered-agent-service address is in the record.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. No Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg-linked entity, or Unified/RPX-listed high-frequency plaintiff appears at any point in the recorded chain.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. I could not retrieve the correspondent-of-record names from the USPTO Assignment Center through the available tools, so I cannot test for a recurring filer. Note, however, that all three post-issuance conveyances (041350/0085, 056514/0048, 060885/0482) are large-company corporate reorg filings, which are routinely handled by in-house or corporate-services counsel; there is no affirmative evidence of a repeat NPE filer.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. The 2021–2022 sequence (056514/0048, 056514/0015, 060885/0482) is a single-step corporate restructuring with effective dates spanning 2018–2022 — the opposite signature of rapid chained LLC transfers timed to obscure ownership. All assignees share the TE Connectivity corporate family and the ultimate public parent (NYSE: TEL).

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. No infringement suit naming US 7,859,380 was found in any prior search, and no assignment in the chain is timed within six months of any assertion. The last transfer (060885/0482, 2022) is a merger of group entities with no litigation context.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. Neither Tyco Electronics nor TE Connectivity has filed for bankruptcy; the patent moved by ordinary corporate rename/merger, not by §363 sale or insolvency proceeding (contrast Kodak/Nortel-style auctions).

7. Privateering — Not present. No operating-company-to-NPE handoff exists anywhere in the chain, and there is no SEC 8-K/10-K disclosure or EFF/Patent Progress coverage indicating TE is asserting this patent through a proxy.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain terminates at TE Connectivity Solutions GmbH (an operating-company group entity), not at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Verdict

Defensive / non-asserting — with a definitional caveat: the parenthetical in the rubric ("chain terminates at a defensive aggregator") does not literally apply, because the chain instead terminates at the original operating company's own corporate successor, TE Connectivity Solutions GmbH (Reel 060885/0482, recorded 2022-04-28). Every recorded transfer — 020479/0315 (2008 employee assignment), 041350/0085 (2017 rename), 056514/0048 and 056514/0015 (2021 internal transfer/address change), 060885/0482 (2022 merger) — stays inside the Tyco→TE Connectivity corporate family, and no NPE, shell LLC, or assertion activity of any kind was found. No NPE signal scored higher than "unclear" (and that only because correspondent names were not retrievable, not because of any contrary evidence), so this patent shows the classic profile of an operating company quietly retaining its own component-patent through a corporate reorg.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (patent no. 7859380; reels 020479, 041350, 056514, 060885) or https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/search

Data caveat: Correspondent-of-record names and any unrecorded (state-law or unsigned) agreements could not be verified with the tools available; if this were a formal ownership opinion, a direct USPTO Assignment Center pull of the four reels would be the confirming step.

I'll research this systematically. First, let me verify the target patent's record in USPTO sources, then examine each cited prior-art reference.

I've confirmed the target patent record and the first references. Let me continue verifying the remaining cited references.

I have reached the limit of live searches for this session, but I have verified the target patent's USPTO record and pulled detailed disclosures for several key references. Below is the complete analysis. Where a reference's full text was not retrievable in the searches performed, I say so explicitly rather than reconstruct details from memory.

1. USPTO database search for patent number 7859380

Searching strictly for 7859380 (not similar numbers), the record resolves unambiguously to:

• US7859380B2 — "Bobbin assembly", app. no. 12/027,485, filed 2008-02-07, granted 2010-12-28, Tyco Electronics Corp. (now TE Connectivity Solutions GmbH). Inventors: Hasenour, Johnson, Zarbock.
• Confirmed via USPTO-hosted PDF (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/.../US7859380.pdf), Google Patents, and FreePatentsOnline — all three reproduce the identical specification text.
• No conflicting record exists for the exact identifier "7859380" in the USPTO U.S. patent corpus. (The unrelated Japanese application JP7859380A previously flagged is not a U.S. patent and was excluded, per the literal-ID rule.)

