US 10469456

US Patent 10,469,456 — Analyst Summary

Search scope note: I searched for the literal identifier "10469456" (and "10,469,456"). I found the patent on Google Patents/Justia/patentimages, a Unified Patents portal entry, and litigation docket references. I did not find any Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 docket or appeal involving this patent in the results returned — see the caveat at the end. I did not query a proprietary CAFC docket system directly; treat the CAFC finding as "nothing surfaced," not as an affirmative confirmation of no appeal.

1. Bibliographic data

Sources: Google Patents US10469456B1; patentimages PDF; Justia; Unified Patents.

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"A security system comprises a personal digital key (PDK), a reader and a computing device. The PDK is a portable, personal transceiver that includes a controller and one or more passwords or codes. The computing device includes a detection engine, vault storage and a set up module. The detection engine detect events relating to the access of any files and third-party systems by the computing device and receives information from the reader as to whether the PDK is present/linked. The detection engine controls whether a user is able to access any of the functionality provided by the computing device based upon whether the PDK is in communication with the reader or not. The present invention also includes a number of methods such as a method for initializing the security system, a method for setting up a computing device, and a method for controlling access to computing resources."

(The "detect"/"detects" grammar is as printed in the patent.)

Core architecture (description): security system 100 = PDK 102 + reader (RDC) 104 + computing device 106. The PDK wirelessly links to the reader (link 120, range up to ~5 m in one embodiment); the reader signals the computing device when the link is established or severed; the computing device's detection engine 760, vault storage 762 (encrypted, and/or accessible only by the detection engine) and set-up module 764 gate access to "protected items" 780 — storage devices, directories/files, and sign-on screens — via per-item set-up records. Sign-on credentials can be kept on the PDK; the reader is described as holding no runtime information. The disclosure also covers exit/entry rules with a duration timer triggered by PDK range transitions (FIGS. 11A–11E).

3. Independent claims — plain-language overview

The '456 patent has two independent claims: claim 1 (system) and claim 11 (method). Claims 2–10 depend from claim 1; claims 12–18 are numbered as dependents of claim 11 (I have verbatim text for claims 1–10 and the opening of claim 11, but not the full verbatim text of claims 12–18 — see uncertainty note).

Claim 1 (system) — verbatim

"1. A system comprising:
a computing device including a first secured computing resource, the computing device controlling access to the first secured computing resource based on security set up data stored in a dedicated, encrypted portion of a memory of the computing device,
wherein the security set up data defines how to use security data to access the first secured computing resource,
wherein the security set up data is based on one or more administrator defined options that allow an administrator to define one or more security actions implemented for the first secured computing resource that differ from one or more security actions implemented for a second secured computing resource of the computing device, the one or more security actions consistently implemented for the first secured computing resource across users of the first secured computing resource,
wherein the security data used to access the first secured computing resource as defined by the security set up data for the first secured computing resource is stored on a personal digital key,
wherein the security data is automatically received by the computing device and used to control access to the first secured computing resource subsequent to wireless communication between the personal digital key and a reader, the reader communicatively coupled to the computing device,
wherein the one or more security actions implemented for the first secured computing resource include a biometric confirmation of a second user associated with the personal digital key, and
wherein the security data is automatically received subsequent to biometric authentication using a biometric reader at the personal digital key."

Plain language: A computer holds a protected resource. What must happen to unlock it is defined by "security set up data" kept in a dedicated encrypted memory region. An administrator can set different security actions for different resources (resource A can be gated differently than resource B), and those actions apply uniformly to everyone who uses resource A. The actual credential/security data lives on a personal digital key (PDK) and is delivered automatically to the computer only after the PDK and a reader (wired to the computer) have wirelessly communicated — and, per the last two limitations, only after a biometric check of the PDK holder is performed on a biometric reader on the PDK itself.

Notable dependencies: claim 2 (terminate access when PDK and reader leave range), claim 3 (same, after a predetermined period), claim 4 (auto-fill username/password fields of a login screen from the security data), claims 5–6 (PDK memory; sign-on/set-up info, usernames, passwords), claim 7 (reader has transceiver + USB connector), claim 8 (reader has secure storage for back-up security info when the PDK is out of range), claims 9–10 (security data received automatically after an event, e.g., access to a storage device/directory/file, display of a login screen, clearing a screen saver, launching a window/application, or a time-based trigger).

Claim 11 (method) — available text (truncated at the end)

"11. A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, security data used to access a first secured computing resource of the computing device as defined by security set up data for the first secured computing resource, the security data received automatically and subsequent to wireless communication between a personal digital key and a reader subsequent to biometric authentication using a biometric reader at the personal digital key. …"

Plain language (as far as the text goes): the method counterpart to claim 1 — the computing device automatically receives the security data needed for a secured resource, per that resource's set-up data, after PDK↔reader wireless communication and after biometric authentication at the PDK's own biometric reader.

I am not able to give you the complete verbatim remainder of claim 11 or the text of claims 12–18; the retrievable excerpts cut off mid-claim. Do not treat the claim-11 summary above as a complete claim scope.

4. Important caution against conflating sibling Proxense patents

These related/continuation documents have different claims and should not be mixed with the '456 claims:

• US 9,251,332 (parent 12/340,501; pre-grant pub. US 20090165123) — 24 claims; independent claims included a "system for securing computing resources" (PDK + reader + computing device with a security system controlled by a link signal), a "security system" comprising detection engine + vault storage, and a "method for controlling access" (monitoring for an event, determining whether a PDK is within range).
• US 11,086,979 (App. 16/672,214) — 20 claims; independent claim 1 is directed to a computing device with processor, data storage device with protected items, vault storage storing set-up records, and a detection engine.
• US 20210365537 / US 20250165580 family members — claim language about an "assigned identifier" and authorizing a group of users.

If your analysis depends on the exact '456 claim set, use the '456 grant text, not these.

5. Litigation and enforcement posture (2025–2026)

• Proxense, LLC v. Intel Corporation, No. 7:25-cv-00531 (W.D. Tex., Midland Division, Judge Alan D. Albright), filed Nov. 14, 2025. US 10,469,456 is Exhibit B to the complaint; Exhibit H is captioned "456 Claim Chart." The '456 patent is asserted alongside U.S. 9,405,898, 8,433,919, 11,182,792, 11,551,222 and 9,990,628. Accused instrumentalities center on Intel PTT/CSME firmware TPM and security-engine functionality in Core/Evo/vPro platforms, with Windows Hello biometric flows. Sources: PacerMonitor case docket; RPX Insight; Ex Parte complaint analysis.
• Google Patents additionally lists a second Western District of Texas case, 6:24-cv-00302, and a "first worldwide family litigation" entry via Darts-ip. The Google Patents page does not name the 6:24-cv-00302 parties, and I did not verify them — treat that case number as unconfirmed.
• The broader Proxense portfolio is under heavy PTAB attack (Microsoft, Google, Apple IPRs; e.g., IPR2024-00846 on US 8,886,954, IPR2025-00074 on US 9,679,289), and Director-review commentary has referenced Proxense's "established expectations" as a discretionary-denial factor. I found no IPR petition and no CAFC appeal specifically directed at US 10,469,456.

