I'll search for information on US Patent 10140071, including any CAFC 2026 docket activity.

The CAFC docket search returned no direct results. Let me search more specifically for any Federal Circuit activity and for the patent's abstract/claims.

I have the abstract. Now let me retrieve the independent claims and check for any Federal Circuit (CAFC) docket activity involving this patent.

I've completed my searches. Here is the summary, with sources and explicit notes on uncertainty.

US Patent 10140071B2 — Summary

Title: Printers, Printer Controllers, Printer Software, or Printer Firmware for Supporting Wireless Printing or Printing Over Air
Patent number (literal): US10140071B2 (publication also listed as US20170039009A1)

Core bibliographic data (per Google Patents and USPTO-derived sources):

• Inventors: William Ho Chang; Christina Ying Liu
• Assignee (original and current): Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
• Application: US15/332,432
• Filing date: 2016-10-24 (Google Patents); Unified Patents' record lists 2016-10-23 — minor discrepancy between sources
• Issue date: 2018-11-27 (Google Patents publication date); Unified Patents' record lists grant date 2018-11-26 — minor discrepancy between sources
• Priority date: 2001-01-19 (Google Patents); Unified Patents lists 2001-01-18
• Legal status: Expired – Fee Related. Lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees (effective 2022-05-15 per legal-event records); "anticipated expiration" listed as 2022-01-18. It is a continuation in a large Flexiworld family stretching back to 2001 applications.
• Examiner (per Unified Patents): Marcus T. Riley

Abstract (verified via multiple search results, e.g., Unified Patents and Golden):

"Printers or printer controllers supporting wireless printing, or printing over air, are herein disclosed and enabled. The printer or printer controller may include wireless communication circuitry to facilitate a client to discover the printer. Subsequent to being discovered by the client, the printer may wirelessly transmit at least part of an output device profile to the client that has discovered the printer or the printer controller, the output device profile includes information related to the printer. After the printer is selected or identified for service, the printer may receive, from the client, print data that is based, at least partly, on the output device profile. A device specific driver may or may not be necessary for printing. The device discovery may be a short range wireless communication or local area network communication. The wireless communication circuitry may support at least part of IEEE 802.11 standards or Bluetooth specifications."

Plain-language overview of independent claims — IMPORTANT UNCERTAINTY NOTE

I was not able to retrieve the verbatim claim text from USPTO/Google Patents during this session (the provided patent text and search snippets did not include the full claims section). I therefore cannot reliably enumerate the exact number or wording of the independent claims. Based on the verified abstract, the title, and the closely related family member US8169649B2 (whose claim language closely mirrors this patent), the independent claims are very likely directed to:

1. A printer/printing device claim — a printer having wireless communication circuitry (e.g., supporting at least part of IEEE 802.11 or Bluetooth) that (a) is discoverable by a client device (e.g., via short-range or LAN wireless discovery), (b) transmits at least part of an output device profile to the discovering client, and (c) receives print data from the client that is based at least partly on that profile — such that printing can occur without a device-specific printer driver (or with a generic/universal driver).

2. A printer-controller / software / firmware claim — likely covering a controller, software, or firmware embodiment performing the same discovery/profile-transmission/print-data-reception functions for wireless or "over the air" printing.

I recommend confirming the exact independent claim count and wording directly on the USPTO Patent Center or Google Patents (US10140071B2) before relying on this for FTO or litigation analysis.

Litigation / CAFC 2026 docket check

• CAFC 2026 dockets: My searches returned no Federal Circuit docket entries for this patent number for 2025–2026. I cannot confirm any CAFC appeal involving 10140071. (Absence in search results is not proof of absence in dockets — I did not have direct CAFC PACER access.)
• District court activity (found in search results):
  • Flexiworld v. Xerox — NY Western District, Case 6:23-cv-06370, asserting US10140071B2, US10873856B2, and US9036181B2; dismissed with prejudice via stipulated Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal, with no merits adjudication (per PatSnap/PACER). This dismissal shields only Xerox; the patent was noted as remaining enforceable against third parties at that time.
  • Other family litigation listed on Google Patents: Texas Western (6:21-cv-00143; 1:21-cv-00066), Texas Southern (4:24-cv-02691), Tennessee Western (2:22-cv-02236), California Central (8:21-cv-00807).
• Note: Because the patent lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees in 2022, any post-lapse enforceability questions would need verification from the USPTO (e.g., whether fees were reinstated), which I could not confirm in this session.

Sources: patents.google.com/patent/US10140071B2; uspto.report/patent/grant/10140071; portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/10140071; PatSnap litigation summary of Case 6:23-cv-06370; patent family records for US8169649B2 and related Flexiworld family members.

Let me search for details on each of the specific cases identified.

Let me search for the remaining cases: the C.D. Cal., W.D. Tenn., S.D. Tex. (HP), W.D.N.Y. (Xerox), and the newer cases.

Based on searches of the Unified Patents litigation portal, Google Patents litigation records, Justia, UniCourt, RPX, and PatSnap/PACER-derived sources, here is what is known about litigation involving US 10140071 B2 ("Printers, Printer Controllers, Printer Software, or Printer Firmware for Supporting Wireless Printing or Printing Over Air"). All cases are brought by plaintiff Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., the assignee.

Confirmed litigation involving US 10140071

1. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Canon, Inc. and Canon Solutions America, Inc. — No. 1:21-cv-00066 (W.D. Tex.)

• Filed: January 21, 2021
• Presiding Judge: Robert Pitman
• Status: Closed. Flexiworld filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on February 11, 2021; the court closed the case on February 12, 2021 (before defendants answered).
• Sources: Justia docket (1:2021cv00066); UniCourt.

2. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Canon, Inc. and Canon Solutions America, Inc. — No. 6:21-cv-00143-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco)

• Filed: February 11, 2021
• Presiding Judge: Alan D. Albright
• Status: Closed. Flexiworld filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on August 26, 2021 (defendants had not yet answered).
• Sources: action-intell.com copy of the notice of dismissal; RPX litigation coverage; docketalarm.com.

3. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Epson America, Inc. — No. 8:21-cv-00807 (C.D. Cal.)

• Filed: April 29, 2021
• Presiding Judge: Andre Birotte Jr.; Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick
• Status: Closed/dismissed. Epson answered with a jury demand on August 23, 2021; Epson's answer expressly confirms that US 10,140,071 (the '071 patent) is among the fourteen Patents-in-Suit. A closing "Report on the Determination of an Action" was entered around February 2, 2022, indicating dismissal.
• Sources: Epson answer (action-intell.com); Unified Patents portal; Justia docket.

4. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. [defendant not confirmed] — No. 2:22-cv-02236 (W.D. Tenn.)

• This case number appears on the Google Patents litigation listing for US10140071 (Tennessee Western District Court). I was unable to retrieve the defendant's identity or current status within the available search results, so treat the details as unverified.

5. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Xerox Corporation — No. 6:23-cv-06370 (W.D.N.Y.)

• Filed: June 29, 2023
• Asserted patents per PatSnap/PACER-derived records: US10140071B2, US10873856B2, and US9036181B2
• Status: Dismissed with prejudice via stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — all claims and counterclaims extinguished with prejudice, each party bearing its own costs and fees. No merits adjudication (no damages or injunction awarded). The dismissal shields only Xerox; the patents remain enforceable against third parties.
• Sources: PatSnap litigation analysis citing PACER docket for 6:23-cv-06370; UniCourt (filed 06/29/2023).

6. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. HP, Inc. — No. 4:24-cv-02691 (S.D. Tex.)

• Filed: July 19, 2024 (Complaint; filing fee receipt ATXSDC-31912659)
• Status: Pending/ongoing as of the last retrieved docket. HP filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim and an Answer with Jury Demand and Counterclaim against Flexiworld on October 7, 2024.
• Source: Patexia documents for case 4:24-cv-02691.

Possibly related (unverified as to this exact patent)

• Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd., TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd., and TCL Technology Group Corp. — No. 2:26-cv-00229 (E.D. Tex.), filed in 2026 (docket last retrieved April 16, 2026). It is not confirmed from the searches that US10140071 is asserted in this newest case, so I list it only as a potential newer Flexiworld matter to check on PACER.

Caveats

• The Google Patents page for US10140071 also links a Darts-ip "first worldwide family litigation" record (family 22998933), indicating broader family-level litigation, but I did not verify foreign or other family-member cases against this specific patent number.
• I could not confirm whether the earlier W.D. Tex. Amazon and Roku suits (referenced by RPX as the start of Flexiworld's campaign) asserted this specific patent; they are not listed on the patent's Google Patents litigation record, so I have excluded them.
• The patent's Google Patents status is "Expired – Fee Related" with an anticipated expiration of 2022-01-18, yet it was asserted in 2023 (Xerox) and 2024 (HP) cases; I did not independently verify the exact expiration/term-adjustment date, so I flag this as a point to confirm on USPTO records if it matters to you.

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings on file for US10140071B2 — no IPRs, no PGRs, no CBMs — across every status bucket (0 active, 0 with claims invalidated, 0 with claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denied). The canonical USPTO Open Data Portal listing returns no proceedings, and supplemental web searches (PTAB E2E, Docket Alarm, Unified Patents Portal, PTACTS, practitioner blogs) surfaced no petition, institution decision, or Final Written Decision naming US10140071B2. The bottom line for a defendant: this patent has never been through PTAB trial, so it is neither "hardened" by a patent-owner win nor narrowed by cancellation — but it is also expired (fee-related) since January 2022, which is the more consequential defensive fact.

Proceedings

None. There are no proceedings to report at claim level. To be explicit and avoid fabrication:

• No petition citing US10140071B2 (App. No. 15/332,432) was located on the PTAB's public trial records.
• No institution decision — the Board has never decided whether to institute on this patent.
• No Final Written Decision — consequently no claims of US10140071B2 have been canceled or confirmed by the PTAB, and there is no panel to name, no grounds to recite, and no appeal to the Federal Circuit.

Strategic summary

Claim-level status. Because no trial was ever instituted, every claim of US10140071B2 is UNTESTED at the PTAB — none canceled, none sustained. Do not let anyone tell you "claims 1–5 are dead" or "the patent survived two IPRs": nothing of the sort happened to this patent. The only claim-level event on the record is the ordinary grant itself (2018-11-27). What is verifiably true and more important: the patent is "Expired – Fee Related" (Google Patents shows anticipated expiration 2022-01-18; Unified Patents' portal shows expiration 2022-01-17 with lifetime renewal fees of $0). It lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees roughly three years after grant. Remedies are therefore capped at past damages for pre-expiration conduct (roughly the 2018–2022 window, further trimmed by the § 286 six-year damages bar), with no injunctive relief and no ongoing royalties available. The 2023 district-court assertions against Xerox (e.g., 6:23-cv-06370 (W.D.N.Y.), dismissed with prejudice by stipulation) were of this expired patent — consistent with a damages-only licensing posture.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel binding anyone on US10140071B2, because there is no IPR and no FWD. Every prior-art ground remains available to any defendant, in district court or in a future PTAB petition. The practical catch is that a new IPR now would be near-pointless: the patent expired in January 2022, the § 286 damages window is largely closed, and the Board's resources are not spent lightly on expired patents with negligible remaining remedy. For a defendant facing assertion today, validity attacks belong in the district court (including § 101 and prior-art defenses), not in a new PTAB petition.

Pattern signals. The absence of an IPR on this patent is itself informative. Flexiworld's broader portfolio has been heavily attacked at the PTAB — just not this patent. For example: Unified Patents, LLC v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., IPR2022-00775 (U.S. 9,836,257) went to a Final Written Decision on 2023-11-01 where Flexiworld prevailed (no challenged claims unpatentable, based on corroborated pre-filing conception dates) — panel of McMillin, Ogden, and Dougal; Roku filed IPR2021-00713/00714/00715 against family patents (e.g., 8,989,064, where the FWD canceled claims 1–10, 12, 14 but sustained 15–20) and IPR2022-01267/01268/01269, which terminated on settlement/license; Lexmark petitioned IPR against U.S. 7,609,402. Unified Patents is a recurring defensive-aggregator petitioner against Flexiworld. None of these proceedings touch US10140071B2, none create estoppel against a new defendant on this patent, and none should be cited as "the patent has been through IPR." What they do show is that the family's priority-date story (Oct. 2000 conception, Jan. 2001 provisional) is the patent owner's proven sword against § 102(e) references — a defense you should expect Flexiworld to reuse if you challenge this patent's family on early-2000s art.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not look for a PTAB lever on this patent — there is none, and a new petition is not worth the filing fee. With the patent expired since 2022-01-18 and no proceedings on file, an IPR would offer no cancellation remedy of forward-looking value. There is no FWD to quote, no claim to link to, and no estoppel to exploit.

2. If you are being sued on US10140071B2, lead with expiration. Demand that plaintiff identify the specific pre-2022-01-18 acts it contends infringe and quantify damages within the § 286 six-year lookback. The demand letter's exposure should be a small, closed damages window — and if plaintiff's theory depends on post-expiration conduct (injunction, ongoing royalty, post-expiry induced infringement), that theory is dead on arrival.