2. Legal framework for the § 102 analysis

• The patent claims priority to 2008-02-07, i.e., pre-AIA filing. Anticipation is analyzed under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102.
• Critical date for § 102(b): 2008-02-07 minus one year = 2007-02-07. Every one of the 14 cited references published before 2007-02-07 (the newest, US7154366B2, issued 2006-12-26). Accordingly, all 14 references qualify at minimum as § 102(b) prior art, and most also qualify under § 102(a)/(e).
• Anticipation standard: one reference, standing alone, must disclose every claim limitation, arranged as claimed. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim; claims 2–9 depend from it, so a reference that fails to anticipate claim 1 cannot anticipate any dependent claim.
• Claim 1 element map (used below):
  • 1A – bobbin assembly for use in an inductive device
  • 1B – first bobbin: first flange, second flange, central core between them
  • 1C – terminal-receiving cavities in a first side surface of the first flange
  • 1D – cavities configured to receive/secure wires and wire terminals to terminate ends of a magnetic wire wound on the core
  • 1E – second bobbin configured substantially the same (own flanges/core/cavities)
  • 1F – first and second bobbins mated to form the assembly
  • 1G – first and second bobbins have substantially identical top and bottom surfaces (hermaphroditic halves)

The examiner allowed all nine claims over all 14 references, which is consistent with the finding below that none is a clean single-reference anticipatory disclosure of claim 1 as verifiable.

3. Per-reference analysis (all 14 citations on the face of US7859380B2)

Confidence key: [Verified] = full text/claims pulled and read in this session; [Bibliographic only] = data confirmed from the patent's citation table, but full text not retrievable in this session's searches.

(1) US3162830A — "Inductor bobbin" — Sylvania Electric Products [Bibliographic only]

• Filed/priority: 1960-12-09; Granted: 1964-12-22. § 102(b) art.
• Description: early single-piece inductor bobbin/coil form. Full text not retrieved; description limited to title/assignee.
• § 102: Nothing retrieved shows a two-bobbin mated assembly (1E/1F/1G) or side-surface terminal cavities (1C/1D). No claim anticipated on the available record; likely cited as general bobbin background.

(2) US3354417A — "Coil bobbin having projections extending beyond magnetic core" — Hermetic Coil Co. [Bibliographic only]

• Filed/priority: 1966-02-17; Granted: 1967-11-21. § 102(b) art.
• Description: coil bobbin whose projections extend beyond the magnetic core (core-mounting geometry). Full text not retrieved.
• § 102: No indication of mated identical bobbin halves or side-surface terminal cavities. No claim anticipated on the available record.

(3) US3605055A — "Two-piece winding bobbin for watt-hour meter potential coil" — General Electric [Verified]

• Filed/priority: 1970-07-02; Granted: 1971-09-14. § 102(b) art.
• Description: Two-piece bobbin formed of two flanged spools (2, 3) that slide together end-to-end (abutment 10/recess 11) into a unitary assembly; each spool has a central core portion (6, 9) and a pair of flanges (4/5 and 7/8); coils wound on each spool are interconnected inside an insulated chamber with an insulating wall (12) and radial slots (13, 14) between the juxtaposed flanges; terminals are mounted at the opposite ends. This is the closest verified reference to a "split bobbin mated to form an assembly."
• § 102 map vs. claim 1: Discloses 1A (inductive watt-hour potential coil), 1B/1E partially (each spool has core + two flanges, mated at 1F). Fails 1C/1D — the interconnecting slots 13/14 are passageways for the interconnecting coil wire, not terminal-receiving cavities in a flange side surface configured to secure wire terminals; terminals sit at the bobbin ends. Fails 1G — spools 2 and 3 are not identical/hermaphroditic; they are complementary male (abutment) and female (recess) parts with different flange structures.
• § 102 conclusion: does not fully anticipate claim 1 (or dependents 2–9). Highly relevant, however, as a primary § 103 obviousness anchor for the two-piece-bobbin concept.

(4) US3750073A — "Coil bobbin" — Tamura Seisakusho K.K. [Verified]

• Filed/priority: 1971-07-29; Granted: 1973-07-31. § 102(b) art. (Examiner-cited.)
• Description: A coil bobbin formed of a pair of coil bobbin members (1, 2) identical in shape, each with a box-shaped body (3) having flanges (4, 5) at opposite ends defining a coil chamber (6) around a central axial space (7) for the iron core; one flange has a locating projection (8); the other flange has lead-wire engaging portions; the two identical members are mounted on opposite sides of a separate insulating frame (10) that defines primary and secondary coil chambers, and the core is inserted through the frame.
• § 102 map: Discloses the strongest verified teaching of identical (hermaphroditic) bobbin halves (relevant to 1G) each with a core and two end flanges (1B/1E). Fails 1F as claimed — the halves are not mated to each other; they are assembled to a central insulating frame that spaces them apart. Fails 1C/1D — the flange lead-wire engaging portions are not verified as terminal-receiving cavities in a side surface for receiving IDC-type wire terminals.
• § 102 conclusion: does not fully anticipate claim 1. Strongest verified reference for the "substantially identical top and bottom surfaces" (1G) teaching; powerful § 103 anchor when combined with a terminal-cavity reference such as (7).

