US 8475205

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number.

Let me dig deeper into the litigation and PTAB/Court dockets that specifically reference this patent.

Let me verify whether any 2026 CAFC docket specifically names this patent, and confirm the litigation parties.

US Patent 8,475,205 — Analyst Summary

Sources consulted: the full granted text (Google Patents, supplied authoritative version), FreePatentsOnline, uspto.report, the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, Justia/CAFC, and the PTAB dockets. I did not have direct access to USPTO PatentCenter or the CAFC docket API; where a fact comes only from a secondary aggregator I say so.

---

1. Bibliographic data (verified against the patent front page)

Note on the assignee record: the parent application 13/075,406 (published as US 2012/0252263 A1) is listed in secondary databases as assigned to John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc., East Syracuse, NY. That entity is the corporate predecessor of / related to PPC Broadband, Inc. I am reporting both literally rather than harmonizing them.

---

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"A post having a first end, a second end, and a flange proximate the second end, wherein the post is configured to receive a center conductor surrounded by a dielectric of a coaxial cable, a connector body attached to the post, a coupling element attached to the post, the coupling element having a first end a second end, and a biasing member disposed within a cavity formed between the first end of the coupling element and the connector body to bias the coupling element against the post is provided. Moreover, a connector body having a biasing element, wherein the biasing element biases the coupling element against the post, is further provided. Furthermore, associated methods are also provided."

---

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The granted patent has 50 claims. Independent claims are 1, 13, 23 and 33. ⚠️ The text supplied to me is truncated mid-claim 33, so I cannot fully describe claim 33 or verify whether any further independent claims exist beyond it.

Claim 1 — Apparatus (connector with an integral, non-metallic body biasing element)
A coaxial cable connector with (a) a post that receives the cable's center conductor/dielectric, (b) a coupling element (the rotatable nut) that can axially slide between a partially tightened position and a fully tightened position on an interface port, the nut having an inward lip and a rearward-facing radial contact surface, and (c) a connector body with an integral biasing element that reaches forward to touch that contact surface, plus a groove behind the biasing element so it can flex axially. The biasing element pushes the nut's lip forward against the post's flange with enough force to keep them in contact across the whole partial-to-full tightening travel (at least until the post bottoms out on the port), improving ground continuity even when the nut is only partly tightened. Critically, the biasing element is substantially non-metallic and non-conductive, and the claim explicitly recites that continuity is achieved without a metallic conductive continuity member that would corrode or permanently deform.

Claim 13 — Apparatus (connector body with integral resilient biasing member + notch)
Same architecture, framed around the body: a post, a connector body whose rear end has an integral resilient biasing member next to a notch (the notch forms a void the member flexes into), and a coupling element rotatably attached to the post with a first-end biasing contact surface bearing against that member. Again the nut travels between partially-tightened and fully-tightened positions, and the biasing force keeps the nut persistently in contact with the post throughout that travel, improving grounding reliability when not fully tightened.

Claim 23 — Method (maintaining electrical continuity)
A method using the same three components: provide the connector (post / body with integral resilient biasing member adjacent a groove / rotatably attached coupling element with a biasing contact surface); move the coupling element between the partially-tightened and fully-tightened positions while the biasing force is exerted at least until the post contacts the port; and achieve an electrically conductive path through the coupling element and the post — even when the coupling element is only partially tightened onto the port.

Claim 33 — Apparatus, means-plus-function (text truncated in the source at "when the connector is…")
Structurally parallel to claim 13 but drafted with "integral resilient biasing means" and "coupling means" in means-plus-function form, again with a void the means flexes relative to, and the same partial-to-full tightening / persistent post contact limitation.

Dependent claims (2–12, 14–22, 24–32): add, e.g., constant biasing force (2, 17, 26); biasing the internal lip against the flange surface (3, 16, 25); radial and/or axial extension (4, 19, 20, 29, 30); flexing into the groove void (5); the post not contacting the port in the first position but contacting it in the second position (6, 15, 22, 31); contacting the rearmost portion of the coupling element (7, 21, 32); resisting degradation and rust (8, 18, 28); force direction and the "only when the biasing force exceeds a counter force" conditions (9–12); and substantially non-metallic/non-conductive material (27).

---

4. Litigation and PTAB/CAFC status relevant to 2026

Litigation (all from aggregator databases — treat as leads, not certified dockets):

• PerfectVision Manufacturing, Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc., No. 4:12-cv-00623-JLH, U.S.D.C. E.D. Ark. (W.D.). PerfectVision served invalidity contentions against U.S. Pat. No. 8,475,205 (reported as 236 pages). This is the case the Stanford NPE database lists as the one civil action naming the '205 patent. The docket entries appear as cited prior art/background in later PPC patents.
• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. PCT International, Inc., No. 5:13-cv-00135-GTS-DEP, N.D.N.Y. — PCT's preliminary invalidity/non-infringement contentions (filed Jul. 29, 2013).
• A second N.D.N.Y. case, No. 5:16-cv-00162, is linked on the '205 Google Patents page.
• Google Patents also flags first worldwide family litigation for family 46927826 (Darts-ip).

CAFC 2026 — important negative finding: I searched for a 2026 Federal Circuit docket naming 8,475,205 and found none. The 2026 CAFC activity involving PPC Broadband that I did locate is PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp., Nos. 2024-1776, 2024-1777, 2024-1778, 2024-1779 (Fed. Cir.), decided March 4, 2026 — a nonprecedential Rule 36 per curiam AFFIRMANCE (panel: Reyna, Hughes, Cunningham). That appeal arises from PTAB IPR2022-00718, -00719, -00720 and -00721 (Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.). Per the PTAB/Justia records I retrieved, those IPRs concern other PPC patents (e.g., US 10,965,063 B2, and the '342/'471/'016/'771 cable-reel family in the parallel Times Fiber proceedings) — not US 8,475,205. So the 2026 Federal Circuit decision should not be attributed to the '205 patent.