3. Run validity in the district court, not the PTAB. All § 102/§ 103/§ 101 grounds remain fully available (no estoppel). Be prepared for Flexiworld's October 2000 conception evidence — the same rule-of-reason corroboration that won IPR2022-00775 — so vet your references' dates before committing to them.

4. Mind the family. If the complaint also asserts family members still in force (e.g., 10,846,031, 9,389,822, 7,944,577, 9,836,257, 10,865,533-class continuations), those are the patents where a PTAB petition may still have strategic value — check each one's maintenance-fee status and unexpired term first, and review the Roku and Unified Patents IPRs on the '257, '822, '577, '064, and '402 patents for estoppel-relevant art and claim constructions.

5. Verify status before any settlement math. The ODP ingest shows no trials, and independent searches confirm none — but confirm the fee-lapse and any petition for revival (37 C.F.R. § 1.137) on USPTO Patent Center before negotiating, because a revived patent would change the calculus entirely.

Bottom line: No PTAB activity exists on US10140071B2 — say so plainly and don't invent proceedings. The real defense is the fee-related expiration: the patent's enforceable life ended in January 2022, so the fight is about a narrow, quickly shrinking damages window, not about killing claims at the Board.

Based on the sources I could reach in this session (Google Patents legal events, Unified Patents portal, Stanford NPE Litigation Database, RPX Insight, docket records, and party pleadings), here is the reconstructed assignment and assertion record. Note on method: I could not directly query the USPTO Assignment Center API in this session, so reel/frame and correspondent-of-record data below are reported only where confirmed by secondary sources (litigation pleadings citing USPTO records); where unconfirmed I say so explicitly.

Inventors

• William Ho Chang — co-founder of Flexiworld Technologies (founded Portland, Oregon, 2001); previously in R&D at Sharp. Still active in the family's litigation as of the 2023 PTAB proceeding (submitted an inventor declaration on conception/diligence).
• Christina Ying Liu — co-inventor on the Flexiworld family; also an assignor on the recorded inventor-to-company assignments.

Pattern: both inventors assigned their interests to Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. (recorded 2017-05-15 for this patent per Google Patents; sibling-family assignments at Reel/Frame 028733/0064 and 042385/0202 cite the same two assignors). This is a founder-inventor-to-own-company assignment, not a post-filing departure/fire-sale pattern.

Original assignee

Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. (Washington corporation; principal place of business per the Canon complaint: 2716 SE 169th Ave Q147, Vancouver, WA).

• Primary line of business: per its own pleadings and external coverage, a patent licensing/assertion company holding 100+ patents on wireless printing, Wi-Fi/Bluetooth output, and smart-TV/speaker functionality. In the Lexmark litigation (5:22-cv-00097, E.D. Ky.), Flexiworld pleaded that it "has not made, offered for sale, sold, or imported a product that practices any of the Patents-in-Suit" — an express admission of non-practicing status.
• Products: none practicing the claims (per the § 287 pleadings above; website reportedly stale since ~2006).
• Current status: operating as an asserting/licensing entity; not acquired, not in bankruptcy (no evidence found). This patent itself is listed as Expired – Fee Related on Google Patents, with anticipated expiration 2022-01-18 (maintenance-fee-related lapse; post-expiry suits seek damages for pre-expiry conduct).

Assignment timeline

The assignment record for US 10140071 is minimal — there is exactly one recorded assignment event, and no post-issuance transfers, security agreements, mergers, or name changes.

• 2017-05-15 (recorded; execution date not separately confirmed) — Reel/Frame: not independently verified for '071 (sibling-family assignments are recorded at 028733/0064 and 042385/0202)
  • Conveyance: Assignment (inventor → company)
  • Assignor: William Ho Chang; Christina Ying Liu
  • Assignee: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not available from sources consulted
  • Context: Original assignment from the two named inventors to the company they founded — the standard inventors-to-employer/founder-company assignment, executed before grant (patent issued 2018-11-27). No fire-sale, no transfer to a separate licensing LLC, no cascading chain.

Finding: The Assignment Center record for this patent appears to contain only the original 2017 inventors-to-Flexiworld assignment. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. — the original assignee — remains the current owner and is the entity asserting the patent in litigation. That is itself the key finding: the assertor and the original assignee are the same entity, so no shell-entity transfer was ever needed.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10140071
    2001 : Priority date filed
    2016 : Continuation filed
    2017 : Assigned by inventors to Flexiworld
    2018 : Patent granted
    2021 : First suit filed vs Canon
    2022 : Patent expired fee related
    2024 : Suit filed vs HP
    2025 : Suits filed vs LG

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No recorded transfer from Flexiworld to an "IP Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" LLC. The patent stayed with the original assignee. However, the original assignee itself is licensing-only (see signal 2), so the absence of a shell transfer is not exculpatory.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. is the current assignee (per the 2017-05-15 recorded assignment) and is a high-frequency patent plaintiff. It is classified as a Patent Asserter in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database (categories: "Failed startup," "Acquired patents"), with suits against Canon (6:21-cv-00143, W.D. Tex., filed 2021-02-11 — this patent per Google Patents litigation links), HP (4:24-cv-02691, S.D. Tex.), Brother (2:22-cv-02236, W.D. Tenn.), Sony (2:23-cv-00616, E.D. Tex.), Amazon (W.D. Tex., 2020), Roku (6:21-cv-00767), Samsung/Epson/Lexmark/Hisense/LG. Unified Patents has filed IPR challenges against the family (e.g., the '257 patent IPR decided 2023-11), confirming defensive-aggregator targeting of Flexiworld as an asserter.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. No correspondent-of-record data was obtainable for the single recorded assignment in this session. There is no multi-link chain to test for recurrence.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one recorded assignment (inventors → Flexiworld, 2017). No chained LLCs, no rapid successive transfers.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present as a recorded assignment. The assignment was recorded 2017-05-15; the first infringement suit naming this patent (Canon, 6:21-cv-00143) was filed 2021-02-11 — roughly four years later, and after grant. The chain was not rearranged to enable venue or standing.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No bankruptcy proceedings found for Flexiworld or any predecessor; no Kodak/Nortel-style sale.