(5) US3824519A — "Coil forms and terminal" — Universal Manufacturing Co. [Bibliographic only]

• Filed/priority: 1973-02-16; Granted: 1974-07-16. § 102(b) art. (Examiner-cited.)
• Description: coil form/bobbin with an integrated terminal for coil-wire termination. Full text not retrieved.
• § 102: Relevant to the terminal-on-flange concept (1C/1D subcombination) but nothing retrieved shows two mated identical bobbins (1E–1G). No full-claim anticipation shown on the available record.

(6) US4000483A — "Low voltage power transformer" — The Singer Company [Verified]

• Filed/priority: 1976-06-24; Granted: 1976-12-28. § 102(b) art. (Examiner-cited.)
• Description: A low-voltage power transformer with a rectangular primary bobbin (central portion supported on the E-lamination center leg; spaced first/second flanges defining the winding space) and a separate, larger secondary bobbin whose flange (39) rests on the primary bobbin's second flange (28) via interposed cover elements (50, 51); lead passageways/lugs/slots (41, 44, 45, 46) route secondary leads; strain-relief channel (70) for primary leads.
• § 102 map: Discloses flange/core bobbin structure and lead-routing slots, but the primary and secondary bobbins are deliberately dissimilar (different sizes, one is a high-voltage bobbin, one low-voltage), assembled through intervening cover elements — not two substantially identical bobbins mated to each other (fails 1E/1F/1G), and the lead slots are not terminal-receiving cavities for securing wire terminals in a flange side surface (fails 1C/1D as claimed).
• § 102 conclusion: does not anticipate claim 1 or dependents.

(7) US4166265A — "Coil bobbins and termination of coil windings" — AMP Incorporated [Verified]

• Filed/priority: 1978-02-03; Granted: 1979-08-28. § 102(b) art.
• Description: A coil bobbin (4) with flanges (12, 14) at each end of a coil-supporting surface (10); flange 14 has an enlarged portion (16) containing terminal-receiving cavities; wire-binding posts extend from the bobbin molding. The manufacturing method is: wrap the wire around a first binding post → pass through a first cavity → wind the required turns → pass through a second cavity → wrap the second post → insert terminals into the cavities (solderless, insulation-piercing) → cut off the binding posts (which also cuts the wire at the posts). Tap-connection embodiment also disclosed (Fig. 13). This is the direct corporate ancestor of the '380 termination scheme (AMP is Tyco's predecessor; the '380 spec's cavity/post/terminal-insertion/post-removal procedure tracks it almost verbatim).
• § 102 map: For a single bobbin, this reference squarely discloses the elements later recited in claims 6, 8, and 9 regarding wire posts (claim 6: posts removed before mating; claim 8: winding ends secured to posts; claim 9: winding ends terminated at terminals in the cavities) and the 1C/1D cavity architecture. But it is a single-bobbin, single-winding device — it lacks any second bobbin (1E), any mating step (1F), and any identical-top/bottom-surface structure (1G). Because claims 6, 8, and 9 incorporate claim 1's two-bobbin assembly by dependency, the reference cannot anticipate any claim as written.
• § 102 conclusion: no full-claim anticipation; the single most important reference for the terminal-cavity/post limitations and for any § 103 combination.

(8) US4636763A — "Bobbin with strain relief" — Universal Manufacturing Corp. [Bibliographic only]

• Filed/priority: 1985-03-12; Granted: 1987-01-13. § 102(b) art.
• Description: bobbin featuring a strain-relief structure for coil leads. Full text not retrieved.
• § 102: Potentially relevant to lead-securing structure (cf. claim 7 slots) but no indication of two mated identical bobbins. No full-claim anticipation shown on the available record.

(9) US4730178A — "Bobbins coils with terminal housing" — General Electric Company [Bibliographic only]

• Filed/priority: 1986-09-25; Granted: 1988-03-08. § 102(b) art.
• Description: bobbin/coil assembly with a terminal housing — relevant to terminal-receiving structure in a flange (1C/1D subcombination). Full text not retrieved.
• § 102: No verified disclosure of two substantially identical bobbins mated into an assembly (1E–1G). No full-claim anticipation shown on the available record.