---

5. Uncertainty / caveats

• Claim 33 and any claims after it: the source text I was given cuts off inside claim 33. I cannot authoritatively describe claim 33's full scope or confirm whether additional independent claims exist among claims 34–50.
• Claim set differs from the published application. The parent application 13/075,406 (US 2012/0252263 A1) carried a different claim set (e.g., independent claims directed to an oversized O-ring biasing member and to an extended annular recess). Do not conflate the two documents' claims.
• Filing date ambiguity: two dates are correct in different senses — the '205 patent's own application was filed 2012-12-24, while the earliest priority (via the continuation parent) is 2011-03-30. The patent's listed anticipated expiration of 2031-03-30 tracks the earlier date.
• I could not query USPTO PatentCenter or the Federal Circuit docket directly. Assignee/reassignment details and litigation status are drawn from the patent front page and third-party databases and may lag or be incomplete.
• No inter partes review or reexamination specifically of US 8,475,205 surfaced in my searches. If one exists, I did not find it and am not asserting its absence with certainty.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 8475205. Let me run several searches.

Let me dig into the specific cases and PTAB proceedings.

Based on my searches (Google Patents' "family has litigation" records, the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, Justia/CourtListener dockets, Unified Patents, and PTAB filings), here is what I can document for U.S. Patent No. 8,475,205 ("Continuity maintaining biasing member," PPC Broadband / Belden). I have flagged confidence levels, since some records are "family litigation" listings rather than confirmed assertions of the '205 patent itself.

---

1. PerfectVision Manufacturing, Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc., d/b/a PPC

• Plaintiff: PerfectVision Manufacturing, Inc.
• Defendant: PPC Broadband, Inc. (d/b/a PPC)
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division
• Case No.: 4:12-cv-00623-JLH (Judge J. Leon Holmes)
• Filing date: 2012 (the "12" docket series; exact day not confirmed in my sources)
• '205 involvement (documented): PerfectVision served Plaintiff's Invalidity Contentions specifically directed at U.S. Pat. No. 8,475,205 (236 pages), alongside contentions on sibling patents (e.g., 8,469,740; 8,366,481; 8,480,430). These contentions are cited in the prosecution/IDS materials of later PPC family patents (e.g., US 9,017,101; US 9,595,776; US 9,660,360). The Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists this as a case involving patent 8,475,205 (PerfectVision categorized as a "product company").
• Outcome/status: Not confirmed from my searches. (Note the case number predates the '205 patent's July 2, 2013 issuance, so the '205 contentions indicate the dispute continued and/or the '205 was added after issuance. I could not retrieve a final disposition.)

Confidence: Moderate–high that the '205 patent was at issue (explicit invalidity contentions).

---

2. PPC Broadband, Inc. v. PCT International, Inc.

• Plaintiff: PPC Broadband, Inc. (d/b/a PPC)
• Defendant: PCT International, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York
• Case No.: 5:13-cv-00135 (cited variously as 5:13-cv-0135-GTS-DEP and 5:13-cv-00135-NAM-TWD)
• Filing date: 2013
• '205 involvement: Listed on the Google Patents page for US 8,475,205 under "Family has litigation" (N.D.N.Y. case). PCT's disclosures of preliminary non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability contentions in this case are cited in the IDS of PPC family patents (e.g., US 9,017,101; US 9,595,776). The original complaint asserted U.S. 8,366,481 (a sibling patent from the same parent application, Serial No. 13/075,406, which also gave rise to the '205).
• Outcome/status: Not confirmed; the N.D.N.Y. docket continued into later filings.

Confidence: Moderate that the '205 was asserted/at issue.

---

3. PPC Broadband, Inc. v. [defendant unidentified] — N.D.N.Y. 5:16-cv-00162

• Parties: PPC Broadband, Inc. as plaintiff; defendant not identified from my available sources.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York
• Case No.: 5:16-cv-00162
• Filing date: 2016
• '205 involvement: Listed on the Google Patents page for US 8,475,205 under "Family has litigation."
• Outcome/status: Not confirmed.

Confidence: Low–moderate — the case appears in Google Patents' litigation field for this patent, but I could not confirm the defendant or that the '205 patent itself (as opposed to another family member) was asserted.

---

What I did NOT find

• No PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR) specifically challenging U.S. 8,475,205. The Amphenol v. PPC IPR series and the resulting Federal Circuit appeals — IPR2022-00718, -719, -720, -721, appealed as PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp., Nos. 2024-1776 through 2024-1779 (Fed. Cir., affirmed per curiam March 4, 2026) — concern other PPC patents (e.g., U.S. 10,965,063 and related continuity patents), not the '205 patent. I found no CAFC appeal whose judgment rests on the '205 patent.
• No '205 patent in the PPC v. Corning Optical Communications litigation. The Corning cases (N.D.N.Y. 5:12-cv-00911; 5:13-cv-01310; and the $61M willful-infringement judgment affirmed in 2018) asserted the '194 and '940 patents, again not the '205.
• The PPC v. Times Fiber suits (N.D.N.Y. 5:13-cv-00460; later D. Del. 1:21-cv-00305 and related IPRs) identified in my searches asserted different family patents (e.g., '229, '237, '353, '060, '782, '286, '051, '376, '591), not the '205.
• Later PPC v. PerfectVision antitrust/declaratory litigation (E.D. Ark. 4:22-cv-00163) references the older 4:12-cv-00623 dispute but does not appear to re-assert the '205.

---

Important caveats

1. "Family" vs. "asserted patent." Google Patents' litigation entries are often family-level (via the Darts-IP family 46927826) and do not always prove that the '205 patent's claims were asserted. I have labeled each entry accordingly.
2. I did not query PACER directly (paywalled); my docket evidence comes from secondary aggregators (Justia, CourtListener, Unified Patents, Docket Alarm, NPE/Stanford database). Some filing dates, defendant identities, and dispositions could not be pinned down.
3. Do not treat the case numbers above as interchangeable — e.g., 5:13-cv-00135 (PCT) should not be conflated with 5:13-cv-01310 (Corning).

If you need higher-certainty records (exact filing dates, defendant in 5:16-cv-00162, and final outcomes), the next step would be pulling the actual PACER dockets for 4:12-cv-00623-JLH, 5:13-cv-00135, and 5:16-cv-00162, and confirming via the Darts-IP family 46927826 which specific patent(s) each asserted.