6. Explicit uncertainties

1. Full claim set: I have verbatim claims 1–10 and only the opening of claim 11. Claims 11 (remainder) through 18 are unverified here. Claim 11 is independent with reasonable confidence based on numbering and parallel structure, but I cannot rule out a third independent claim without the full grant text.
2. Priority/expiration: "2007-12-19" and the 2028-12-19 expiration are the dates Google Patents lists; the terminal disclaimer on the face of the patent can affect enforceability of the full term relative to the parent, which I did not analyze.
3. CAFC 2026: My searches returned no CAFC docket or opinion for this patent. This is absence of evidence, not verified evidence of absence.
4. Publication-date discrepancy: the granted patent bears "Nov. 5, 2019"; some third-party databases (e.g., Golden's wiki page) paraphrase this as "November, 2019." The controlling date is the Nov. 5, 2019 grant date on the patent front page.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 10,469,456 across litigation-tracking sources.

Now let me confirm the LG case details and check for any other matters involving the '456.

Let me check the Hyundai/Kia action and other Proxense suits for any '456 assertions, plus current statuses.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 10,469,456

Bottom line: The '456 patent has been asserted in two known district-court litigations, both filed by its owner Proxense, LLC in the Western District of Texas — one against LG Electronics (2024) and one against Intel (2025). In both, the '456 is part of a multi-patent assertion, never the sole patent-in-suit. I found no CAFC appeal and no PTAB proceeding naming the '456 (consistent with the earlier PTAB section).

⚠️ Identifier discipline: Searches for the literal string "10469456" also returned a Dutch traffic fine (ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2024:1735), a UK Companies House gazette entry, and a Chinese enforcement case ID "10469456accb32413ccfc74609643cf0." None of these involve the '456 patent; I have excluded them.

Summary table

Case 1 — Proxense, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc. et al, 6:24-cv-00302

• Court/division: U.S. District Court, W.D. Tex., Waco Division; assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright.
• Filed: May 31, 2024 (complaint signature date on the RPX document copy is "May 31, 2024"; docket confirms Filed May 31, 2024).
• Defendants: styled "LG Electronics Inc. et al." — RPX lists 18 defendants. I did not retrieve the full defendant caption, so treat the affiliate list (e.g., LG Electronics U.S.A., LG Electronics Alabama) as unverified.
• Patents-in-suit (7): U.S. 8,352,730; 9,298,905; 10,698,989; 9,251,332; 10,469,456; 11,086,979; 8,036,152. The complaint expressly groups "the 332, 456, and 979 Patents" as the same "system and method for controlling access to computing resources" family.
• How the '456 is asserted: '456 is Exhibit 5 to the complaint. The complaint pleads direct infringement of at least claim 11 ("When utilized by a user for its intended and advertised purpose, the Accused Digital Key System performs/executes a method in accordance with claim 11") and a contributory-infringement count, alleging LG "contributes to direct infringement of at least claim 11 of the 456 Patent by providing the LG Accused Digital Key System for integration into a vehicle."
• Accused technology: LG's "Accused Digital Key System" — vehicle digital-key functionality tied to a phone, using UWB or BLE proximity detection, with security actions tied to user-defined security setup. (Note this is a vehicle accused product, i.e., a different theory than the Intel software/firmware theory.)
• Relief sought: judgment of infringement and willfulness, no less than a reasonable royalty, enhanced damages, fees, accounting, and permanent injunction.
• Status (current): STAYED. Docket entries show a Motion to Stay Case (Feb. 13, 2026) and an "Order on Motion to Stay Case" (Feb. 17, 2026); the case's flags are listed as AAC2, PATENT, STAYED.

⚠️ Anomaly in the complaint (flagged, not corrected): ¶174 pleads that "LG received constructive notice of the 456 Patent at least as early as August 10, 2016." The '456 patent did not issue until November 5, 2019, so a 2016 constructive-notice date is chronologically impossible for this patent. This appears to be a drafting/boilerplate error in the complaint (August 10, 2021 is the '979 issue date; March 26, 2016 is the '905 issue date). Do not rely on that date; it is reproduced here as it appears.

Sources: RPX litigation document 15711739 (complaint text); RPX Insight — Proxense v. LG; docket index 6:24-cv-00302; CourtListener 6:24-cv-00302.

Case 2 — Proxense, LLC v. Intel Corporation, 7:25-cv-00531

• Court/division: U.S. District Court, W.D. Tex., Midland Division (Google Patents: "Texas Western District Court"; RPX: W.D. Tex.); Judge Alan D. Albright per prior sections.
• Filed: November 14, 2025 (PacerMonitor docket and RPX both give 11/14/2025).
• Patents-in-suit (6): U.S. 9,405,898; 10,469,456; 8,433,919; 11,182,792; 11,551,222; 9,990,628.
• How the '456 is asserted: '456 is Exhibit B to the complaint; Exhibit H is captioned "456 Claim Chart." (The complaint references the claim-chart exhibits but, per one analysis, does not reproduce the charts in the narrative.)
• Accused technology: Intel processors/chipsets/platforms with Platform Trust Technology (PTT) and the Converged Security and Management Engine (CSME) — Intel Core (8th–14th Gen and beyond), Evo laptops, vPro platforms — including Windows Hello enrollment/provisioning flows. The complaint characterizes CSME as providing "dedicated encrypted partitions for storing security setup data and enforcing administrator-defined access control policies," which maps directly onto claim 1's "dedicated, encrypted portion of a memory" and "administrator defined options" limitations.
• Status (current): Uncertain/contradictory.
  • The previously generated litigation section states the Intel matter was "reported settled" (~Mar. 2026, secondary source).
  • One case tracker page still shows Status: Open ("Filed 11/14/25 … Status Open").
  • I could not verify a settlement or dismissal from a primary docket source. Treat "settled" as unconfirmed and check the docket before relying on it.

Sources: PacerMonitor — 7:25-cv-00531; RPX Insight — Proxense v. Intel; Ex Parte complaint analysis.

Matters I checked and excluded because the '456 is not asserted

This matters because Proxense's other suits (and the '456's siblings) are frequently conflated with the '456:

• Proxense v. Hyundai Motor Co. et al, 6:25-cv-00016 (W.D. Tex., filed Jan. 14, 2025, Chief Judge Alia Moses) — patents-in-suit are U.S. 10,073,960; 9,251,332; 9,450,956; 11,095,640. The '456 is NOT asserted (Exhibit list confirms: Exhibits 1–4 are '960, '332, '956, '640). Defendants: Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, Genesis Motor America, Kia Corporation, Kia America. Same CCC Digital Key technology theory, different patents.
• Proxense v. Samsung (6:21-cv-00210), v. Microsoft (6:23-cv-00319), v. Google (6:23-cv-00320), v. Apple (6:24-cv-00143) — these are the '730/'905/'954/'289/'960/'042 families; no evidence the '456 is asserted in them. (I could not complete a full confirmation of Samsung; treat that exclusion as lower-confidence than the others.)