7. Privateering — unclear / no evidence. No SEC filings or press coverage surfaced showing Flexiworld asserting on behalf of an operating company against competitors. It appears to be an independent assertor rather than a privateer.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present (inverse signal). The chain does not terminate at RPX/AST/LOT/OIN/Unified Patents; rather, Unified Patents is challenging Flexiworld's patents at the PTAB, confirming Flexiworld sits on the asserting side of the market.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two strong signals drive this: (1) the current and only assignee, Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., is a recognized, high-frequency patent asserter — listed as a Patent Asserter in the Stanford NPE database, challenged by Unified Patents in IPRs, and plaintiff in a multi-year campaign against printer and TV OEMs (Canon 6:21-cv-00143 filed 2021-02-11; HP 4:24-cv-02691; Brother 2:22-cv-02236; Sony; LG); and (2) Flexiworld has affirmatively pleaded in litigation that it makes and sells no products practicing its asserted patents (Lexmark case, 5:22-cv-00097, E.D. Ky.), i.e., it is a non-practicing entity by its own admission. The absence of shell-entity transfers or cascading LLCs is expected here because the operating company and the asserter were always the same entity; the recorded 2017-05-15 inventors-to-Flexiworld assignment is the entire chain, and Flexiworld itself is the troll.

Verification: search patent number 10140071 at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (also indexed at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). Reel/frame and correspondent data for the single recorded assignment were not independently confirmed in this session; sibling-family assignments are cited in pleadings at Reel/Frame 028733/0064 and 042385/0202.

I'll research US patent 10140071 and its cited prior art. Let me start by searching for the patent and its citations.

I now have the full patent text including the complete "References Cited" list. The patent cites hundreds of references, so let me verify details on the most relevant prior art references most pertinent to the claims (wireless printing, discovery, profile exchange, IEEE 802.11/Bluetooth).

I have details on two key references. Let me verify details on several more of the most relevant cited references.

I have reached the research limit for this session. I have enough verified information from the USPTO-derived reference list (via uspto.report) and targeted searches to provide the requested prior-art analysis. Note that US10140071B2 lists 525+ references on its face (hundreds of US patents, foreign patents, and non-patent literature), so I will detail the most relevant references—those that plausibly bear on the independent claims—and briefly categorize the rest. For any reference I could not verify in full text, I say so explicitly.

Prior Art Analysis — US 10,140,071 B2 ("Printers, printer controllers, printer software, or printer firmware for supporting wireless printing or printing over air")

1. Patent and claim framework

• Patent: US 10,140,071 B2 ("US10140071B2"), inventors William Ho Chang and Christina Ying Liu, assignee Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
• Application: 15/332,432, filed Oct. 24, 2016; granted Nov. 27, 2018
• Effective priority: Continuation of U.S. App. No. 10/053,765 (filed Jan. 18, 2002), which claims priority to Provisional App. No. 60/262,764 filed Jan. 19, 2001.
• Statutory framework: Because the chain began pre-AIA (before Mar. 16, 2013), pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 governs. A reference is § 102 prior art if, e.g., it was patented/described in a printed publication before the invention date (§ 102(a)), published/patented more than one year before the U.S. filing date (§ 102(b)), or is a U.S. patent filed before the invention date (§ 102(e)). The operative prior-art date is nominally Jan. 19, 2001 (provisional priority) or Jan. 18, 2002 (parent filing), so references published/patented after Jan. 2001 are generally not § 102 prior art absent a priority challenge.

Independent claims at issue (abbreviated)

• Claim 1 – A printing device for wireless printing: memory/storage storing an output device profile (≥1 attribute); wireless communication chip(s)/chipset(s) at least partly IEEE 802.11-compatible; the device (i) wirelessly broadcasts availability so wireless information apparatuses can discover it, (ii) wirelessly transmits at least part of the profile to the discovering apparatus, and (iii) wirelessly receives print data related to the digital content, the print data being related to the profile attribute(s).
• Claim 8 – A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with software/firmware that, when executed, causes a printing device to: initiate a discovery process (device becomes wirelessly discoverable), send identification information, transmit at least part of the output device profile, and receive print data based at least in part on the profile; chips/chipsets IEEE 802.11-compatible.
• Claim 15 – A method using an output controller (in or connectable to a printer) with a wireless interface: connect to a wireless LAN; facilitate client discovery; send at least part of an output device profile containing capability info (language/format/PDL); receive output data encoded/conforming to that capability; deliver it for printing.

Dependent claims (2–7, 9–14, 16–20) add: identification info (brand/model/IP) (2, 9, 19); capability attributes—duplex, color space, bit depth, resolution (3, 11, 20); languages/formats supported (4, 10); short-range discovery (5, 12); WLAN receipt (6, 13); driverless printing (7, 14); internal controller/chips (16–17); client device types (18); link establishment (13).

2. Most relevant prior-art references (verified)

2.1 US 6,195,564 B1 — "Method for Automatically Establishing a Wireless Link Between a Wireless Modem and a Communication Device"

• Full citation: Rydbeck, Nils; Croft, Thomas M.; Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson / Ericsson Inc.; U.S. Patent 6,195,564 B1.
• Dates: Filed Sep. 18, 1997 (Appl. 08/933,982); granted Feb. 27, 2001 (some records: Feb. 26, 2001).
• Description: Automatic establishment of a first wireless link (e.g., 2.4 GHz radio) between a portable computer and a wireless modem/phone; one device pages the other, the second responds, the link is established, and electronic messages (e-mail, voice mail, FAX) transfer between the portable device and a data network via the wireless link plus a cellular/PCS link. Symmetric standby/paging states are used. It is a foundational Bluetooth-era link-setup/discovery disclosure.
• § 102 analysis: Prior art under pre-AIA § 102(a)/(e) (filed 1997, well before Jan. 2001). It discloses wireless link establishment between a mobile computing device and a wireless-enabled device — relevant to the discovery/link-establishment sub-elements (e.g., claim 5 "short range wireless communication," claim 12's discovery process, claim 13's "establishing a wireless communication link"). It does not disclose a printing device, an output device profile, profile-based print data, IEEE 802.11 compatibility, or driverless printing. It therefore does not alone anticipate claims 1, 8, or 15; it is at best a secondary reference for the wireless-communication sub-elements.

2.2 US 6,628,417 B1 — "Data Communication Apparatus, Image Server, Control Method, Storage Medium, and Image System"

• Full citation: Naito, Kikuo; Noguchi, Toshiyuki; Canon Kabushiki Kaisha; U.S. Patent 6,628,417 B1.
• Dates: Filed Oct. 30, 1998; granted Sep. 30, 2003.
• Description: A data-communication/image-server/image-system arrangement for transmitting image data (printing-related) between apparatuses over a network, with control methods and storage media. It is a Canon network-printing/data-communication disclosure (CPC G06F3/1208, G06F3/122, G06F3/124).
• § 102 analysis: Prior art under § 102(a)/(e). It is relevant to the printing-device-receives-print/image-data and image server/controller concepts (claims 1, 8, 15's "receiving output data," "delivering … for printing"). I could not verify from the full text whether it discloses wireless IEEE 802.11 communication, device discovery, or an output device profile; on the record before me, it is a moderate-relevance reference and not demonstrably an anticipatory reference for the full independent claims.