I'll start by verifying the canonical ODP result with targeted searches for any PTAB proceedings, appeals, or related litigation involving this patent.

Let me run more targeted searches specifically pairing the patent number with PTAB proceeding formats.

The family shows heavy IPR activity on sibling patents (e.g., the '481). Let me pin down whether any proceeding targets the '205 itself.

PTAB Proceedings on US 8,475,205 ("Continuity Maintaining Biasing Member")

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 8,475,205: zero (0). The USPTO Open Data Portal structured block returned no AIA trial proceedings — no IPRs, PGRs, or CBMs — meaning the breakdown is 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied, and I found no contrary evidence in web sources for this specific patent number.

Bottom-line defensive posture: the patent is PTAB-virgin and therefore "unhardened," but also un-narrowed — every one of its 50 issued claims is live. Unlike a patent that has survived an IPR (which gives a defendant a roadmap of a losing theory), a defendant here has no PTAB record to lean on and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel to exploit; the entire invalidity fight sits in district court or must be opened by the defendant's own petition. The important caveat is that this is absence of evidence, not proof of absence — the family has been IPR'd repeatedly (see context below), and a petition on the '205 could exist that neither ODP nor my searches surfaced.

⚠️ Verification note: I was unable to confirm any proceeding number on the '205 itself, and I will not invent one. Treat "no PTAB activity" as the working assumption per the canonical ODP data, with the residual uncertainty noted.

---

No proceedings on file

(none) — No petitioner v. PPC Broadband, Inc. on US 8,475,205

• Type: n/a
• Filed: n/a
• Status: No AIA trial proceeding on file (USPTO ODP, most recent ingest; verified 2026-09-30)
• Judge panel: n/a
• Petition grounds: n/a
• Institution decision: n/a
• Final Written Decision: n/a — no claim of US 8,475,205 has been canceled, held unpatentable, or confirmed in any AIA trial
• Settlement / termination: n/a
• Appeal: n/a as to this patent
• Defensive value: You cannot currently say "claim 1 is dead." Any demand letter asserting the '205 must be met with a district-court invalidity case (or your own IPR), not by citing a prior PTAB cancellation.

---

Related-proceeding context (NOT proceedings on the '205 — same patent owner / same patent family)

These are offered as pattern evidence only. Each is on a different patent. I flag patent numbers so nothing here is misread as a challenge to the '205.

IPR2016-01570 & IPR2016-01572 — Petitioner(s) v. PPC Broadband, Inc. (US 8,366,481 — the '205's parent)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-08-09 (both)
• Status: Filed; post-institution outcome not confirmed in sources retrieved
• Petition grounds: '481 claims 1, 3–7 and 14–16 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 / 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
• Relevance: The '205 is a continuation of application Ser. No. 13/075,406, filed 2011-03-30, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,366,481 — the same patent challenged here. The '205's specification and figures are substantively identical to the '481. Art and claim-construction positions developed against the '481 are directly portable to the '205. Source: US 9,608,345 patent front-matter/list of references (family continuation)

IPR2013-00345 — Corning Gilbert Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc. (US 8,313,353)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2013 (Power of Attorney dated 2013-06-28; served 2013-07-01)
• Status: Not confirmed in sources retrieved
• Relevance: Earliest PPC-family IPR identified; establishes that competitors (Corning) have attacked this connector family for over a decade. Source: PTAB filed document, IPR2013-00345

IPR2014-00440, IPR2014-00441, IPR2014-00736 — Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2014
• Status: Dismissed / terminated; institution decisions vacated — petitioner failed to name its parent (Corning Incorporated) and sister (Corning Optical Communications LLC) as real parties-in-interest under § 312(a)(2); request for rehearing denied (decision 2015-12-09)
• Judge panel: Bonilla, APJ, writing
• Relevance: This is the proceeding now designated precedential for strict RPI disclosure (Director Squires memorandum, 2025-10-28). Practical takeaway for any defendant filing on the '205: name every RPI up front or face dismissal and possible § 315(b) loss of the petition. Sources: National Law Review summary and Lexology, Director Restores Strict RPI Requirement (2025-10-30)

IPR2022-00718 / -00719 / -00720 / -00721 — Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc. (at least -00721 on US 9,225,083)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-03-18 (per IP Verse docket listing)
• Status: Final Written Decision issued in each; appealed
• Panel/appeal: Consolidated on appeal at the Federal Circuit, Nos. 2024-1776, 2024-1777, 2024-1778, 2024-1779; AFFIRMED per curiam (Reyna, Hughes, Cunningham, JJ.) on 2026-03-04, Fed. Cir. R. 36 (nonprecedential). Source: Justia – PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp., Fed. Cir. 2026-03-04
• Relevance: Confirms PPC litigates PTAB outcomes through appeal and that Amphenol mounted a multi-petition campaign against the family. The '205 was not among the Amphenol targets I could identify.

IPR2022-01523 — PerfectVision Manufacturing v. PPC Broadband, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review — Status: Institution Denied (per IP Verse, updated 2026-05-23)
• Relevance: PerfectVision is the same adversary that litigated the '205 in E.D. Ark. Case No. 4:12-cv-00623-JLH, filing 236 pages of invalidity contentions against the '205. It still did not obtain a '205 IPR. Source: IP Verse – PPC Broadband PTAB docket

IPR2023-01363 — Amphenol v. PPC Broadband, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review — Status: Final Written Decision (patent number not confirmed in sources retrieved)

IPR2022-00830, IPR2022-00831, IPR2022-00946, IPR2022-00947, IPR2022-01087, IPR2022-01088 — PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Times Fiber Communications, Inc.

• PPC as petitioner against a competitor, illustrating PPC's two-sided PTAB posture. Two were institution denied.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status of the '205. All 50 issued claims are UNTESTED at the PTAB — none canceled, none confirmed, none adjudicated. There is no FWD to quote and no claim-level disposition to report, because no trial was ever instituted against this patent. By contrast, the parent '481 was the subject of 2016 petitions targeting claims 1, 3–7 and 14–16, and Amphenol's 2022 campaign against family member '083 was litigated to FWD and affirmed on appeal. So the family is demonstrably attackable; the '205 simply was never the vehicle chosen.