Cross-checks on the negative findings

Enforcement-pattern note (relevant to the docket picture)

The '456 is a late-cycle enforcement asset in Proxense's campaign: it issued Nov. 5, 2019, and was not asserted until May 2024 (LG). Both assertions place it in the "older, asserted patent" posture that the PTAB's "settled expectations" doctrine disfavors for institution — as the Director confirmed in Intel Corp. v. Proxense LLC, IPR2025-00327/-00328/-00329, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. June 26, 2025), denying institution for Proxense patents "in force over nine years." That is directly relevant if a defendant contemplates an IPR on the '456. (Note: that Director decision involved different Proxense patents, not the '456.)

The LG case being stayed (Feb. 17, 2026) is the single most consequential new fact versus the prior sections — it materially changes the § 315(b) / IPR timing posture for that matter, and it is consistent with a case that may be headed toward resolution or transfer rather than trial.

Explicit uncertainties

1. Intel settlement: "Reported settled" comes from a secondary source; one tracker still reads "Open." Not verified.
2. LG defendant caption: "et al." — the full 18-defendant list is not confirmed here.
3. LG stay basis: I can see a Feb. 17, 2026 order granting a stay, but I did not read the order's rationale (arbitration? IPR? settlement talks?). This affects whether the stay is indefinite.
4. Darts-ip "first worldwide family litigation" entry is unresolved as to which family member/venue.
5. No negative is affirmatively proven — "no CAFC appeal" and "no other district court case" are the result of searches that returned nothing, which is not proof of nonexistence.

Verification path before relying on any of this: PACER for 6:24-cv-00302 and 7:25-cv-00531 (docket + Exhibit lists), CourtListener/RECAP, Unified Patents litigation caselist, and the RPX Insight portal.

I'll start from the canonical structured data (no PTAB proceedings on file) and then use web search to check for any IPR/PGR/CBM activity the ODP may not have indexed.

Let me run targeted searches on the specific patent number and on likely petitioners.

PTAB / AIA Trial Proceedings — U.S. Patent No. 10,469,456 B1

Canonical source check: The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block supplied with this task — the USPTO Open Data Portal's AIA-trial list for this patent — returns no proceedings. I independently searched for any IPR/PGR/CBM on the '456 patent and found none. What I did find is a large volume of Proxense PTAB activity on other patents in the same portfolio (flagged below so it is not mistaken for activity on the '456).

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on U.S. 10,469,456: 0. Breakdown: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0.

Bottom line for a defendant: The '456 patent is a PTAB virgin — no claim of it has ever been construed, challenged, or cancelled in an AIA trial, and no petitioner has accrued § 315(e)(2) estoppel against it. Its claims are all live and untested. The defensive posture is not "hardened by surviving IPRs" (it has survived nothing) and not "claims cancelled" (there is no FWD to cite). It is instead a clean slate that is becoming harder to attack: the patent issued 2019-11-05 and is now being asserted, which places it squarely inside the window where Director-level discretionary denial and the "settled expectations" doctrine have been killing petitions. A defendant must weigh a first-ever IPR against the current ~low-20s%–40s% institution environment.

No proceedings on file — stated plainly

There is no Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review naming U.S. 10,469,456 as the challenged patent. Consequently there are no judge panels, institution decisions, Final Written Decisions, settlements, or Federal Circuit appeals to report for this patent. I am not able to provide the per-proceeding fields requested (panel, grounds, claim-level disposition) because no such proceeding exists in the sources available to me. I will not invent proceeding numbers or outcomes.

Verification path for counsel (do this before relying on the negative):

• USPTO PTAB End-to-End / PTAB Data: https://ptab.uspto.gov/ and https://ptabdata.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 10,469,456).
• The '456's Google Patents litigation record (reproduced in the full text above) lists only district-court matters (W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00531 and 6:24-cv-00302) — it does not list any PTAB proceeding, consistent with the empty ODP list.

Related portfolio / family proceedings (context only — these are NOT the '456)

Proxense's portfolio is under sustained attack; the '456 is the exception. To be explicit about what these proceedings are and are not:

None of the above names 10,469,456. I recommend treating this table strictly as portfolio context, not as precedent about the '456's validity.

Strategic summary

Claim status of the '456. Every claim of U.S. 10,469,456 is UNTESTED — none canceled, none sustained, none construed by the Board. (For reference, the '456 issued with a terminal disclaimer and carries the family's 2007-12-19 priority date, so its effective scope tracks the same disclosure as siblings U.S. 9,251,332, U.S. 11,086,979, and U.S. 12,554,825.)

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR/PGR was ever instituted against the '456, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to any party as to this patent. Any defendant that has not yet been served has the full universe of § 102/§ 103 art available (patents and printed publications only — IPR cannot reach § 101 or § 112 grounds). The only constraints are procedural: the one-year § 315(b) bar from service of an infringement complaint, and the reality of current discretionary-denial practice. Note the timing exposure — the '456 was asserted against LG Electronics in a complaint filed 2024-05-31 (6:24-cv-00302) and against Intel in a complaint filed 2025-11-14 (7:25-cv-00531, reported settled). If LG was served mid-2024, its § 315(b) window appears to have closed; Intel's matter is reportedly settled. That leaves newly served defendants as the realistic candidates to bring a first IPR on this patent.

Pattern signals.

• Same-petitioner repetition: Microsoft, Apple, and Google are each running multi-patent IPR campaigns against the Proxense portfolio, and Intel filed a three-petition batch (IPR2025-00327/-328/-329) — but all against other Proxense patents. No petitioner has singled out the '456.
• Defensive aggregator: Unified Patents is in the chain, but on a sibling, not the '456. Its PATROLL crowdsourcing contest ran on U.S. 9,251,332 — titled "Personal Digital Keys" and described with the identical "security system and method for controlling access to computing resources" framing, priority 2007-12-19, asserted against Hyundai and LG (https://patroll.unifiedpatents.com/contests/cAqXbuWN6CDznWaZT; award announced 2025-10-23). A $2,000 prior-art bounty on the sibling is a signal the family is targeted; the '456 is the obvious next candidate.
• Patent owner behavior: Proxense has defended aggressively and has, where necessary, taken adverse judgment as a tactical matter (the '730 patent's claims 1–17 were cancelled by adverse judgment rather than decided on the merits).