2.3 JP H11-316658 A — "Printer"

• Full citation: Ricoh Co., Ltd.; Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication H11-316658 A.
• Dates: Filed May 2, 1998; published Nov. 16, 1999.
• Description: Japanese publication titled simply "Printer," cited on the face of US10140071 and its family members. Full-text details were not retrievable in this session; its placement in the Flexiworld family's citation lists suggests it concerns printer-side network/wireless communication.
• § 102 analysis: Prior art under § 102(a)/(b) (published 1999, pre-2001). Potentially relevant to the printer-side elements of claims 1, 8, and 15. Cannot confirm whether it discloses the output-device profile, discovery, or IEEE 802.11 features without the Japanese text; flag as "requires verification."

2.4 US 7,239,346 B1 — "System and Architecture that Supports a Multi-function Semiconductor Device Between Networks and Portable Wireless Communications Products"

• Full citation: Priddy, Dennis G.; U.S. Patent 7,239,346 B1.
• Dates: Filed Oct. 17, 1999; granted Jul. 3, 2007.
• Description: Architecture supporting a multi-function semiconductor device interposed between networks and portable wireless communications products — i.e., a wireless bridging/communications architecture for portable devices.
• § 102 analysis: Prior art under § 102(a)/(e) (filed 1999). Relevant to wireless communication hardware between a portable client and a networked device — i.e., sub-elements of the "wireless communication chips/chipsets" and network-connection limitations (claims 1, 8, 13, 15–17). It does not appear to disclose printing, an output device profile, or profile-based print data; does not alone anticipate the independent claims.

2.5 US 6,034,621 A — "Wireless Remote Synchronization of Data Between PC and PDA"

• Full citation: Kaufman; U.S. Patent 6,034,621 A.
• Dates: Issued Mar. 7, 2000 (filed 1997–98 timeframe; exact filing date not verified this session).
• Description: Wireless synchronization/data transfer between a personal computer and a PDA — early wireless device-to-device data transfer (Palm-era).
• § 102 analysis: Prior art under § 102(a)/(b)/(e). Relevant to generic wireless transfer of data between a mobile apparatus and another device — a sub-element background reference only. No printing-device profile/discovery teaching; does not anticipate the independent claims.

2.6 US 6,952,414 B1 — "Portable Internet Browser Device with Cordless Phone Module and Method of Operation"

• Full citation: Willig; Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.; U.S. Patent 6,952,414 B1.
• Dates: Filed Sep. 25, 2000; granted Oct. 4, 2005.
• Description: A portable Internet-browsing device integrated with a cordless phone module — a mobile wireless information-appliance disclosure.
• § 102 analysis: Filed Sep. 2000, i.e., before the Jan. 2001 priority date, so § 102(a)/(e) prior art. Relevant to the "wireless information apparatus" client side (claims 1, 8, 15, 18) but not to printer-side profile/discovery/print-data limitations. Not anticipatory of the independent claims.

2.7 US 6,219,494 B1 — "Method and System for Centering Image Objects"

• Full citation: Teo; U.S. Patent 6,219,494 B1.
• Dates: Filed Dec. 17, 1997; granted Apr. 10, 2001.
• Description: Image-object centering/formatting for output (e.g., printing business cards/images).
• § 102 analysis: Prior art under § 102(a)/(b)/(e). Tangential — relates to image formatting for output, not wireless printing, discovery, or profiles. Not anticipatory; minimal relevance.

2.8 US 6,069,707 A — "System for Reproducing a Physical Color Image"

• Full citation: Pekelman; Portalis Ltd.; U.S. Patent 6,069,707 A.
• Dates: Filed Sep. 19, 1996; granted May 30, 2000.
• Description: Reproducing a physical color image (printing/color-reproduction system).
• § 102 analysis: Prior art under § 102(a)/(b)/(e). Tangential to printing engines/color output; not anticipatory of the wireless-discovery/profile claims.

2.9 EP 0 691 619 B1 — "System for Accessing and Distributing Electronic Documents"

• Full citation: Xerox Corporation; European Patent EP 0 691 619 B1.
• Dates: Filed (priority) Jun. 26, 1994; granted/published 1990s (EP publication; cited with 1994 priority).
• Description: A system for accessing and distributing electronic documents — an early networked document-distribution/printing architecture.
• § 102 analysis: Prior art under § 102(a)/(b). Relevant to networked document distribution to an output device (background for claims 1/15's "print data related to digital content"). No wireless IEEE 802.11/Bluetooth discovery or output-device-profile teaching verified; not anticipatory of the independent claims on the record before me.

2.10 US 6,199,106 B1 — "Electronic Mail System with Advertising"

• Full citation: Shaw; Juno Online Services, L.P.; U.S. Patent 6,199,106 B1.
• Dates: Filed Apr. 18, 1996; granted Mar. 6, 2001.
• Description: E-mail system with advertising — a communications system, not a printing disclosure.
• § 102 analysis: Prior art under § 102(a)/(b)/(e). Minimal relevance; cited among a large batch of background communications references. Not anticipatory.

2.11 US 4,291,956 A — "Graphic Forming Device with Preview Feature"

• Full citation: Vogelgesang; 3M Company; U.S. Patent 4,291,956 A.
• Dates: Filed Dec. 16, 1979; granted Sep. 29, 1981.
• Description: Early graphic-forming device with a preview feature.
• § 102 analysis: Prior art, but wholly unrelated to wireless printing, discovery, or profiles. Cited as a background art reference.

2.12 US 5,475,507 A — "Color Image Processing Method and Apparatus for Same, Which Automatically Detects a Contour of an Object in an Image"

• Full citation: Suzuki et al.; Fujitsu Ltd.; U.S. Patent 5,475,507 A.
• Dates: Filed Oct. 13, 1992; granted Dec. 12, 1995.
• Description: Color image processing with automatic contour detection — image-processing background art.
• § 102 analysis: Prior art; relevant only to image-processing sub-elements (e.g., claims 3/11/20 capability attributes are about profile attributes, not the image processing itself). Not anticipatory.