(10) US5321572A — "Transformer bobbin" — Nippon Densen Corporation [Bibliographic only]

• Filed/priority: 1991-03-28; Granted: 1994-06-14. § 102(b) art.
• Description: transformer bobbin construction. Full text not retrieved in this session.
• § 102: Cannot be assessed for full anticipation without the text. Flagged for full-text retrieval — of the unverified set, this is a candidate worth checking for split/dual bobbin structure.

(11) US6344787B1 — "Transformer bobbin" — Profec Technologies Limited [Bibliographic only]

• Filed/priority: 1998-05-29; Granted: 2002-02-05. § 102(b) art.
• Description: transformer bobbin (note: Profec's related US6690254B2 "Housing for an electronic component" appears in the same family cluster and cites the '380 in its own record). Full text not retrieved.
• § 102: Cannot be fully assessed. Flagged for full-text retrieval.

(12) US6598824B2 — "Electrical and mechanical coil system for dual and single action solenoids" — Trombetta, LLC [Bibliographic only]

• Filed/priority: 2001-11-20; Granted: 2003-07-29. § 102(b) art. (Examiner-cited.)
• Description: coil system for dual/single-action solenoids — may involve multiple coil windings/bobbins for solenoid actuation. Full text not retrieved.
• § 102: Examiner-cited, but cannot be assessed for full anticipation without the text. Flagged for full-text retrieval.

(13) US6630880B2 — "Winding structure of transformer" — Delta Electronics, Inc. [Bibliographic only]

• Filed/priority: 2001-11-28; Granted: 2003-10-07. § 102(b) art. (Examiner-cited.)
• Description: transformer winding structure, examiner-cited against the '380. Full text not retrieved in this session.
• § 102: Of the unverified references, this (with Darfon, below) is among the most likely candidates to show a modular/split winding rack or bobbin structure relevant to claims 1–5. Cannot be assessed without full text — priority retrieval target.

(14) US7154366B2 — "Bobbin module of transformer" — Darfon Electronics Corp. [Bibliographic only]

• Filed/priority: 2005-03-01; Granted: 2006-12-26. § 102(b) art. (Examiner-cited; the newest reference, still >1 year before the 2008-02-07 filing.)
• Description: modular bobbin ("bobbin module") for a transformer — title suggests separable/modular bobbin parts, potentially relevant to the mated-bobbin concept (1F). Full text not retrieved.
• § 102: Cannot be assessed without the text — priority retrieval target along with (13), given the examiner considered it the closest recent art.

4. Bottom line on § 102 anticipation

Key finding: Based on the four references whose full disclosures I verified this session, no single cited reference anticipates claim 1 as written — each verified candidate fails at least one of the two most distinctive limitations: (a) terminal-receiving cavities in a flange side surface for securing wire terminals (1C/1D), or (b) two substantially identical/hermaphroditic bobbins mated to form the assembly (1E–1G). Consequently, no dependent claim (2–9) is anticipated by any of the verified references either, since each incorporates claim 1. The strongest § 102 threats requiring full-text review before any invalidity position is finalized are the unverified examiner-cited references US6630880B2 (Delta), US7154366B2 (Darfon), and US6598824B2 (Trombetta), plus the unverified US5321572A and US6344787B1 — any of which could disclose a two-piece modular bobbin with flange-side terminal cavities. The realistic invalidity path for this patent is therefore § 103 combination (e.g., US3605055A or US3750073A combined with US4166265A, or with any of the unverified modular-bobbin references), not single-reference § 102 anticipation — subject to completing full-text review of the ten references not retrievable in this session.

I'll research the cited prior art references to ground the obviousness analysis in accurate technical details. Let me start by examining the key references from the patent's citation list.

Let me research the remaining key references.

I have gathered sufficient detail on the key prior-art references. Given the step limit, I'll now synthesize the complete §103 analysis from the patent's cited prior-art record (the 14 references listed in the Patent Citations section of the US7859380B2 page), supplemented by the reference details confirmed through searching. Where I could not retrieve full text of a given reference, I say so explicitly and characterize it only at title/abstract-confidence level.