The most important cross-proceeding inference: the family's older/earlier-issued patents have been the battleground because they share the 2007-12-19 priority and disclosure. A challenger who wants to neuter the '456 may rationally attack the shared-disclosure siblings first — but an IPR on a sibling creates no estoppel and no cancellation as to the '456 itself. The '456 must be challenged on its own.

One contradiction to flag with the earlier sections: The previously generated PTAB/litigation discussion correctly concluded "No confirmed PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR) specifically on the '456 patent was located," and I confirm that. There is no inconsistency.

Recommended next steps

Because no PTAB proceeding exists, there is no FWD to cite and no disposition to quote. The absence is itself the answer, and it is a two-edged one:

1. Confirm the negative. Pull the PTAB E2E / PTAB Data record for 10,469,456 (https://ptabdata.uspto.gov/) immediately before you rely on "no proceedings." The record is the only authority for the claim; my search and the ODP block agree, but a first-instance docket pull is prudent.

2. If you are a newly served defendant, you have a one-year § 315(b) clock and, as of today, a clean, non-estopped ground set. But calibrate: institution rates have collapsed (all-time-low 57 IPR petitions in Q2 2026; ~19.4%–21.5% monthly lows in late 2025/early 2026, with trailing-12-month rates ~27% against NPE-owned patents), and the "settled expectations" doctrine plus Director-controlled institution now disfavor older, asserted patents (the Intel v. Proxense denials and the Magnolia/Tesla line). The '456 issued 2019 and is being asserted, so expect a discretionary-denial fight. Two mitigating levers exist per current Director guidance: show examiner material error, or show the prior art was effectively overlooked during prosecution.

3. If the patent is asserted against you and you are already past the § 315(b) window (e.g., LG, if served mid-2024), IPR may be unavailable; consider ex parte reexamination, which is not subject to § 315(b) and has surged to an all-time-high 336 requests in Q2 2026. That is the realistic alternative here and is consistent with what Proxense's own opponents are doing on the sibling patents (see reexams 90/015,052–054).

4. Track the family. Watch U.S. 9,251,332 (Unified PATROLL target), U.S. 11,086,979, and U.S. 12,554,825 — they share the '456's specification. If a petitioner invalidates a shared disclosure and Proxense responds with claim amendments, that affects the '456's effective footing even though the '456 itself is untouched.

If you'd like, I can attempt to pull the LG (6:24-cv-00302) and Intel (7:25-cv-00531) complaints' exhibit lists to verify exact service dates and confirm whether the one-year § 315(b) window for the '456 has closed for the known defendants — that is the single fact that most changes the defensive calculus on this patent.

I'll research the assignment record for US 10,469,456 across USPTO Assignment Center, Google Patents legal events, and related sources.

I found a sibling patent's assignment record. Now let me find the specific reel/frame for the '456 and check for any post-issuance assignments.

Let me try to pin down the specific reel/frame and check for any post-2016 transfers.

Ownership Chain & Assignment Record — US Patent 10,469,456 B1

Source discipline / lead caveat: I searched USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov), Google Patents legal events, Justia, and RPX/Unified Patents. I was unable to retrieve the itemized Assignment Center "Patent Assignment Abstract of Title" for patent 10,469,456 itself — the exact reel/frame, execution date, and recorded correspondent for the '456 did not surface in the results returned to me. What I did retrieve is (a) Google Patents' legal-events entry for the '456, and (b) the full assignment abstract for a sibling Proxense patent (US 9,298,905) that shares the same assignor, assignee, address, and prosecution firm. I present the sibling record only as a labeled proxy, and I flag every field I could not confirm for the '456 directly. I have not fabricated a reel/frame.

Inventors

Pattern notes.

• The '456 has a single inventor, who is also the founder/principal of the assignee company. This is the opposite of the classic "inventors departed the original assignee within 12 months" fire-sale precursor — there is no inventor exodus signal here because there is only the founder.
• Because the sole inventor is the assignor and the founder of the assignee, the assignment is a standard founder-to-company transfer, not an arm's-length sale.
• The '456 is a continuation (App. 14/973,565, filed 2015-12-17) of App. 12/340,501 (filed 2008-12-19 → US 9,251,332), which claims provisional 61/015,110 ("ProxAccess," filed 2007-12-19). Same sole inventor across the chain.
• ⚠️ Source discrepancy to flag, not corrected: contemporaneous news says Proxense was founded in 2001 (Bend Bulletin, 2008) in one account and 2005 (Bend Bulletin, 2011) in another. Both are reproduced as printed; the founding year is not material to the assignment chain but affects the "employer at filing" narrative.

Original assignee

PROXENSE, LLC — recorded address 689 NW Stonepine Drive, Bend, Oregon 97701 (address taken from sibling reel 034843/0145; not independently confirmed for the '456 reel).

• Primary line of business: proximity-based wireless authentication built on the "Personal Digital Key" (PDK) — a small RF fob/badge that links to a reader and unlocks applications. Documented commercial thrusts: (i) healthcare single-sign-on — automatically launching medical records when an authorized clinician's badge approached a workstation and ending the session when they walked away (news reports of deployments at Central Oregon ENT and a pilot at Bend Memorial Clinic, ~2010–2011); and (ii) a casino asset-tracking deal with Bally Technologies (reported 2008). ~35 employees as of 2011, with engineering in Florida.
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes, historically. The healthcare workstation auto-logon system is squarely within the '456's claimed subject matter (access to a secured computing resource controlled by security set-up data, granted automatically after PDK↔reader wireless communication). This is documented in contemporaneous press, not merely in the patent.
• Current status: Operating company that has transitioned to a licensing/assertion posture. By 2021–2026 Proxense is a serial patent plaintiff (Samsung 2021; Microsoft and Google 2023; Apple 2024; LG 2024; Hyundai/Kia 2025; Intel 2025), which is inconsistent with an active product business. I found no evidence of bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition of Proxense. Its litigation targets are platform/consumer- electronics companies, not healthcare-IT competitors — the classic posture of an entity monetizing patents rather than defending a product market.

Assignment timeline

⚠️ Reel/frame and execution date for the '456 NOT RETRIEVED. The entry below is corroborated by Google Patents' legal-events record for the '456 ("2016-01-14 — Assigned to PROXENSE, LLC … Assignors: GIOBBI, JOHN J."), but I could not pull the matching Assignment Center abstract (reel/frame, execution date, correspondent) for this patent number. Values marked (proxy) come from the sister patent US 9,298,905 and are labeled as such; do not treat them as the '456's own recorded data.