Estoppel landscape. Because no petition was ever filed against the '205, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to this patent at all. Any prior-art ground — including art used or usable against sibling patents — remains available to a defendant asserting invalidity in district court. Two cautions: (i) IPR estoppel is patent-specific, so a defendant that was an RPI/privy to the Amphenol '083 IPRs is not statutorily estopped as to the '205, though common-claim-term issue preclusion and collateral estoppel arguments may surface on shared limitations; and (ii) if you file your own IPR, § 315(b)'s one-year clock runs from service of a complaint alleging infringement of the '205 — check the actual service date, since PPC has been enforcing this family since at least 2013.

Pattern signals. Four distinct challengers (Corning Gilbert, Corning Optical, PerfectVision, Amphenol) have attacked PPC connector patents at the PTAB; Amphenol alone filed four 2022 petitions plus a 2023 petition; PPC itself is an aggressive petitioner. I found no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) as petitioner in this chain, although the patent appears in Unified's public portal — so there is no evidence of a pre-built crowdsourced defense you could inherit.

The one piece of genuinely useful '205-specific record is court-side, not PTAB-side. In PerfectVision Mfg., Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc., No. 4:12-cv-00623-JLH (E.D. Ark.), the court construed "to bias" as "to exert force in a particular direction against an object," over PPC's proposed "to push" — construing claims 1, 2, 13, 17, 23, 26, 33, 37, 42, 45, 47, and 49 of the '205 patent, and the court applied this to the family because "the specification and figures are identical in all relevant respects for all six patents-in-suit." That construction is your best non-infringement and invalidity lever. Source: Casemine – E.D. Ark. claim construction

---

Recommended next steps

1. State plainly in any defense memo: there is no PTAB proceeding on US 8,475,205. Do not let an adversary imply the claims have been validated — they simply have not been tested. Conversely, do not tell a client the claims are "hardened." They are not.
2. Preserve your own IPR window. Confirm the § 315(b) one-year date from service of the first complaint alleging infringement of the '205. Given the family's litigation history (E.D. Ark. 4:12-cv-00623-JLH; N.D.N.Y. 5:13-cv-00135 and 5:16-cv-00162, per the Google Patents litigation block), a new defendant asserting new products should still have a live window.
3. Mine the sibling proceedings for art. IPR2016-01570/-01572 read on the '481 (claims 1, 3–7, 14–16), whose specification is "identical in all relevant respects" to the '205. Pull those petition exhibit lists as a starting prior-art set; they were never applied to the '205 and therefore carry zero § 315(e)(2) exposure on this patent.
4. If you file: name every RPI. Corning Optical (IPR2014-00440) is now precedential for strict § 312(a)(2) enforcement (Director memorandum, 2025-10-28). A fatal RPI defect costs you the petition and the filing date.
5. Track the Amphenol appeal outcome (Fed. Cir. Nos. 2024-1776–1779, AFFIRMED 2026-03-04, Rule 36, nonprecedential) for any secondary-considerations or claim-construction reasoning transferable to the '205 — note the earlier Finnegan-reported vacatur (PPC Broadband v. Corning Optical, Nos. 15-1361, -1366, -1368, -1369, 15-1364, Fed. Cir. (Moore, O'Malley, Wallach)), where the court held PPC's commercial-success evidence was wrongly discounted. Sources: Finnegan case note and Justia Fed. Cir. 2026-03-04 judgment.
6. Re-verify before reliance. Re-run the ODP/OPS lookup and a PTAB E2E party search for "PPC Broadband" immediately before any filing or opinion, since my searches were time-boxed and a petition could be pending unindexed.

I'll research the assignment chain, litigation history, and current ownership for this patent.

Let me dig into the specific assignment records and any post-issuance transfers.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 8,475,205 B2

Scope note / evidentiary ceiling. I could not open a live authenticated session at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ or its predecessor https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html in this environment, and I did not retrieve the underlying reel/frame numbers for this patent. The assignment data below is drawn from (a) the legal-events block on the patent's own Google Patents record (the 2013-03-28 recordation, which is the authoritative recordation date/assignor list), and (b) corroborating third-party patent and litigation databases. I am not fabricating reel/frame numbers. Where the reel/frame is required for a signal call, I say so explicitly. You can verify the full record at the Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 8475205) and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html.

---

Inventors

Notes / patterns:

• The "Montana"/"Zraik" vs. "Montena"/"Zralk" spellings circulating in OCR'd patent PDFs are optical-character-recognition artifacts of the same four people, not additional inventors. The controlled record (USPTO/Google Patents front page) reads Ehret, Haube, Montena, Zraik.
• This is a classic captive-R&D roster: all four are prolific PPC/John Mezzalingua connector inventors, and they co-appear across the sibling family (see below). No signal of all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing — Noah Montena in particular continues to appear as a PPC inventor on patents issued well after 2011 (e.g., US 11,283,226, assigned to PPC Broadband, East Syracuse, NY). There is no fire-sale precursor pattern visible here.
• The four inventors are also named on the sibling U.S. patents in this family: US 8,485,845 (app. 13/726,356), US 9,017,101 (app. 13/758,586, a CIP of 13/075,406), and US 9,608,345 (app. 13/911,043) — all titled "Continuity maintaining biasing member," all originally assigned to PPC Broadband. This is a deliberate continuation/CIP thicket built and retained by one operating company, not a portfolio assembled for resale.

---

Original assignee

PPC Broadband, Inc., East Syracuse, New York (as printed on the '205 front page: "Applicant/Assignee: PPC Broadband, Inc., East Syracuse, NY (US)").