§103 Obviousness Analysis — US Patent 7,859,380 ("Bobbin assembly")

1. Governing law and framework

Because application 12/027,485 was filed February 7, 2008 (before the AIA's March 16, 2013 effective date), pre-AIA § 103 governs. The analysis follows Graham v. John Deere (383 U.S. 1 (1966)): (1) scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) the level of ordinary skill; (4) secondary considerations. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (550 U.S. 398 (2007)), a combination is obvious when a PHOSITA would have had a demonstrable reason to combine known elements — including design incentives, known market/design problems, and "common sense" — and when the combination yields only predictable results.

The critical date for § 102(b) prior art is February 7, 2007 (one year before filing). Every one of the 14 patent citations on the face of US7859380B2 published well before that date, so each is citable under pre-AIA § 102(a)/(b) regardless of the examiner's reasons for allowance.

2. Person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

A PHOSITA would be a designer/engineer (typically B.S. in electrical or mechanical engineering, or equivalent experience) with 2–5 years of experience designing coil bobbins, transformers, and inductive components, including familiarity with: automatic/semi-automatic coil-winding machines, solderless insulation-piercing or insulation-displacement (IDC) wire terminals, creepage/clearance and hi-pot isolation requirements, and low-cost molded thermoplastic part design (single-cavity tooling, snap-fit and keyed alignment features). This is a mature, crowded art; the '380 patent itself is directed at mundane geometry changes in that field.

3. Claim 1 element breakdown (the only independent claim)

Claim 1 (interpreted as a skilled artisan would read it, ignoring the obvious typos "fist" and "a inductive") requires:

Dependent claims 2–9 add: cavities on a second side surface (2); mating at the second flanges (3); mating at the first flanges (4); a stepped first flange (thick section with cavities/thin section/step) (5); removal of wire posts before mating (6); wire-support slots on the second flanges (7); windings with ends secured to posts (8); windings terminated at terminals in the cavities (9).

4. The prior-art record (the 14 references cited on the face of the patent)

Confidence note: I confirmed the substance of US3605055A, US4166265A, US7154366B2, US5321572A, and US6344787B1 from full-text sources. For US3162830A, US3354417A, US3750073A, US3824519A, US4000483A, US4636763A, US4730178A, US6598824B2, and US6630880B2, I have only title-level/abstract-level information from the patent's citation list; they are used below only as supporting/secondary references, not as load-bearing primary references.

5. Primary combinations rendering claim 1 obvious

The '380 patent's own specification describes two things that are independently old: (i) a split bobbin formed of two cooperating halves, each wound separately and then mated (its FIG. 3/FIG. 4 assemblies), and (ii) a flange with terminal-receiving cavities plus removable wire posts, where winding is done "at one particular time and place" and terminals are loaded "at a later time and place" (col. 2 of the '380 description). Each is squarely in the prior art.

Combination A (primary): US4166265A (AMP) + US3605055A (GE)

Element-by-element map:

• US3605055A teaches 1a–1b, 1e–1f in substance: a transformer/watt-hour-meter winding bobbin (1) formed of two flanged spools (2, 3), each spool having a central core portion (6, 9) with flanges at both ends (4/5 and 7/8), the spools "slidably engag[ing] one another when moved into assembled position in end-to-end relationship" to make "a unitary bobbin assembly." Each spool is wound separately with its own coil before the spools are joined — the exact "pre-wound halves mated to form an assembly" paradigm of claim 1. GE expressly motivates splitting: separate winding reduces end-turn voltage gradient and is economical to manufacture. The outer flanges carry the coil terminals at the two ends of the finished bobbin (GE FIG. 3), corresponding to '380's outer "first flanges."
• US4166265A teaches 1c–1d: an AMP coil bobbin (4) with flanges (12, 14), where flange 14 has an enlarged upper portion (16) containing terminal-receiving cavities, and wire-binding posts extending from the molding. The wire is wrapped around a first binding post, passed through a cavity, wound on the coil-supporting surface, passed through a second cavity, and wrapped around the second post; then terminals are inserted into the cavities (insulation-piercing, solderless) and the binding posts are cut off. This is the literal, step-for-step process the '380 specification describes for its cavities 28/posts 30, and it satisfies 1c–1d ("cavities ... configured to receive and secure wires and wire terminals ... for terminating the ends of a magnetic wire wound around the central core") — including claim 6 (posts removed), claim 8 (ends secured to posts), and claim 9 (ends terminated at terminals in cavities).
• 1g (substantially identical top/bottom): The remaining gap in Combination A is that GE's two spools are complementary (spool 3 carries an abutment 10; spool 2 a recess 11), not identical. But "substantially identical top and bottom surfaces" is a trivial design choice once the PHOSITA decides to mold one spool configuration and use it twice — a well-known manufacturing economy in this art (see Combination B). Nothing in the functional requirements of GE's or AMP's designs requires dissimilar halves; making the two halves of a two-spool bobbin identical is a predictable geometric choice.