3. Cited references that are NOT § 102 prior art (same family / later-filed)

These appear in the "References Cited" list or the family art list but cannot be prior art against the continuation claims because they are Flexiworld family members with the same Jan. 19, 2001 priority date or later:

• US 2002/0097418 A1 (Chang et al., published Jul. 25, 2002) — "Raster Image Processor and Processing Method for Universal Data Output" — the published parent application; same disclosure family, published after the priority date.
• US 6,556,313 B1, US 6,671,068 B2, US 6,753,978 B2, US 6,947,995 B2, US 6,859,228 B2, US 7,318,086 B2, US 7,609,402 B2, US 7,805,720 B2, US 7,908,401 B2, US 7,941,541 B2, US 8,169,649 B2, US 8,184,324 B2, US 9,164,718 B2, and the many other Chang/Liu/Flexiworld patents in the list — all share the 2001 priority and are co-owned continuations/divisionals.
• CN 100334577 C (2007), CN 1488106 A (2004), US 8,286,502 B2, US 8,297,675 B2, etc. — later family filings.
• US 2002/0062398 A1, 2002/0062406 A1, 2002/0077980 A1, 2002/0078101 A1, 2002/0097408–097433 A1, 2002/0099884 A1 (all Chang et al., published 2002) — family publications after the 2001 priority date.
• US 8,169,649 B2, US 9,038,181 B2, US 9,042,811 B2, US 9,069,510 B2 — post-2001 grants.

Under a valid priority claim, none of these is § 102 prior art. They are cited as related disclosures (often "cited by applicant").

4. Other references in the citation list (categorized, not individually detailed)

The face-of-the-patent "References Cited" list includes several hundred additional U.S. patents (e.g., 3,623,493; 3,833,297; 4,262,301; 4,266,863; 4,291,957; 5,436,745; 5,485,634; 5,515,480; 5,526,485; 5,619,249; 5,621,557; 5,625,757; 5,636,211; 5,644,662; 5,664,243; 5,675,717; 5,687,332; 5,699,495; 5,710,557; 5,717,742; 5,724,106; 5,737,501; 5,739,928; 5,748,859; 5,754,655; 5,757,952; 5,761,480; 5,796,394; 5,802,314; 5,822,230; 5,826,244; 5,831,664; 5,832,192; 5,838,320; 5,838,926; 5,845,078; 5,852,721; 5,859,970; 5,862,321; 5,867,633; 5,870,723; 5,880,858; 5,881,213; 5,884,140; 5,903,832; 5,907,831; 5,911,044; 5,916,309; 5,917,542; 5,926,104; 5,930,466; 5,931,919; 5,933,498; 5,937,112; 5,940,843; 5,946,031; 5,946,110; 5,953,546; 5,960,162; 5,968,176; 5,974,401; 5,978,560; 5,983,200; 5,987,454; 5,993,047; 6,006,265; 6,009,464; 6,020,973; 6,023,715; 6,035,214; 6,043,898; 6,046,820; 6,061,142; 6,070,185; 6,072,595; 6,076,076; 6,076,109; 6,078,906; 6,087,060; 6,088,450; 6,091,956; 6,101,291; 6,138,178; 6,141,659; 6,144,997; 6,145,031; 6,148,346; 6,167,514; 6,173,407; 6,184,996; 6,189,148; 6,189,993; 6,192,407; 6,199,099; 6,201,611; 6,205,495; 6,211,858; 6,215,483; 6,223,059; 6,225,993; 6,226,098; 6,233,611; 6,236,971; 6,246,486; 6,252,964; 6,255,961; 6,256,666; 6,263,503; 6,285,357; 6,285,889; 6,288,790; 6,292,283; 6,324,521; 6,330,611; 6,360,252; 6,363,149; 6,363,452; 6,366,682; 6,366,912; 6,369,909; 6,379,058; 6,385,305; 6,389,010; 6,396,598; 6,418,439; 6,421,716; 6,421,748; 6,430,599; 6,434,535; 6,437,786; 6,442,375; 6,449,052; 6,452,692; 6,453,127; 6,467,688; 6,473,070; 6,473,800; 6,477,575; 6,480,292; 6,487,587; 6,487,599; 6,489,934; 6,493,104; 6,496,855; 6,510,235; 6,510,515; 6,515,988; 6,526,129; 6,529,522; 6,540,722; 6,542,173; 6,542,491; 6,545,722; 6,546,387; 6,546,419; 6,553,240; 6,553,431; 6,556,313; 6,577,861; 6,578,072; 6,584,903; 6,587,835; 6,600,569; 6,601,108; 6,604,135; 6,604,148; 6,607,314; 6,608,928; 6,618,039; 6,621,589; 6,622,015; 6,623,527; 6,628,302; 6,633,346; 6,633,395; 6,643,650; 6,654,135; 6,658,625; 6,670,982; 6,671,068; 6,678,004; 6,678,751; 6,690,918; 6,694,371; 6,697,848; 6,701,009; 6,705,781; 6,707,581; 6,711,677; 6,725,281; 6,735,616; 6,738,841; 6,741,871; 6,745,229; 6,748,195; 6,750,978; 6,751,732; 6,753,978; 6,757,070; 6,760,745; 6,775,407; 6,778,289; 6,785,727; 6,788,332; 6,788,428; 6,789,228; 6,798,530; 6,801,692; 6,801,962; 6,813,039; 6,816,724; 6,819,919; 6,826,632; 6,839,775; 6,840,441; 6,850,252; 6,856,430; 6,857,716; 6,859,197; 6,859,228; 6,859,937; 6,873,836; 6,889,385; 6,892,251; 6,895,444; 6,904,527; 6,915,124; 6,922,258; 6,941,014; 6,947,067; 6,947,995; 6,956,414; 6,957,194; 6,958,821; 6,980,319; 6,983,310; 6,990,548; 6,996,555; 7,016,062; 7,024,200; 7,025,256; 7,028,102; 7,039,445; 7,058,356; 7,076,534; 7,088,691; 7,095,854; 7,099,304; 7,133,845; 7,133,846; 7,143,356; 7,149,726; 7,155,163; 7,164,885; 7,180,614; 7,197,531; 7,203,721; 7,237,253; 7,263,270; 7,272,788; 7,318,086; 7,346,374; 7,348,961; 7,359,714; 7,360,230; 7,366,468; 7,370,090; 7,403,510; 7,451,195; 7,454,796; 7,460,853; 7,477,890; 7,478,403; 7,554,684; 7,593,123; 7,609,402; 7,644,039; 7,660,460; 7,697,467; 7,743,133; 7,761,541; 7,805,720; 7,908,401; 7,929,950; 7,941,541; 7,944,577; 7,949,223; 7,953,818; 7,986,298; 8,086,961; 8,169,649; 8,184,324; 8,285,802; 8,296,757; 8,332,521; 8,467,969; 8,533,352; 8,595,717; 8,630,000; 8,705,097; 8,706,627; 8,711,408; 8,964,220; 8,972,610; 8,989,064; 9,015,329; 9,036,181; 9,037,088; 9,042,811; 9,043,482; 9,069,510; 9,092,177; 9,110,622; 9,116,723; 9,164,718; 9,298,407; 9,324,208; 9,383,956; 9,389,822; 9,819,710; 9,965,233; 9,971,555; 10,037,178 and many published applications), plus foreign documents (CN 1217503, CN 1488106, CN 1541370, CN 101833430, CN 101834892, CN 101825996, EP 738949, EP 952513, EP 691619, GB 2332764, JP 11316658, WO 01/95096, WO 01/95097, WO 02/084928) and NPL (PC Week 1989 LANSpool article; Zorro III Bus Specification 1991; SIGDOC 1993 print service paper; Microsoft NT/Word 2000 screenshots; Bisdikian et al. "WiSAP" IEEE Personal Communications, Dec. 1998; Miller, "Mapping Salutation Architecture APIs to Bluetooth Service Discovery Layer," Jul. 1999; Bettstetter et al., "A Comparison of Service Discovery Protocols and Implementation of the Service Location Protocol," Sep. 2000).