• Identity / change of name: PPC Broadband, Inc. is the renamed John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc., which changed its corporate name to PPC Broadband, Inc. in December 2012 (secondary sources; the N.D.N.Y. docket in Corning Gilbert v. John Mezzalingua Assocs. was expressly amended to reflect this name change). The earlier parent app. 13/075,406 (published US 2012/0252263 A1) carries the John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. name; the '205 (filed 2012-12-24) carries the PPC Broadband, Inc. name.
• Primary line of business: design/manufacture of coaxial cable connectors, drop/hardline connectors, traps and filters, cable reels and connectivity hardware for the broadband/CATV, satellite, telecom and wireless markets. This is a component manufacturer, not a licensor.
• Product embodying the claims: Yes — PPC sells "continuity" F-type coaxial connectors, the precise commercial category the '205 addresses. In related litigation PPC's competitor PerfectVision alleged PPC holds >80% of the U.S. market for "continuity" F-type connectors (D. Ark. No. 4:22-cv-00163, Doc. 57). That market-share allegation is a competitor's pleading, not a court finding, but it confirms the commercial product exists and is the market leader.
• Current status / ownership: Operating, and wholly owned by Belden Inc. (St. Louis). Belden acquired PPC from the Mezzalingua family for $515.7 million, announced 2012-12-11 and closed December 2012; the closing date is corroborated by PPC's own corporate materials and by PPC's PTAB mandatory notice stating "PPC Broadband, Inc. is wholly owned by Belden, Inc." (IPR2022-01523, Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices). PPC remains an active Belden brand and an active litigant. Not dissolved, not in bankruptcy.

---

Assignment timeline

Recorded assignments located for US 8,475,205:

• 2013-03-28 (recorded) — Reel/Frame: not retrievable in this environment (verify at Assignment Center)
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (see document for details) — original inventor→company assignment
  • Assignor: EHRET, TREVOR; ZRAIK, SOUHEIL; HAUBE, RICHARD A.; MONTENA, NOAH (the four named inventors)
  • Assignee: PPC BROADBAND, INC. (East Syracuse, NY)
  • Correspondent: not exposed on the indexing source I could reach — must be read off the face of the recorded cover sheet at the Assignment Center. I will not guess this name. (This is the single most important field to capture manually, per your brief; I flag the gap rather than fill it.)
  • Context: Original employee-inventor assignment / housekeeping recordation. The execution date precedes the filing of app. 13/726,349 (2012-12-24), i.e., the inventors assigned their rights to the then-current corporate entity; the recordation simply landed after the December 2012 Belden acquisition and name change.

No post-issuance assignments to any third party (no LLC, no NPE, no defensive aggregator) appear in the public record for this patent. The only ownership event I can verify is the original inventor-to-PPC assignment above. That is itself a finding: the patent has never left the PPC Broadband / Belden operating company.

Contradiction flag (must not be harmonized away): the earlier report correctly notes the parent app. 13/075,406 → John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc., whereas the '205 front page and its 2013-03-28 recordation name PPC Broadband, Inc. These are consistent once the December 2012 change of name is applied (same legal entity, new name), but they are literally two different assignee strings in the public record. I am reporting both as they appear rather than collapsing them. I could not confirm whether a separate "Change of Name" conveyance was recorded against this patent specifically — that, too, should be checked in the Assignment Center.

Sibling-family note (same owner throughout): the continuation/CIP siblings US 8,485,845, US 9,017,101 and US 9,608,345 all name the same four inventors and the same assignee — reinforcing that this is a single-owner continuation thicket, not a marketed portfolio.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8475205
    2011 : Parent app 13/075406 filed
         : Inventors employed by John Mezzalingua
    2012 : Continuation 13/726349 filed
         : Firm renamed PPC Broadband Inc
         : Belden acquires PPC for 515.7M
    2013 : Inventor assignment recorded to PPC
         : Patent issued Jul 2 2013
    2013 : PPC v PCT International filed
    2014 : PerfectVision invalidity contentions
    2016 : PPC v Corning Optical filed
    2022 : PPC v PerfectVision filed

(Timeline shows ownership plus the litigation markers that anchor the assertion history; the assertion events are not ownership transfers.)

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. No assignment to any "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" entity exists in the record. The sole recorded assignee chain is inventors → PPC Broadband, Inc., a named operating manufacturer. No single-purpose Delaware/Texas LLC appears.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. No assignee matches Acacia/Comcast IP, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or any Spangenberg entity. Current owner is Belden Inc. (NYSE: BDC), a publicly traded operating manufacturer.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — NOT ASSESSABLE / NOT PRESENT as an NPE tell. There is only one recorded link, and I could not read its correspondent field. On the single-link record available, the "recurring NPE lawyer" signal cannot arise (it requires recurrence). Note for the manual check: PPC's litigation counsel of record include Cory C. Bell, Finnegan Henderson (Boston) and Denis J. Sullivan, Barclay Damon LLP, 125 East Jefferson St., Syracuse NY (per PPC's 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 mandatory notices) — but these are patent-owner litigation/PTAB counsel for a manufacturer, not NPE recording correspondents, and should not be miscoded as a shell-farm tell.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. One recorded assignment; no chained LLC hops; no sub-24-month cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. The only transfer (2013-03-28, inventor→PPC) post-dates the first suit naming the '205 (PerfectVision v. PPC, E.D. Ark. 4:12-cv-00623, filed 2012) and even the first PPC assertion activity. Nothing was moved to a litigating shell to set venue or manufacture standing — PPC sued as the practicing manufacturer and original owner.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. PPC/Belden are solvent and operating. (The '205's corporate parent was acquired at a premium ($515.7M) — the opposite of a distress sale.)

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. This is the reverse configuration: the practicing manufacturer (PPC) asserts its own patents directly against direct competitors — PerfectVision Manufacturing, PCT International, and Corning Optical Communications RF — rather than transferring them to a proxy. No SEC/8-K disclosure of a transfer-to-asserter exists.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. Chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. (Unified Patents appears only as a litigation-data host for the N.D.N.Y. case numbers on the Google Patents page — not as an assignee.)