Combination B (primary): US4166265A (AMP) + US7154366B2 (Darfon)

• US7154366B2 supplies 1e–1g directly and explicitly. Darfon's "bobbin module of transformer" comprises two bobbins (10a, 10b) having the same structure — i.e., hermaphroditic halves formed with the same mold — each body having a lateral surface with a symmetric hooker and indentation that mutually engage ("the hooker and the indentation of a bobbin are respectively engaged with the hooker and the indentation of the other bobbin so that the two bobbins are combined together"). Darfon's stated motivations are: only one set of molds needed (halving tooling cost), faster assembly, x/y/z positioning between the halves, and formation of a transformer with separate primary/secondary coil regions. That is a direct teaching of two "substantially similar" bobbins mated into an assembly with identical top/bottom surfaces (1e–1g).
• US4166265A, added to Darfon, supplies 1c–1d — the flange-side terminal-receiving cavities and removable posts — which Darfon does not itself detail. Each of Darfon's identical halves is then given AMP's cavity-and-post flange termination so that each half can be pre-wound and later fitted with the terminals suited to the end application.

Combination C (most robust): AMP + GE + Darfon

Where a challenger wants maximum redundancy, the three-reference combination covers every limitation with two independent sources for the "split bobbin" concept (GE's complementary two-spool assembly; Darfon's identical-halves module), one for the identical-halves/hermaphroditic feature (Darfon), and one for the cavity/post/terminal termination (AMP). The combination is not a hindsight mosaic — each reference supplies a distinct, articulated reason for its own feature, and the references occupy the same art unit (transformer/inductor bobbins and coil termination; H01F5/02, H01F5/04).

Assessment of claim 1: Under KSR, a PHOSITA of ordinary creativity combining these known, field-congruent elements would reach claim 1 with a high degree of predictability. The claimed invention is, in substance, "put AMP's 1979 solderless cavity-and-post flange termination on each half of a known two-piece/identical-halves bobbin so the halves can be pre-wound and mated later."

6. Motivation to combine — articulated rationales (KSR-compliant)

1. Known design problem (the '380's own stated problem is the prior art's stated problem). The '380 Background complains that a wound bobbin "is usually not modifiable, and thus limited in application," and the Summary seeks "pre-wound combinations of windings." That is precisely the problem US4166265A was solving in 1979: AMP built winding-machine-compatible bobbins whose terminals are loaded after winding, "at a later time and place," so the same pre-wound coil can be adapted per application. The '380 spec repeats AMP's solution nearly verbatim ("winding a bobbin ... at one particular time and place, and at a later time and place, loading terminals for a particular application into the cavities"). A PHOSITA reading AMP would immediately understand the benefit of combining that delayed-termination capability with a split bobbin, so that two independently pre-wound, pre-terminatable halves can be combined as primary/secondary.

2. Express motivation in GE (US3605055A). GE's objects are to provide a bobbin whose "coils of wire have been wound on each of the spools" and are "interconnected after ... wound on each of the spools," in a "simple, economical to manufacture arrangement" with adequate hi-pot protection. Winding each half separately, then mating, was thus already an established solution with known benefits (reduced end-turn voltage gradient, separate handling of each winding, ease of winding). A PHOSITA would apply AMP's flange termination to GE's spools to make each pre-wound half terminatable on the flange, exactly as '380 claims.

3. Express motivation in Darfon (US7154366B2) for identical halves. Darfon motivates identical (not merely complementary) halves: "the bobbins ... have the same structure and can be formed using the same bobbin mold. Thus, there is no need to manufacture respective molds for the male bobbin and the female bobbin, largely decreasing the mold cost," plus faster assembly and multi-axis positioning. This supplies the reason to make GE's two-spool concept hermaphroditic — which is all claim 1's "configured substantially similarly" and "substantially identical top and bottom surfaces" add over GE.