• Executed date: not retrieved / recorded 2016-01-14 — Reel not retrieved/Frame not retrieved (the '456 abstract was not returned; sibling US 9,298,905 was recorded at Reel 034843/0145, recorded 2015-01-29 — proxy only)
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)
  • Assignor: GIOBBI, JOHN J.
  • Assignee: PROXENSE, LLC, 689 NW Stonepine Drive, Bend, Oregon 97701 (address proxy from sibling)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved for this reel. For context: the '456's attorney/agent of record on the patent face is Patent Law Works LLP (Salt Lake City, UT). On sibling reel 034843/0145, the recorded correspondent is PAIGE M. ALSBURY, 201 S. Main Street, Suite 250, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 — i.e., the same Salt Lake City firm cluster that prosecutes this family. Because I could only confirm one instance of this correspondent (the sibling), I do not treat it as a "repeat correspondent" finding for the '456; recurrence within this chain is unverified.
  • Context: Founder-to-company housekeeping assignment of the continuation application, recorded roughly one month after the 2015-12-17 filing. Consistent with pre-issuance perfection of title and with the common-ownership requirement for the terminal disclaimer on the '456 (37 C.F.R. § 1.321(b) requires the disclaimed application and the reference application to be commonly owned) — not a fire-sale, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter.

No further assignments were located. No post-issuance transfer, no security interest, no name change, no release, no transfer to an IP-holding or licensing subsidiary. Google Patents lists Proxense, LLC as the current assignee, and the patent's own litigation exhibits (LG Exhibit 5; Intel Exhibit B/Exhibit H) are brought in Proxense's name, consistent with Proxense still being the record owner as of 2025–2026.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10469456
    2001 : Proxense founded by Giobbi
    2007 : Priority provisional filed
    2008 : Parent application filed
    2015 : Continuation application filed
    2016 : Giobbi assigns to Proxense LLC
    2019 : Patent issued
    2021 : First Proxense patent suit
    2024 : 456 asserted against LG
    2025 : 456 asserted against Intel

(Founding year shown as 2001 per the 2008 Bend Bulletin account; an alternate 2005 account exists — see Inventors note.)

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

Justification. The recorded chain is clean: a single founder-to-company assignment (Giobbi → Proxense, LLC, recorded 2016-01-14, per Google Patents legal events for the '456; reel/frame not retrieved), with no shell-entity transfer, no cascading LLCs, no pre-litigation transfer, no bankruptcy sale, and no defensive-aggregator terminus. That rules out the "transactional" NPE signals (#1, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8). The NPE call therefore rests on one strong signal — #2, known asserter: Proxense, the unchanged owner of the '456, is a documented high-frequency patent plaintiff tracked by RPX and targeted by Unified Patents' PATROLL program, and it asserts the '456 against platform/consumer-electronics defendants (LG 2024; Intel 2025) rather than against healthcare-IT competitors of its former product line. Proxense did originally ship a claim-embodying product, so this is best characterized as an operating company converted to a licensing/assertion entity — which is why I do not reach "NPE — high confidence" (that would require 2+ strong signals, and the assignment record itself supplies only one).

⚠️ What would move this verdict to high confidence: (a) confirmation of the '456's recorded correspondent showing recurrence with the sibling's Paige M. Alsbury / Patent Law Works entries (signal #3), or (b) documentary evidence that Proxense ceased all product operations and licenses only. Neither is established on the current record.

Verification path

• USPTO Assignment Center (search by patent number 10469456): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — pull the "Patent Assignment Abstract of Title" to obtain the exact reel/frame, execution date, and correspondent for the '456 (the fields I could not retrieve).
• Legacy Assignment Search UI: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events (corroborates the 2016-01-14 Proxense recording): https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10469456B1](/patent/US10469456B1)/en
• Sibling corroboration (proxy used above): US 9,298,905 Abstract of Title, Reel/Frame 034843/0145, recorded 2015-01-29, Assignor Giobbi, Assignee Proxense LLC, Correspondent Paige M. Alsbury (reproduced in IPR2024-00846 Exhibit 1022).
• RPX Insight (Proxense as high-frequency plaintiff): https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txwdce-1172875230-proxense-v-intel
• Unified Patents PATROLL (Proxense family target): https://patroll.unifiedpatents.com/contests/cAqXbuWN6CDznWaZT

Uncertainties: (1) '456 reel/frame/execution date/correspondent not retrieved — the central gap; (2) sibling-derived assignee address and correspondent are proxies, not the '456's own record; (3) Proxense's current operating status (product vs. licensing-only) is inferred from press and litigation behavior, not from a corporate filing; (4) founding-year discrepancy (2001 vs. 2005) as printed in the two news accounts.

I'll research the specific cited prior art for US 10,469,456. Let me pull the front-page references (patent citations) from authoritative sources.

Let me pull the front-page "References Cited" (US patent citations) for this specific patent from Justia and the USPTO/patentimages record.

I have the patent document. Let me now retrieve the actual front-page "(56) References Cited" list from the granted-patent PDF (patentimages), which is the authoritative source for cited prior art.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 10,469,456 B1

⚠️ Lead limitation (read first)

I must be transparent about a material gap, because it directly affects the reliability of any "§102" mapping below.

Searches for the literal string "10469456" against USPTO-source material did not return the granted patent's own front-page "(56) References Cited" table verbatim. What the USPTO/patentimages records returned for that number were:

• The Google Patents full text of US 10,469,456 B1 (specification + claims) — the "(56)" section was not rendered in the retrieved content.
• A Justia record for patent # 10,469,456 containing a table of U.S. patent-application publications (list reproduced in §2A below).
• The Unified Patents portal page for US-10469456-B1, which shows a "Patent Art (191)" set — this is an algorithmically generated neighbor set, not the applicant's/examiner's cited references (see §3 for the critical distinction).

I did not obtain an itemized, image-accurate copy of the (56) block (U.S. Patent Documents / Foreign Patent Documents / Other Publications) as printed on the '456 front page. I am therefore not going to present a fabricated citation list. Where I give reference lists below, I label exactly which document they came from.

Same-number collisions noticed and excluded (per your "do not auto-correct / do not return similar numbers" rule): a Dutch traffic-fine judgment (ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2024:1735) and a Laoag City, Philippines bid notice both quote budget/reference number "10469456"; the look-alike PDF US10464976.pdf (US 10,464,976) and US 10,469,476 appeared in results and are different patents — I have not treated any of these as the '456 patent.

1. What the '456 patent is, for §102 framing

• Title/inventor/assignee: "Security system and method for controlling access to computing resources"; John J. Giobbi; Proxense, LLC.
• Prosecution chain matters for art dates: App. 14/973,565, filed Dec 17, 2015; a continuation of Ser. No. 12/340,501, filed Dec 19, 2008 (issued as US 9,251,332); which claims benefit of provisional 61/015,110, "ProxAccess," filed Dec 19, 2007.
• Effective filing date: the art-qualifying date is the Dec 19, 2007 provisional date (Google Patents lists 2007-12-19). That is the date against which §102(a)/(b) art must pre-date, and §102(e)/(a)(2) art must have an earlier effective date than.
• Independent claims: claim 1 (system) and claim 11 (method); claims 2–10 depend from 1; 12–18 depend from 11.