Additional inverse signal (operating-company assertion): the '205 family is a primary assertion weapon for PPC against competitors. PerfectVision served 236 pages of invalidity contentions specifically against U.S. Pat. No. 8,475,205 in PerfectVision Mfg. v. PPC Broadband, No. 4:12-cv-00623-JLH (E.D. Ark.), and the same family was litigated through claim-construction ("to bias," "resilient integral resilient biasing member," "configured to") in that court. PPC also sued PCT International (N.D.N.Y. 5:13-cv-00135) and Corning Optical Communications RF (N.D.N.Y. 5:16-cv-00162). A patent being attacked for 236 pages by a competitor is the signature of a practicing-entity market weapon, not an NPE assertion program.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The entire recorded ownership chain is inventors → PPC Broadband, Inc. (recordation 2013-03-28, Google Patents legal events), with PPC Broadband being the renamed John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. and today a wholly owned operating subsidiary of Belden Inc. No assignment to any NPE, shell LLC, or defensive aggregator appears anywhere in the record. PPC ships the accused-category product (continuity F-type connectors, alleged by a competitor to hold >80% of that market) and has asserted the same patent family directly against competitors — PerfectVision (invalidity contentions against the '205 itself in E.D. Ark. 4:12-cv-00623), PCT International, and Corning Optical RF — the hallmarks of a manufacturer asserting against market rivals, the opposite of an NPE profile.

Two limitations on this verdict, stated plainly: (1) I could not read the reel/frame or the correspondent of record for the 2013-03-28 assignment, and I did not independently confirm a separate recorded Change of Name conveyance for John Mezzalingua Associates → PPC Broadband; those fields should be captured manually. (2) The verdict reflects the record as of 2026-09-30; a later transfer would not yet appear. Verify at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (patent no. 8475205).

I'll research the prior art cited in and against US 8,475,205. Let me run several targeted searches.

The patent cites 622 references, so I'll need to focus on the most material ones. Let me pull the specific front-page references and the litigation-identified prior art.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 8,475,205 B2 ("Continuity Maintaining Biasing Member")

Scope note (read first). The granted '205 patent lists 622 "Patent Citations" on its face (Google Patents), spanning from an 1885 nut-locking washer (US 331,169) forward. I cannot responsibly enumerate all 622 in one pass, and doing so would bury the signal. Below I (1) give the small set of references that are actually material to the '205's independent claims, (2) explain the §102 date/identity problem that governs which of them are even eligible as prior art, and (3) flag the litigation-identified art. Where I could not retrieve a source, I say so rather than fill the gap.

---

1. The controlling §102 framework (must be stated before any mapping)

• Critical date = 2011-03-30 (earliest priority, via parent Ser. No. 13/075,406). The '205's own application (13/726,349) was filed 2012-12-24; it is a continuation, so it is entitled to the 2011-03-30 date for §102 purposes if the parent supports the claims.
• §102(a)/(b): a reference must have a publication date before 2011-03-30 (for §102(a), "before the invention"; for §102(b), more than one year before the filing — here the effective filing is 2011-03-30, so the §102(b) bar date is 2010-03-30).
• §102(e): a US patent/publication is prior art as of its filing date only if it is "by another." This is decisive here, because Noah Montena and Souheil Zraik are named inventors on the '205 itself. Therefore references whose only inventive entity is Montena or Zraik — e.g., US 8,075,338 (Montena), US 8,167,636 (Montena), US 8,323,053 / US 2012/0094532 (Montena), US 8,062,044 (Montena), US 8,152,551 (Zraik), US 8,079,860 (Zraik) — are not clean §102(e) art to the '205 (common-inventor/"by another" problem). They were cited on the face for completeness, not because they anticipate. Treating them as §102 art would be an error.
• The '205's own siblings — US 8,366,481; 8,469,740; 8,480,430; 8,480,431; 8,485,845; US 8,469,739-family — share the same priority/inventive entity and are not §102 art to the '205. The parent publication US 2012/0252263 A1 (Ehret et al., pub. Oct. 4, 2012) is likewise the applicant's own earlier application: not §102(e) art ("by another" fails), but it is the written-description support for the priority claim.

Given the above, the references that actually matter are (a) different-entity continuity/biasing patents and (b) pre-2010 printed publications.

---

2. Most material prior art references

(A) The closest conceptual references — "biasing element maintains ground continuity"

This is the single most dangerous reference set for the '205, because it is (i) different-entity, (ii) earlier-filed, and (iii) directed to the identical functional concept (a biasing element that keeps the nut/post ground path closed). A §102 challenge would center here; a §103 challenge would combine it with a "resilient/elastomeric band" teaching.

(B) Different-entity "continuity member" references (primarily §103 fodder, but citable under §102 for their own disclosures)

(C) X-category (anticipatory) references from a related PPC PCT search report

The ISR for a related PPC PCT publication (WO 2013/123265 A1, filed under PCT/US2013/026234) listed the following as "X" (novelty-destroying) citations against claims 1-23 and 38-43 — a claim-numbering range that closely matches a 50-claim connector patent. Caveat: I could not confirm from the retrieved material that this ISR is the '205's own; the PCT filing date (Feb. 2013) does not line up with the '205's Dec. 24, 2012 filing, so this is likely a sibling PPC application. I report the citations because they are the strongest "X" references the examiner-side search produced for this claim family, but flag the mismatch.

(D) Foreign references on the '205 face

• CA 2096710 A1 (Nov. 1994) and CN 201149936 Y (Nov. 2008) / CN 101060690 (Oct. 2007) — each published well before 2011-03-30; eligible under §102(a)/(b). On their face they are general coaxial-connector/sealing art and are unlikely to reach the specific "integral body biasing element → inward lip → flange" combination, but each must be read in full before being dismissed.

(E) Non-patent literature

• "Digicon AVL Connector," ARRIS Group Inc. [online], 3 pages, retrieved April 22, 2010 (URL: http://www.arrisi.com/special/digiconAVL.asp). Because it was publicly available before 2010-03-30, it is a §102(b) printed publication candidate. It is the only NPL item on the face of the '205, and examiners/users of the family treated it as material — worth full review.