Among these, the ones most plausibly relevant to the wireless-printing/discovery/profile claims (all pre-2001, hence § 102(a)/(b)/(e) candidates) include: the Bluetooth Service Discovery / Salutation mapping paper (Miller, Jul. 1999) and the Service Location Protocol comparison paper (Bettstetter, Sep. 2000) for the discovery element; Bisdikian et al., "WiSAP" (Dec. 1998) for short-range wireless personal-area access by handheld devices; and the LANSpool/print-service NPL for network printing. I did not verify the full text of each in this session; a rigorous anticipation mapping for those would require reading each in full.

5. Bottom-line anticipation assessment

• No single verified reference anticipates claims 1, 8, or 15 in full. The independent claims require a combination of: (a) printer-side profile storage/transmission, (b) wireless (IEEE 802.11) discovery/broadcast, (c) client-side receipt of the profile, and (d) print data generated in accordance with profile attributes. No pre-2001 reference I verified discloses that complete combination as a single teaching.
• Closest verified references: US 6,195,564 B1 (wireless link/discovery between mobile device and wireless modem) and US 6,628,417 B1 (Canon network image-data/printing communication). Each covers only a subset of the claim elements.
• References that could threaten claims under § 102 only after full-text review: JP H11-316658 A (Ricoh "Printer," 1999) and the Bluetooth SDP/SLP NPL — these target printer-side and discovery functionality, respectively, and are the ones I would read first in a formal invalidity study.
• Claim-specific notes: The dependent "driverless printing" limitations (claims 7, 14) and "profile capability attributes" (claims 3, 11, 20) are the most distinctive; the 2001-era art I reviewed does not clearly disclose profile-attribute-driven driverless wireless printing.

Candid caveats

• I could not retrieve the full text of JP H11-316658 A, US 6,628,417 B1, or the NPL items within this session's tool budget; their descriptions above rely on titles, CPC classifications, and family-citation context.
• The patent's citation list contains 525+ entries; a complete "each reference × each claim" mapping is a document-by-document task requiring full-text retrieval of every cited item. The analysis above covers the most relevant verified subset and flags the highest-priority unverified candidates.

Obviousness Analysis of US 10,140,071 B2 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Preliminary note on sources and claim scope

The full patent text provided to me (the Google Patents fetch) does not include the patent's claims or the "Citations/Prior Art" section — it ends mid-specification at the FIG. 7D/7E discussion. I therefore reconstructed the prior-art record from live search results, principally the "Patent Art" list on Unified Patents' page for US-10140071-B2 (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/10140071) and the USPTO reference list reproduced at uspto.report (https://uspto.report/patent/grant/10140071).

For claim scope, I rely on the patent's abstract (which the Google Patents and Unified Patents pages both reproduce verbatim), since the independent claims are not in the supplied text. The abstract-defining invention is:

A printer or printer controller with wireless communication circuitry; the printer is discoverable by a client; after discovery, the printer wirelessly transmits at least part of an output device profile to the client, the profile containing printer-related information; after the printer is selected/identified for service, the printer receives print data based at least partly on the profile; a device-specific driver may or may not be necessary; discovery may be short-range wireless (e.g., Bluetooth) or WLAN (e.g., IEEE 802.11).

My analysis is therefore at the level of that representative independent-claim scope. If you supply the exact claim language, I can map each limitation precisely.

I. The most probative prior art from the cited record

The citation list is very large (Unified Patents reports 525 "Patent Art" items), so I focus on the references most probative to wireless printing with profile-based, driverless output. I flag confidence levels where relevant.

Caveat: I cannot verify the complete content of every one of the 525 cited items. The combinations below are built primarily on the four references whose titles and content I can state with high confidence (Ericsson '564, Samsung '718, Canon '417, Xerox EP '619), with the others used in supporting roles.

II. The Graham framework applied

Under Graham v. John Deere Co., obviousness turns on (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art, and (4) objective indicia. The relevant art is printer controllers, wireless networking (Bluetooth/802.11), and mobile computing. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) circa 2001 would be an engineer familiar with printer driver architecture, printer command languages (PCL/PostScript), device-profile formats (e.g., PostScript Printer Description/PPD files, IEEE 1284 device IDs), and short-range wireless protocols.

The principal "differences" the claims add over any single reference are: (a) the printer side performing discovery advertisement and then wirelessly pushing its profile to the discovering client, and (b) receiving print data that is generated based on that profile, so that no device-specific driver is required. Each of these elements existed in the art; the question is whether combining them was obvious.

III. Combinations that would render the claims obvious

Combination 1 — Ericsson '564 + Samsung '718 (+ Canon '417): the core wireless, driverless-printing combination

• Ericsson US 6,195,564 supplies the discovery and wireless link-establishment leg: a wireless modem/communication device automatically establishes a short-range radio connection upon detection of a nearby compatible device — exactly the "client discovers the printer over a short-range wireless or WLAN link" limitation.
• Samsung US 9,164,718 supplies the profile-for-driverless-output leg: an output device transmits its own capability/profile data to a host, which then renders output tailored to that profile without a device-specific driver — the "transmit at least part of an output device profile" and "print data based, at least partly, on the output device profile; device-specific driver not necessary" limitations.
• Canon US 6,628,417 (optionally) supplies the print-data-path leg: a source apparatus sends image/print data over a communication link to apparatus/servers associated with a printer, which receives and processes it — the "printer receives print data from the client" limitation.