Claim 1's load-bearing limitations (the ones that drive the §102 analysis):

L6–L7 (biometric sensor resident on the token itself, i.e., at the PDK) are the narrowest limitations and are the crux for this family — this is the same limitation set Proxense is asserting against Windows Hello (see the previously generated litigation section).

2. References appearing in the US 10,469,456 record

2A. U.S. patent-application publications in the Justia record for patent 10,469,456

The following were retrieved from the Justia page for patent 10469456 (format: pub. no. | date | name). Caveat: across USPTO/IP, these tables interleave (56) cited-application-publications with "Cited By" forward citations; I could not cleanly separate the two from the retrieved text, so treat the list as "publications appearing on the '456 record," not as a confirmed, examiner-authorized (56) list.

Observation worth flagging: the run is almost entirely 2008–2009 publications. For a continuation filed in Dec 2015, that is consistent with the '456 having carried forward the parent's (12/340,501, filed Dec 2008) IDS of record rather than building a fresh 2015-era list. If correct, the controlling "prior art date" behavior is even more important: the 2008–2009 publications you see here would be §102(a)(2)/§102(e)-type art (their own effective filing dates pre-dating 2007-12-19, or published before the Dec 19, 2008 parent filing), which makes them fully available against claim 1. I have not verified each publication's own priority date to confirm which sub-section of §102 applies — that verification is required before relying on any single item for anticipation.

2B. Foreign Patent Documents & Other Publications (family-level)

• Foreign documents (JP/EP/WO) appear on sibling-family front pages (JP 10-49604; WO 00/62505 are among the earliest). I could not confirm which of these (if any) are printed on the '456's own (56) block versus a sibling's.
• Non-patent literature retrieved from the family includes a Micronas/Thomson Multimedia press item on a copy-protection system (dated Jan 8, 2002). Again, this appears in a sibling (US 11,086,979) rather than being confirmed on the '456.

2C. Family IDS references retrieved from the continuation sibling (US 11,086,979) — labeled PROXY

Because the '456 is in the same specification family as US 11,086,979 (App. 16/672,214, itself a continuation in this chain) and US 10,943,471 (Giobbi et al.), I retrieved IDs that start, verbatim, with the following early entries. These come from those siblings' front pages, not from the '456 — listed only so you can see the shape of the family's (~hundreds-item) cited corpus:

3,665,313 A  5/1972  Trent
3,739,329 A  6/1973  Lester
3,761,883 A  9/1973  Alvarez et al.
3,906,166 A  9/1975  Cooper et al.
4,101,873 A  7/1978  Anderson et al.
4,430,705 A  2/1984  Cannavino et al.
...
8,448,858 B1 5/2013  Kundu et al.
8,508,336 B2 8/2013  Giobbi et al.
8,918,854 B1 12/2014 Giobbi
9,405,898 B2 8/2016  Giobbi
9,418,205 B2 8/2016  Giobbi
9,542,542 B2 1/2017  Giobbi et al.
9,892,250 B2 2/2018  Giobbi
2002/0080969 A1 6/2002 Giobbi

(Note the heavy self-citation to Giobbi/Proxense — including US 9,405,898, which is one of the patents Proxense asserts alongside the '456 against Intel. A reference that is the applicant's own earlier work cannot be §102(b) art against the applicant only if it post-dates priority; older Giobbi items, e.g., 2002/0080969, would be ordinary art.)

3. Unified Patents "Patent Art (191)" — relevant neighbors, NOT cited references

The portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-10469456-B1 page returned a "Patent Art (191)" gallery. This is Unified's algorithmic prior-art surfacing, not the '456's (56) list. I flag this because it is exactly the kind of list that gets mislabeled as "the patent's prior art." The probative neighbors surfaced there, with dates and (brief) subject matter, were:

4. §102 vs. §103 — realistic assessment

Legal framing: §102 anticipation requires one reference disclosing every limitation of a claim, arranged as in the claim. Given claim 1's specific combination — (i) dedicated/encrypted setup memory, (ii) admin-defined per-resource actions applied consistently across users (L3), plus (iii) biometric confirmation at the PDK itself (L7) — I do not have a single retrieved reference that plausibly discloses all elements. The honest characterization is:

No retrieved reference is a strong, complete §102 anticipation of claim 1 as issued. The reference activity is better characterized as §103 obviousness terrain around the pre-2007 proximity/PDK + biometric art, with the novelty of claim 1 concentrated in the combination of (a) the policy/administrative model in L3 and (b) the token-resident biometric in L7.

What each reference class can and cannot do:

• L1–L2 (encrypted setup data controlling access): well-trodden by the token/secure-module art (US 6,249,869; US 6,279,111). These support §103 against the distribution/policy limitations but do not, standing alone, meet the "dedicated encrypted portion" + administrator-policy interaction.
• L3 (per-resource, admin-defined, cross-user consistent actions): the closest retrieved item is US 7,058,806 (Ericsson, leveled access control) and the token-model art (US 6,279,111). Neither, as retrieved, is confirmed to disclose administrator-defined, per-resource, consistent-across-users actions for secured computing resources on the local device — this is the limitation I'd expect to carry the claim.
• L4–L5 (security data on a PDK; auto-received after PDK↔reader wireless link): this is the core Proxense-claimed concept and is squarely what the Giobbi self-citations and the parent US 9,251,332 disclose — i.e., the applicant's own earlier filings are the most §102-proximate art against L4/L5. (This is also the mechanism of the "terminal disclaimer" noted on the front page — a term-limiting relationship to the parent.)
• L6–L7 (biometric at the PDK / confirmation of the keyholder): the nearest retrieved art is US 2006/0005136 A1 (HP, biometric security) and US 2007/0205861 A1 (Rockwell, RFID + biometric). Critically, as surfaced, these pair a biometric with a reader/area/device, not necessarily with a biometric reader physically at the portable key that then triggers delivery of the security data. That placement is the strongest candidate for distinguishing claim 1.

Bottom line for §102: if Proxense's claim 1 survives validity challenges, it will be on L6/L7 (biometric authentication performed at the personal digital key as the precondition to automatic delivery of the security data) in combination with L3 (administrator-defined, resource-differentiated, cross-user-consistent actions). No reference I retrieved teaches that entire arrangement; expect challenges to be §103 combinations, not clean §102 anticipations.

5. Explicit uncertainties and what would resolve them

1. I could not retrieve the verbatim (56) block of US 10,469,456 B1 (U.S. Patent Documents / Foreign / Other Publications as printed). Everything in §2B–§3 is either a proxy from a sibling patent (US 11,086,979 / US 10,943,471) or an algorithmic neighbor set (Unified Patents), and is labeled as such. Do not treat §3 as the patent's own citations.
2. Cited-vs-citing ambiguity in §2A: the Justia table interleaves potentially forward ("Cited By") citations with (56) publications; I could not cleanly separate them.
3. §102 subsection and art dates for the 2008–2009 publications require each item's own priority/filing date to place it correctly under §102(a)(1)/(a)(2). Not verified here.
4. No item-by-item, full-text §102 element chart was performed — that requires each reference's complete specification, which the retrieved snippets did not provide for the small-format items (e.g., Balazs, Fischer, Highley, Handy).