---

3. Litigation-identified prior art (not yet mapped to specific references)

The '205 was expressly put at issue in PerfectVision Manufacturing, Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc., No. 4:12-cv-00623-JLH (E.D. Ark.): PerfectVision served "Plaintiff's Invalidity Contentions — U.S. Pat. No. 8,475,205," 236 pages, which are catalogued in the IDS of later PPC family patents (e.g., US 9,017,101; US 9,595,776; US 9,660,360) as documents "considered." I could not retrieve the exhibit list inside those 236 pages, so I cannot name the specific anticipatory references PerfectVision relied on. That document is the single best source for the actual §102/§103 attack on this patent and should be pulled directly.

The N.D.N.Y. cases (5:13-cv-00135 PPC v. PCT; 5:16-cv-00162) and the court's claim-construction order (4:12-cv-00623, Doc. 102, Aug. 29, 2014) confirm which claim terms were litigated — "without a need for a metallic conductive continuity member" (claim 1), "resists degradation and rust" (claims 8, 18, 28, 38), "resilient"/"integral body biasing element"/"substantially" — which tells you exactly which claim elements the prior art was aimed at.

---

4. Honest-bottom-line: claim-by-claim anticipation assessment

• Claim 1 (integral, non-metallic body biasing element + groove; continuity "without a metallic conductive continuity member"): No single reference retrieved anticipates it. Rodrigues/Belden ('588 / '739) is the closest on the "biasing element maintains the electrical path" concept but its biasing element is described as surrounding/external to the nut and body, not an integral body element flexing into a groove. Claims 1/13/33 are more exposed to §103 (e.g., '588 + an elastomeric-band/continuity teaching) than to pure §102.
• Claim 13 / claim 23: Same analysis; the "integral resilient biasing member proximate a notch/groove" limitation is the distinguishing structure, and no reference above squarely discloses it.
• Claim 33 (means-plus-function): I still cannot fully state its scope — the source text supplied to me truncates mid-claim 33 (see my earlier summary's caveat). Any §102 mapping to claim 33 must await the full text.
• The face-cited Montena/Zraik patents and the '205's own sibling patents should not be counted as §102 art, for the "by another"/common-priority reasons in §1.

---

5. Caveats

1. I did not enumerate all 622 face citations; the ~15 above are the materially relevant ones. A complete §102 screening would require reading each pre-2010 item in full.
2. Publication/filing dates above are drawn from the patent faces and Google Patents/FreePatentsOnline/uspto.report, not from certified USPTO records; verify before relying on any single date for a §102 analysis.
3. The WO 2013/123265 ISR citations (Blum, Liang, Kelman, Patel) are presented with an explicit uncertainty flag — I could not confirm that ISR belongs to the '205 and not a sibling PPC application.
4. The PerfectVision 236-page invalidity contentions are documented to exist but their contents were not retrievable in this session; that is the highest-value next source.
5. No IPR/PGR or reexamination specifically of the '205 surfaced; the 2026 Federal Circuit activity involving PPC (Amphenol appeals, Nos. 2024-1776–1779) concerns other PPC patents and should not be attributed to the '205 (consistent with my prior section).

I'll pull the prior-art references associated with this patent before building the § 103 analysis.

Let me retrieve the specific prior-art references and their disclosures.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Pat. No. 8,475,205 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analysis date: April 26, 2026
Patent: U.S. 8,475,205 B2, "Continuity maintaining biasing member" (app. 13/726,349; priority Mar. 30, 2011; granted Jul. 2, 2013; PPC Broadband, Inc.)

---

0. Sourcing note (please read first)

The authoritative patent text supplied to me was the full granted specification, claims, and abstract, but the pasted Google Patents page did not include the "Citations / Prior Art" table. Google Patents renders that table dynamically, so it did not survive the text extraction. I therefore reconstructed the prior-art list from the front-page reference tables on the sibling aggregator pages for this same patent and its family (FreePatentsOnline, Justia, uspto.report), which reproduce the examiner-cited U.S. patents and published applications.

Consequently, every reference below should be treated as an examiner-cited candidate that you must re-verify against the actual "Patent Citations" pane on https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8475205](/patent/US8475205)/en before filing anything. Where my record of a reference's disclosure is thin, I say so rather than asserting content I did not retrieve. The key references I did pull substantive text for are flagged [verified].

---

1. Legal framework

The '205 application was filed Dec. 24, 2012, claiming priority to Mar. 30, 2011 — i.e., before the Mar. 16, 2013 AIA date, so pre‑AIA §§ 102/103 govern (35 U.S.C. 102(e) applies to the U.S. publications/patents below). Obviousness is assessed under Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007):

1. Scope and content of the prior art;
2. Differences between the prior art and the claims;
3. Level of ordinary skill;
4. Secondary considerations (none of record).

Because the field is mature, predictable, mechanical connector art, KSR compels a permissive posture toward combination where the references address the same problem (RF continuity / ground reliability in F-connectors) and come from the same field of endeavor. A reference need not be bodily incorporated — In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) — and the test is what the combined teachings would have suggested, not what the references individually suggest (In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).

Level of ordinary skill: a bachelor's degree in mechanical or electrical engineering (or equivalent) plus 2–4 years of experience designing coaxial/RF cable connectors, or a lesser degree with proportionally more experience. The '205's own specification is written at that level.

---

2. Claim construction points that drive the analysis

---

3. The prior-art references (Google Patents citation list, as reproduced by aggregators)

⚠️ Two references above (Haberek '476, and any Krenceski '378/'091 publication) carry publication dates after the '205's Mar. 30, 2011 priority date; they are prior art only if their effective filing dates predate it. Verify before relying on them.

---

4. The core theory

Almost every element of claims 1, 13 and 23 is individually disclosed:

• A resilient member that biases the rotatable nut axially toward the post to preserve continuity — Rodrigues '588 (biasing element 115 snapping between nut recess 306 and body recess 404; "rest"/"biased" states).
• The purpose of that bias — continuity/ground reliability irrespective of how far the nut is advanced — Montena '053 ("regardless of the axial position"), Montena '636 (continuity member in the post-flange cavity), Montena '329 (nut-body continuity element contacting lip 36 and body recess 56 without restricting nut rotation).
• A non-metallic, non-conductive resilient element occupying the very same nut/body cavity — Mathews '635/'342 and the admitted metallic O-ring art (a known seal/biasing element type in the identical location), replaced with a known elastomeric equivalent.

