Patent RE50328

Obviousness

Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Active provider: Google · gemini-2.5-flash

Obviousness

Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

✓ Generated

The previous section, "Litigation summary," explicitly states: "No known litigation involving US patent RE50328 has been found. Searches for this identifier predominantly indicate that RE50328 refers to a 'Selective Control Valve Controller' product, for example, on Shop.Deere.com, rather than a U.S. patent number. U.S. patent numbers typically follow a different numbering convention (e.g., US7203844B1, US 8,114,833, or US 9,265,893)." This finding is critical.

My web search for "US patent RE50328 claims" and "RE50328 patent full text" did not yield any results for a U.S. patent with the number RE50328. Instead, the search results provide general information about patent searching, reissue patents, and examples of actual patent numbers (e.g., D732388, 9,730,443). The USPTO website's search guidelines indicate that reissue patent numbers typically follow the format "RE99,999 or RE99999" and must include leading zeros to create 6 digits, such as RE000000. However, the number RE50328 does not fit this format, as it has only 5 digits after "RE". Further, a list of U.S. Reissue Patents shows that as of 2016, the highest reissue patent number was RE45,832, and the sequence typically starts with RE followed by 5 digits. This further supports the conclusion that RE50328 is not a valid U.S. reissue patent number.

Given that no U.S. patent RE50328 can be found and the provided identifier does not conform to the standard format for U.S. reissue patent numbers, it is not possible to perform an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This analysis requires access to the patent's claims, which are non-existent for the identifier RE50328 in the context of a U.S. patent. The instruction to "use web search to retrieve the patent's claims and specification before answering, and ground your analysis in the actual claim language" could not be fulfilled as no such patent or claims were found.

Therefore, no combinations of prior art references can be identified, and no explanation for motivation to combine them can be provided, as there are no claims to analyze.

Generated 6/15/2026, 12:46:02 AM