Fastest way to close the gaps (authoritative sources):

• The '456's own file wrapper via USPTO Patent Center / Global Dossier for App. 14/973,565 — yields the exact PTO-892 / IDS (SB/08a) lists and form the true "(56)."
• The patentimages PDF .../US10469456.pdf front page for the printed (56) block.
• US 9,251,332 (parent 12/340,501) file wrapper, since the '456's cited corpus appears inherited from it.

If you can supply or let me pull the '456's actual SB/08a/IDS and PTO-892, I will produce the full element-by-element §102 chart against claims 1–18.

I'll start by noting a discrepancy and gathering ground-truth prior art, since no "Prior Art section" was actually included in the material you provided.

Let me pull the actual front-page reference list and check for prior-art-specific material.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,469,456 B1

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 | Prepared April 26, 2026

0. Threshold problem: the "Prior Art section" was not supplied

Contradiction/missing-input flag. Your instruction says to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page," but no Prior Art section was included in the materials passed to me (I received the patent text, the prior "Patent summary," and the prior "Litigation summary" — nothing else). I therefore did the following instead, and I label confidence throughout:

• I pulled the actual "References Cited" list printed on the '456 front page (partially retrievable) and cross-checked the family/inventor disclosures.
• I built candidate grounds from (i) art cited on the face of the '456 patent, (ii) the applications the '456 specification itself incorporates by reference, and (iii) well-known printed publications/standards/prior systems predating the critical date.

I could retrieve only a partial front-page list. Everything below marked "verify" must be confirmed against the granted patent's paper copy or a PAIR/Global Dossier "References Cited" export before it is relied on in a filing.

1. The date problem drives everything

Two levers an obviousness challenger must litigate first:

1. Written-description / priority attack (pre‑AIA § 112 ¶1 or AIA § 112(a)). If the '456 specification contains matter added relative to the 12/340,501 disclosure (e.g., the "assigned ID," the vault-on-PDK embodiments, the "analytics data" language, or the ubiquitous "biometric" language), claims relying on that matter may get a 2015‑12‑17 effective filing date. That would simultaneously (a) flip the case to AIA § 102/103 and (b) make the entire Proxense patent family (issued 2011–2013; published 2007–2009) full § 102(a)(1) prior art. This single issue is worth more than any reference combination below.
2. § 102(e)/§ 102(a)(2) "by another" gate. The three applications the '456 spec incorporates by reference — App. 11/620,581 ("Wireless Network Synchronization of Cells and Client Devices on a Network," filed Jan. 5, 2007), App. 11/744,831 ("Two‑Level Authentication For Secure Transactions," filed May 5, 2007), and App. 11/744,832 ("Personal Digital Key Initialization And Registration For Secure Transactions," filed May 5, 2007) — all filed before 2007‑12‑19, but 18‑month publication would fall after 2007‑12‑19, so they are § 102(e)-only art. Pre‑AIA § 102(e) requires the disclosure be "by another" (different inventive entity). If the inventive entity is Giobbi alone on both sides, these references are disqualified — which is why the strongest grounds below are built on third‑party art and the family art is used only as a secondary/"background" reference.

Also note: the '456 specification's internal citation to "U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/292,330, filed … Nov. 30, 2005" (PDK and Receiver/Decoder Circuit) is per your rule reproduced literally; a 12/xxx serial in Nov. 2005 is chronologically improbable and the number may in fact be 11/292,330 (the "Personal digital key and receiver/decoder circuit system and method" application, which issued as US 8,073,950). I am not auto‑correcting it — but the discrepancy should be resolved because the correct application is potentially § 102(e) art ("verify").

Important negative: Windows Hello, FIDO/FIDO2, Intel PTT/CSME, TPM 2.0 and the CCC "Digital Key" standard are all post‑2007. They are the infringement story, not the validity story. Do not let the litigation summary contaminate this § 103 analysis; none of those can be prior art against a 2007 priority date.

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

A person with a B.S. in EE/CS (or equivalent) and 2–4 years of experience in computer access control, smart cards/tokens, wireless (RFID/Bluetooth) authentication, and operating‑system credential management, or an M.S. with ~1 year. This is a mature, convergent art: by 2007 the design space for "proximity token + host + policy engine" was well explored, which matters enormously under KSR.

3. Claim 1 — limitation‑by‑limitation mapping (candidate art)

Dependents: cl. 2–3 (terminate on out‑of‑range / after a period) → Postlewaite/Theimer; cl. 4 (auto‑fill login fields) → commercial single sign‑on products (IBM Tivoli Access Manager SSO, 1996; Novell SecureLogin, 2003), which store credentials in encrypted vaults and auto‑populate login forms (high confidence); cl. 5–6 (PDK memory with sign‑on/username/password) → PDK/Giobbi art; cl. 7 (USB connector on the reader) → trivial, USB HID class; cl. 8 (reader secure storage for back‑up passwords when PDK out of range) → routine design choice (the '456 spec itself frames it as a back‑up to biometrics); cl. 9–10 (event‑triggered receipt: device/dir/file access, login screen, clearing a screen saver, launching a window/app, timer) → Windows secure screen saver / Winlogon desktop lock (NT 4.0/2000) and the '456 spec's own FIG. 11 event taxonomy, which maps onto standard OS session events.

4. Proposed grounds of rejection

Ground 1 (primary): Postlewaite '891 + Theimer '050 + Lapsley '966 + RBAC (Sandhu/Ferraiolo‑Kuhn) + Windows Credential Manager/Group Policy

• What each supplies. Postlewaite: wireless token automatically granting host‑computer access. Theimer: the "automatic, no‑user‑action, location‑triggered" access paradigm. Lapsley: biometric verification bound to a portable token, with the code released to the host only after the biometric check. RBAC/Group Policy: administrator‑defined, per‑resource security actions applied uniformly to a class of users. Credential Manager/DPAPI: the encrypted, dedicated credential store.
• Motivation. All five elements are complementary features of a single known problem — "convenient, hands‑free, policy‑governed computer access." A PHOSITA in 2007 reading Postlewaite would immediately look to (a) an encrypted credential store to hold what the token releases, (b) an enterprise policy layer to specify what is protected on which machine, and (c) a biometric gate to fix the known security hole of a lost/stolen proximity token. Each reference improves a different, non‑overlapping aspect with no change in the others' principle of operation (In re Mouttet‑style rationale).
• Result. Every limitation of claim 1, including the encrypted‑store and per‑resource administrator‑policy limitations, is met.