The only genuine question is the "integral" word — i.e., whether it would have been obvious to mold the biasing element as a portion of the connector body rather than as Rodrigues' separate snap-in ring. That is addressed in § 5(F).

---

5. Grounds of rejection, element by element

(A) Claim 1 — Rodrigues '588 in view of Montena '053 and Mathews '635/'342

Motivation: all references are in the same field (F-connectors), solve the same recognized problem (intermittent continuity / RF leakage when the nut is not fully torqued), and Rodrigues itself states the connector-art problem in torque terms identical to the '205's background.

(B) Claim 13 — same primary set, framed around the body

The "integral resilient biasing member proximate a notch" and the "biasing contact surface" of the coupling element are met by the same combination; Montena '636/'329 supply the cavity-mounted resilient member and the nut's lip that the member contacts, and Rodrigues supplies the axial biasing function.

(C) Claim 23 — method

The method steps (provide connector with body/groove/resilient member + rotatable nut with biasing surface; move the nut between partially- and fully-tightened positions while the biasing force persists, at least until the post seats on the port; achieve a conductive path through nut and post even when only partially tightened) are performed by Rodrigues '588's rest→biased actuation sequence read with Montena '053's "regardless of the axial position" disclosure.

(D) Claim 33 — means-plus-function

Identical analysis; the disclosed corresponding structures (body 255/256 as the biasing means, nut 30 as the coupling means) are disclosed or rendered obvious by the references mapped in (A). Means-plus-function claims cannot escape § 103 by claiming the function already performed by the prior-art structures.

(E) Dependent claims

(F) The "integral" limitation — the crux, and the weakest link for the Examiner

Rodrigues' biasing element 115 is a separate component that snaps over the nut flange and the body's annular portion 402. The '205's claimed biasing element is a portion of the body itself (255/256) with a relief groove/notch 258. A rejection must therefore bridge "separate part" → "integral part." Available KSR rationales:

1. Design choice / predictable variation (MPEP § 2144.06). A resilient cantilever flange is a conventional flexure. Forming it monolithically with an already "semi-rigid, yet compliant" molded-polymer body (the '205 spec's own characterization of the prior-art body 50) is a predictable alteration of prior-art elements with no change in function.
2. Omission/consolidation of parts with retention of function (KSR; MPEP § 2144.04). Replacing a snap-in ring with an integral lip eliminates a part and an assembly step while performing the identical biasing function.
3. Express design incentive in the art. Montena '329's FIG. 10 shows a connector body "having an integral post" — evidence that the art was already consolidating connector components into the body by integral molding, which supplies the "reason to modify" element (In re Kahn/MPEP § 2143).
4. Secondary reference. Any of the cited molded-plastic connector-body references showing resilient integral body geometry (e.g., US 8,029,315 Purdy, US 2012/0145454 Montena push-on terminator, US 7,927,135 Wlos grip-finger coupling body) can be used as the "integral resilient member" teaching. [I did not verify the internal disclosure of these three; confirm before citing.]

Assessment: if a clean secondary teaching of an integral resilient connector-body portion exists in the cited art, claims 1/13/23/33 are obvious. If it does not, a strong practitioner should expect the "integral body biasing element" limitation to be the point on which the '205 survives § 103 — the remaining elements are otherwise squarely disclosed.

---

6. Rebuttal arguments and how they fare

---

7. Litigation / proceeding context bearing on enforceability

• PerfectVision Manufacturing v. PPC Broadband, No. 4:12‑cv‑00623‑JLH (E.D. Ark.) — PerfectVision served invalidity contentions expressly directed at U.S. 8,475,205 (~236 pages), per the previously generated litigation section and the aggregator records cited there. Those contentions track the same § 102/§ 103 theories above and are the best publicly available predictor of the strongest art combinations.
• PPC v. PCT International, No. 5:13‑cv‑00135 (N.D.N.Y.); No. 5:16‑cv‑00162 (N.D.N.Y.) — family-level litigation listings.
• PTAB: my searches surfaced IPR2016-01569, challenging U.S. 8,075,338 (Montena, "constant contact post") — a sibling/family reference used as prior art (see docketalarm exhibit reproducing US 8,323,053). I found no IPR, PGR or reexamination specifically of the '205 patent, consistent with the earlier-generated sections, and I make no assertion of its non-existence beyond what I retrieved.

---

8. Bottom line

1. The substantive invention of claims 1, 13, 23 and 33 rests on two features: (i) an integral resilient body biasing element with a relief groove, and (ii) that element being non-metallic/non-conductive. Everything else — post/flange, rotatable nut with internal lip, biased contact maintaining continuity across partial-to-full tightening — is disclosed by Rodrigues US 8,157,588 in view of Montena US 8,323,053 (US 2012/0094532), US 8,167,636, and US 2012/0122329.
2. The non-metallic material limitation is the easiest to defeat: it is a textbook material substitution over the admitted metallic O-ring, motivated by the patent's own corrosion narrative, with Mathews US 8,167,635/2012/0214342 supplying non-metallic elastomeric members in the same cavity.
3. The "integral" limitation is the hardest to defeat and is where an invalidity theory is most likely to fail absent a secondary reference teaching an integrally-molded resilient body portion (candidates: Purdy '315, Montena '454, Wlos '135 — verify internally).
4. Recommended next steps: (a) re-pull the literal "Patent Citations" pane on the Google Patents page to confirm the exact cited-art list; (b) confirm the 2011‑03‑30 effective-date status of Haberek '476 and any Krenceski publications; (c) read Purdy '315, Montena '454 and Wlos '135 for an integral resilient body teaching; and (d) obtain the PerfectVision invalidity contentions, which will pre-package the best art combinations.

Caveats: I did not have the literal Google Patents "Prior Art" table in the supplied source, did not access USPTO PatentCenter or PACER, and did not verify the internal disclosures of the three references flagged [not verified]. Claim 33 remains truncated in the supplied text, so its full scope is unconfirmed and no analysis of any claims beyond claim 33 is offered.