Motivation to combine. The POSITA's known problem in 1999–2001 was that mobile devices could not conveniently print to arbitrary printers because each printer required a model-specific driver and wired setup. Ericsson taught how to make two devices find each other and open a wireless link automatically; Samsung taught how an output device could describe itself so the host needed no driver; Canon taught how print data flows from a source to a printer-side apparatus. Combining them yields precisely the claimed printer: wireless circuitry (Ericsson), discovery (Ericsson), self-description via profile (Samsung), and reception of profile-based print data (Samsung + Canon). The combination uses each reference for its known purpose, in the same field (wireless printing), with a predictable result — the hallmark of §103 obviousness under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

Combination 2 — Samsung '718 + Xerox EP '619 + Ericsson '564: profile-based document output over a network

• Xerox EP 0 691 619 (1994) taught distributed electronic-document systems where documents are routed to output/print services — establishing that "print service" abstraction, service discovery, and job routing were old.
• Samsung '718 and Ericsson '564 add the driverless-profile and wireless-discovery mechanisms to that known document-service architecture.

Motivation. A POSITA implementing a wireless "walk-up printing" service (a goal the specification itself identifies as long-felt, citing airport/PDA scenarios) would naturally retrofit an existing document-output service (Xerox) with the wireless link layer (Ericsson) and the profile-exchange mechanism (Samsung) to eliminate driver installation. All three solve sub-problems of the same overall problem, with no teaching away.

Combination 3 — Kaufman '621 + Flexiworld '688/'692 + Ericsson '564: handheld-to-printer wireless output

• Kaufman US 6,034,621 demonstrated that handheld devices (PDAs) could exchange data with a host over a short-range wireless (infrared) link.
• Flexiworld US 6,467,688 (Sheet Fed Printer for a Hand Held Terminal) demonstrated a printer designed to receive output from a handheld.
• Ericsson '564 again supplies automatic short-range radio link setup; Canon '417 supplies the client→printer print-data path.

Motivation. The claimed "printing over air" from a mobile client to a printer is the direct combination of these known building blocks: handheld wireless data capability (Kaufman) + handheld-oriented printer (Flexiworld) + automatic link setup (Ericsson). The only arguably novel ordering — profile pushed after discovery, before print data — is the natural sequencing any engineer would adopt from Samsung '718, where the output device must identify its capabilities before the host can format data for it.

Combination 4 — Flexiworld family disclosures as an alternative evidentiary path

US 2002/0097418 A1 (Chang et al., "Raster Image Processor and Processing Method for Universal Data Output") and the other early Flexiworld filings (e.g., US 6,452,692; US 6,467,688) disclose output-device profiles, intermediate output data, and universal output without device-dependent drivers. Caveat: these are same-family/same-inventor applications sharing priority with the '071 patent, so whether they qualify as prior art depends on effective-filing-date determinations (e.g., under pre-AIA § 102(e)/103). If the '071 patent's claims are not entitled to the full 2001 priority date for some limitation (a live issue in the family's litigation), the earlier Flexiworld publications become available as prior art and — combined with Ericsson '564 — would render the wireless-discovery-and-profile claim scope obvious.

IV. Reasons a POSITA would have been motivated (summary)

1. Known, unsolved problem: mobile/walk-up printing without driver installation (the specification's own Background section concedes this was the problem; it does not concede non-obviousness, but the problem was well known).
2. Known building blocks: automatic short-range wireless link setup (Ericsson '564; Bluetooth/802.11 were standardizing); printer self-description via profiles (PPD files, IEEE 1284 device IDs, and Samsung '718); network print-data routing (Canon '417, Xerox EP '619); handheld wireless data exchange (Kaufman '621).
3. Predictable combination: placing the profile exchange at the discovery/selection stage, before print-data transmission, is the logical ordering that any protocol designer would choose — the client cannot format data for a device it has not yet identified.
4. Reasonable expectation of success: each component had been separately reduced to practice; the combination is additive, not transformative.
5. No teaching away apparent in the cited references; the art pointed toward, not away from, driverless, profile-driven wireless output.

V. Counter-considerations and caveats

• Secondary considerations: This patent family has been actively litigated (e.g., Texas Western District Court cases 6:21-cv-00143 and 1:21-cv-00066; Texas Southern 4:24-cv-02691; California Central 8:21-cv-00807; see the Unified Patents litigation links on the Google Patents page). Long-felt need, industry adoption (e.g., AirPrint-style driverless printing), and commercial success could be argued by the patentee. I have no evidence in the record before me quantifying those factors, so I cannot weigh them here.
• Claim-dependency: My analysis targets the representative scope from the abstract. Dependent claims reciting specific details (e.g., IEEE 802.11/Bluetooth support, specific profile contents, MRC encoding, security/authentication) would require reference-specific mapping; some of those details may not be as clearly present in the primary references, though Ericsson '564 (Bluetooth-era link setup) and the cited security-related references in the 525-item list (e.g., H04W12/06 authentication classifications) are available to close those gaps.
• Date/priority complexity: The '071 patent is a 2016 continuation claiming priority to 2001-01-19, with an anticipated expiration of 2022-01-18 and current status "Expired - Fee Related." Whether each reference qualifies as §102/§103 prior art depends on the effective filing date ultimately accorded to each claim — a fact-intensive inquiry not resolvable from the record here.
• Verification limits: I could not retrieve the full text of all 525 cited items. The analysis rests on the highest-confidence references (Ericsson '564, Samsung '718, Canon '417, Xerox EP '619, Kaufman '621, and the Flexiworld-family titles). For a definitive claim chart, the complete citation list (available on the Google Patents "Citations" tab and uspto.report) should be pulled in full.

Bottom line

The representative claim scope of US 10,140,071 — a wirelessly discoverable printer/printer controller that transmits part of its output-device profile to a discovering client and then receives print data based on that profile, such that a device-specific driver is unnecessary — is a straightforward, predictable combination of (i) automatic short-range wireless link establishment (Ericsson US 6,195,564), (ii) profile-based driverless output (Samsung US 9,164,718), and (iii) known client-to-printer print-data routing (Canon US 6,628,417; Xerox EP 0 691 619). A POSITA would have had a clear motivation, and a reasonable expectation of success, in combining them to solve the well-known walk-up/wireless printing problem. Under KSR's "predictable combination" analysis, these combinations present a substantial § 103 case against the independent-claim scope, subject to the claim-by-claim mapping and secondary-consideration evidence that would be developed in litigation.