4. Same technical community / same corporate lineage. AMP Incorporated is the predecessor-in-interest of Tyco Electronics, the '380 patent's original assignee. The cavity + insulation-piercing terminal (MagMate®) that the '380 spec calls out is the direct descendant of AMP's 4,026,013 / 3,979,615 / 4,166,265 line. A PHOSITA at Tyco/AMP designing a split bobbin would naturally reuse the house termination architecture. The examiner-considered art and the applicant's own specification confirm that both halves of the claimed combination were household knowledge in this community.

5. Predictable variation / obvious design choice. Once two identical halves are adopted, mating "first flange to first flange" vs. "second flange to second flange" (claims 3, 4) is a mere selection of orientation with no unexpected result — the '380 itself describes both as interchangeable configurations, and claim 1 covers both. Thickening the cavity-bearing flange section and stepping it to nest against the mating half (claim 5) is a routine geometry change, of the same character as GE's abutment/recess (10/11) and Darfon's hooker/indentation alignment features. Wire-routing slots (claim 7) are commonplace strain-relief/slot structures (e.g., US4636763A "Bobbin with strain relief"; GE's radial wire-passage slots 13/14; AMP's wire-receiving slots).

7. Dependent claims 2–9

Claims 8 and 9 are the strongest cases: they claim nothing more than the known AMP termination process (posts-secured and terminal-secured states, respectively) replicated on the second half of a known split bobbin.

8. Anticipated counterarguments and responses

• "The examiner allowed the claims over these references." Examiner allowance is not probative of non-obviousness and is not a defense to a § 103 challenge. Notably, several of the 14 face-of-patent citations are third-party or IDS references rather than references the examiner independently applied in a rejection, and no record of the examiner's reasoning exists in the provided materials. In any event, the question is whether the combination would have been obvious, not whether the examiner happened to allow it.
• "Combination C is a hindsight mosaic." It is not, because each reference supplies its own articulated purpose: GE says split-and-wind-separately; Darfon says make the halves identical to save tooling; AMP says delay terminal loading for application flexibility. Those are the same three benefits the '380 claims for itself, so the motivations are contemporaneous, not reconstructed from the patent's teaching.
• "Darfon's halves mate side-by-side, not end-to-end." The claim does not require any particular mating geometry beyond "mated to form the bobbin assembly," and the hermaphroditic-identical-half principle Darfon teaches is orientation-independent. A PHOSITA would apply identical-half symmetry to GE's end-to-end spools without invention.
• "No secondary considerations." There is no evidence on the record of long-felt need, commercial success, copying, or unexpected results attributable to the claimed combination. The complete absence of any litigation or PTAB challenge to the patent (2012–2026) is consistent with, though not dispositive of, a perception of low validity strength in the market. The claimed features are all structural choices that produce predictable results (delayed termination, separate pre-winding, tooling economy) that the prior art itself identifies as desirable.

9. Bottom line per claim

• Claim 1: Obvious over US4166265A in view of US3605055A (or, more strongly, in view of US7154366B2 for the identical-halves limitation), and over the three-reference combination US4166265A + US3605055A + US7154366B2.
• Claims 3, 8, 9: The strongest obviousness cases — claim 3 is GE's mating configuration; claims 8–9 are the two states of AMP's process applied to a two-piece bobbin.
• Claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 7: Obvious as routine design variations, each supported by express or structural teachings in the cited art (AMP's multiple-cavity/tap embodiment, GE's abutment/recess alignment, Darfon's identical halves and alignment features, and the general wire-slot/strain-relief art).
• Overall: A § 103 challenge to all nine claims has a credible foundation built entirely from the 14 references the patent itself cites, with US4166265A (AMP), US3605055A (GE), and US7154366B2 (Darfon) as the load-bearing combination. The principal weakness of the case is confined to claim 1's "substantially identical top and bottom surfaces" hermaphroditic limitation, which is supplied most cleanly by Darfon; if Darfon's full disclosure is for any reason unavailable or distinguishable, the challenger would need corroborating identical-half bobbin art (e.g., a second hermaphroditic bobbin reference) to close that element without relying on the "identical halves is an obvious manufacturing economy" argument alone.

Caveat on completeness: This analysis relies on the 14 references listed on the face of US7859380B2 (the prior-art record provided with the patent). Full-text confirmation was obtained for US3605055A, US4166265A, US7154366B2, US5321572A, and US6344787B1; the remaining cited references were used at title/abstract-confidence level. A litigation-grade § 103 position should be validated by pulling the full specifications of US3750073A, US4730178A, and US6630880B2, which may independently supply additional two-piece-bobbin or terminal-housing teachings that further strengthen the combination.