Ground 2: Postlewaite/Theimer + Lapsley + a portable biometric token (fingerprint sensor on the fob)

• What it adds. This ground targets the last two limitations directly: putting the biometric enrollment/verification on the token itself, so the "security data" is released only after a local match on the token.
• Motivation (the strongest KSR point). The '456 specification itself discloses the biometric reader as being on "the PDK 102, the reader 104 or other device connected to the computing device 106" (FIG. 10, region 1006). A PHOSITA choosing among three identified locations for a sensor is exercising "a finite number of identified, predictable solutions" — KSR at 421. Locating a sensor on the token simply avoids the extra hardware/USB dongle needed at the host, a predictable, result‑effective variation without a new function (In re Harza; In re Kuhle). The '456's own claim chart uses the same limitation against Windows Hello — a design the industry reached independently.

Ground 3: Giobbi 11/744,831 ("Two‑Level Authentication") + Giobbi 11/744,832 ("PDK Initialization/Registration") + RBAC/Group Policy

• What it supplies. Two‑level authentication — possession of the token and biometric verification — plus a PDK storing identity/registration data and a receiver‑decoder circuit wired to a host. Add the RBAC reference for the administrator/policy layer.
• Motivation. These are the same inventor's own expressed solution to exactly the problem claim 1 recites; the '456 spec incorporates them as the PDK/RDC subsystem. A PHOSITA seeking to generalize the PDK from a single‑application token to a multi‑resource, policy‑governed host would combine them with a conventional directory policy engine — a predictable, market‑driven combination (KSR).
• Caveat. Because of the "by another" gate discussed in § 1, this ground only works if (a) the inventive entities differ (e.g., Giobbi + Brown vs. Giobbi alone), or (b) the '456 is denied its 2007 priority date. Verify the inventorship of each family member before pleading this ground.

Ground 4 (ODP‑flavored): the '456 over its own parent US 9,251,332

• See § 6. If a terminal disclaimer was filed to overcome an obviousness‑type double‑patenting rejection over the '332 patent, the examiner has already made a § 103‑type finding that the '456 claims are not patentably distinct from the '332 claims. That finding is not itself a § 103 rejection, but it is powerful intrinsic evidence that the marginal differences are obvious.

5. KSR rationales to plead expressly

1. Finite number of identified, predictable solutions — biometric reader location (PDK / reader / host), and vault location (host / PDK) are both enumerated in the disclosure itself.
2. Combination of familiar elements, each performing its known function, yielding predictable results — proximity token (Postlewaite) + encrypted credential store + policy engine + biometric gate.
3. Design incentive / market force — enterprise IT needs per‑resource, uniform‑across‑users enforcement (Group Policy, CAC/FIPS 201); consumers need hands‑free convenience; both point the same direction.
4. Known work in one field applied to a related field — smart‑card/PIV biometrics → consumer PC access.
5. Negative limitation check — nothing in the cited art teaches away. The '456 spec's own criticism ("prior art … requires [placement] within 10 or less inches") concerns communication range, not the claimed combination, and a criticism of a reason to combine must be specific to the claimed invention (In re Fulton).

6. Where the real fight is (and the examiner's own signal)

The '456 grant date (2019) and the infringement theory (claims 11 asserted against Intel vPro/CSME per the complaint analysis) tell you the point of novelty is not the proximity token, the encrypted vault, or auto‑fill — those are all squarely in the cited art. It is:

• "administrator defined options … that differ from … a second secured computing resource … consistently implemented for the first secured computing resource across users" (claim 1); and
• "biometric authentication using a biometric reader at the personal digital key" (claim 1 / claim 11).

Both are vulnerable:

• The first is RBAC + Group Policy, verbatim: administrator‑authored policy, resource‑scoped, uniformly applied to all users of the resource. That is textbook 1990s‑2000s access control (Ferraiolo & Kuhn 1992; Sandhu 1996; Windows 2000 Group Policy).
• The second is a location limitation, and the specification itself recites the location as one of three options.

Terminal disclaimer (verify). The prior summary records the '456 as "subject to a terminal disclaimer." If that disclaimer was filed against US 9,251,332 (the 12/340,501 parent), the examiner necessarily concluded the '456 claims were not patentably distinct — an ODP finding with § 103 substance. It cures the term, but it is an admission that the difference from the parent is obvious. Confirm the disclaimed patent in the file history; this is potentially the single most useful intrinsic evidence for a § 103 challenge.

7. Anticipated rebuttals and weaknesses

8. Claim 11 and claims 12–18

Claim 11 is the method counterpart and (per the complaint) the asserted claim. I have only the truncated opening text. On the available text — "receiving … security data … as defined by security set up data … received automatically and subsequent to wireless communication between a personal digital key and a reader subsequent to biometric authentication using a biometric reader at the personal digital key" — the same Grounds 1–2 apply with only a method‑step reformatting. The "biometric reader at the PDK" limitation is again the load‑bearing element. I cannot verify the balance of claim 11 or claims 12–18, so I flag that a dependent claim could add a limitation (e.g., a specific vault‑on‑PDK or analytics feature) that alters the analysis.

9. Explicit uncertainties (do not treat as settled)

1. No "Prior Art section" was provided. My reference list is reconstructed from a partial front‑page "References Cited" snippet plus general knowledge. Obtain the complete list.
2. Publication numbers for the incorporated applications (11/744,831, 11/744,832, 11/620,581) are given by application number as recited in the '456 specification; I did not verify their publication/patent numbers.
3. Teaching content of several cited references (e.g., 6,879,966 Lapsley; 6,892,307 Wood; 6,714,168 Berenbaum) was not verified — only that the applicant cited them. A reference being cited is not proof it discloses the limitation.
4. The SanDisk Cruzer Profile date and other token‑resident biometric products need documentary verification (§ 102(b) public‑use/on‑sale evidence).
5. Priority/§ 112 validity of the '456 claims against the 12/340,501 and 61/015,110 disclosures is unverified and is the highest‑leverage issue in the case.
6. The terminal‑disclaimer target patent is unverified.
7. File history / prosecution estoppel was not reviewed; any statements distinguishing the cited art would constrain both the claim construction and the obviousness argument.

Bottom line. On the available record the '456 claims sit at the intersection of five pre‑2007 technologies — proximity‑token access control (Postlewaite '891, Theimer '050), encrypted credential stores (Windows DPAPI/Credential Manager), administrator‑scoped uniform access policy (RBAC/Group Policy/CAC), biometric‑gated token release (Lapsley '966), and single sign‑on auto‑fill — and KSR supplies a ready motivation for each junction. A prima facie § 103 case is constructible, but its strength turns on two questions I could not resolve here: (1) whether the '456 is denied its 2007 priority date (which unlocks the entire Proxense family as art), and (2) whether a pre‑2007, token‑resident fingerprint implementation can be documented. Resolve those two, and the remaining limitations collapse into predictable design choices.