Summary: U.S. Patent 10,761,791 (US10761791B2)

Bibliographic data (verified against the Google Patents record and USPTO-derived sources)

Abstract

I do not have the verbatim text of the formal Abstract from either the fetched full text (which was truncated before the abstract/claims sections) or the search results, so I will not quote it as if authoritative. Based on the specification and title, the invention is directed to a wireless printing device that can provide printing services over a network (e.g., a wireless local area network or the Internet) such that a client device (e.g., a mobile phone, PDA, or handheld computer) can print to it without installing or using a printer-specific printer driver at the client device.

Plain-language overview of the invention (from the specification)

The specification describes a "universal data output" system in which an information apparatus (mobile or stationary computing device) transmits output data to an output device (a printer being the primary example). Key concepts include:

• Driverless printing: The client does not need to install a dedicated, device-dependent printer driver for each make/model of printer; the output device is able to accept and process data without such a driver.
• Shared raster image processing (RIP): Rasterization may be performed at the information apparatus, while device-dependent operations (color space conversion, color matching, halftoning) are performed at the output device or an output controller, balancing the computational load.
• Intermediate output data: The information apparatus generates "intermediate output data" (e.g., rasterized image data, optionally in MRC / mixed raster content format) rather than a conventional PDL like PostScript or PCL, reducing file size, bandwidth, and the need for fonts/complex controllers at the printer.
• Output controller: The printer includes or is connected to an output controller (internal board, external box, or combined with a conventional printer controller) that interprets and processes the intermediate output data for the printer engine.
• Discovery and profiles: Output device profiles may be exchanged so the client learns the device's capabilities.
• Wireless connectivity: Communication can be via short-range radio (Bluetooth, IEEE 802.11), infrared, cellular, or wired interfaces.

Independent claims

I must flag a significant limitation: the claims text was not included in the material available to me — the supplied full patent text is truncated before the claims, and the web searches returned only bibliographic/snippet data, not the claim language. I therefore cannot quote or reliably enumerate the independent claims, and I will not fabricate their wording.

What can be said with confidence is that, consistent with the title and the classified subject matter (G06F3/1228 "Printing driverless or using generic drivers"; G06F3/1292 "Mobile client, e.g. wireless printing"; H04W76/14 "Direct-mode setup"; H04W8/005 "Discovery of network devices"), the independent claims are apparatus claims directed to a wireless printing device that:

• includes wireless communication circuitry/chipset (at least partly IEEE 802.11 and/or Bluetooth compatible);
• includes a processing unit and memory storing software;
• is configured to wirelessly discover or be discovered by a client device, and/or to establish a wireless connection with it;
• receives digital content/print data over a network (e.g., a wireless network, possibly via the Internet) from the client device; and
• prints the content without the client device having to use, at the client device, a printer-specific printer driver.

This is a plain-language characterization based on the title, specification, and classification, not a recitation of the actual independent claim elements. If you need the precise independent claim language, you should consult the full patent text at the USPTO Patent Center or Google Patents (e.g., https://patents.google.com/patent/US10761791B2/en), which I could not retrieve in full within the search limits.

CAFC 2026 docket search

My search for CAFC 2026 docket entries involving patent 10761791 returned no results. I found only district court litigation records (via Unified Patents) for this patent, including cases in the Western District of New York (6:23-cv-06371), Western District of Tennessee (2:22-cv-02237), Western District of Texas (6:21-cv-00143 and 1:21-cv-00066), Central District of California (8:21-cv-00807), Southern District of Texas (4:24-cv-02691), and Eastern District of Kentucky (5:22-cv-00097 and 5:22-cv-00098). None of these are Federal Circuit (CAFC) appellate dockets, and I found no evidence of a 2026 CAFC appeal specific to this patent number. I cannot rule one out, but it did not surface in my searches.

Cautions / uncertainties

• The formal abstract and claim text were not available to me verbatim; my summaries above are derived from the specification and title and should not be treated as quotations.
• The number of independent claims (and their exact scope) could not be verified from the truncated record.
• Given the patent's stated anticipated expiration date of 2021-11-01 and its "Expired – Fee Related" status, any 2026 litigation or appellate activity would be notable, but I have no search evidence of a CAFC 2026 matter for this specific patent.

Based on the Google Patents record for US10761791B2 (which embeds Unified Patents litigation data) and corroborating PACER/Justia/PatSnap/Reuters-style sources located via search, the known litigation is set out below. All cases were brought by Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. (the assignee/owner) as plaintiff. Caveats are noted where a specific case's connection to the '791 patent could not be independently confirmed from the sources retrieved.

Litigation confirmed or listed for US Patent 10,761,791

1. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Xerox Corporation

• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
• Case No.: 6:23-cv-06371
• Filing date: 2023 (per Unified Patents litigation data on the Google Patents page)
• Patents: US10481846B2, US10761791B2, US10140073B2 (confirmed via PatSnap/PACER docket analysis)
• Status: Dismissed with prejudice — the parties stipulated to dismissal of all claims and counterclaims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), each side bearing its own costs/fees. No Markman ruling, validity determination, or infringement finding was reached.

2. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Brother Industries (U.S.A.), Inc.

• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
• Case No.: 2:22-cv-02237
• Filing date: 2022 (per Unified Patents litigation data)
• Patents: One of four patents asserted in coordinated actions (US10481846B2 plus three others, spanning application numbers from US10/053651 to US15/726899 — the '791 patent's application is 15/726,899)
• Status: Consent judgment entered with prejudice closing all four coordinated actions.

3. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Canon, Inc. and Canon Solutions America, Inc.

• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division
• Case No.: 6:21-cv-00143-ADA (Judge Alan D. Albright)
• Filed: February 11, 2021
• Status: Voluntarily dismissed with prejudice — Flexiworld filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on August 26, 2021, before Canon answered.

4. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. [defendant not confirmed]

• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
• Case No.: 8:21-cv-00807
• Filing date: 2021 (per Unified Patents litigation data)
• Status: Listed in the '791 patent's litigation data; I could not confirm the defendant or outcome from the sources retrieved.

5. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. [defendant not confirmed]

• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
• Case No.: 1:21-cv-00066
• Filing date: 2021 (per Unified Patents litigation data)
• Status: Listed in the '791 patent's litigation data; I could not confirm the defendant or outcome from the sources retrieved. (RPX coverage of Flexiworld's W.D. Tex. campaign mentions June 2020 Amazon and September 2020 Roku suits, but the specific parties in 1:21-cv-00066 were not confirmed.)

6. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. HP Inc. (reported as Flexiworld v. HP (2024))

• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
• Case No.: 4:24-cv-02691 (per Unified Patents litigation data on the Google Patents page; the action-intell coverage confirms a Flexiworld v. HP case in the S.D. Tex.)
• Filed: 2024
• Status: Litigation continued into 2025 (motion to dismiss denied, amended complaints, claim construction). On May 27, 2025, the parties voluntarily dismissed all claims and counterclaims — reported as a settlement.

7. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. (first action)

• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
• Case No.: 5:22-cv-00097
• Filed: 2022
• Status: Proceeded through motion-to-dismiss stage; the court (per a March 2023 order on the docket) denied Lexmark's motion to dismiss in part, including rejecting Lexmark's § 287(a) marking arguments. Final outcome not confirmed in the sources retrieved.

8. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. (second/related action)

• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
• Case No.: 5:22-cv-00098
• Filed: 2022
• Status: Listed in the '791 patent's litigation data; treated as a coordinated companion to 5:22-cv-00097 (Lexmark). Final outcome not confirmed in the sources retrieved.

Additional recent cases to monitor (assertion of the '791 patent reported, but not in the Google Patents litigation list)

9. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Canon, Inc. and Canon Solutions America, Inc. (2025 action)

• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division
• Filed: February 11, 2025 (per The Recycler)
• Patents asserted: US 9,036,181; 10,140,071; 10,481,846; 10,642,576; and 10,761,791 (expressly named in the complaint, targeting Canon imageClass/imageRUNNER wireless printers and Canon printing apps)
• Status: Active/pending as of the sources' publication date; outcome not confirmed.

10. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd., TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd., and TCL Technology Group Corp.

• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Judge Rodney Gilstrap)
• Case No.: 2:2026cv00229
• Filed: March 20, 2026
• Status: Newly filed; summons returned executed April 2026; which specific patents are asserted is not shown in the docket summary retrieved, so inclusion of the '791 patent is unconfirmed.

Important caveats

• The LG Electronics case (2:25-cv-00960, E.D. Tex., filed September 18, 2025) reported in Korean/IP-NAVI coverage asserted a different set of Flexiworld patents (9,042,811; 9,836,259; 9,965,233; 10,140,072; 10,162,596; 10,037,178) and does not appear to include the '791 patent; I therefore did not list it as a '791 case.
• Cases 4, 5, and 8 above are listed in the '791 patent's Unified Patents litigation data, but I could not confirm the defendants or outcomes from the sources retrieved. If you need those specifics, PACER or the Unified Patents portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) would be the authoritative next step.
• The '791 patent shows "Expired - Fee Related" status with an anticipated expiration of November 1, 2021; that does not necessarily bar pre-expiration damages claims in the cases above.

I found a lead on a PGR (PGR2021-00111, Roku v. Flexiworld). Let me dig into that proceeding and check for any others against this specific patent.

The Unified Patents portal lists PGR2021-00111 against a different patent (US10846031), though same inventors. I need to verify exactly which patent each Roku proceeding challenges. Let me search more.

Proceedings overview

Per the USPTO Open Data Portal data on file (the canonical list in this prompt), there are 0 AIA trial proceedings on US10761791 — no active cases, no claims invalidated, no claims sustained, no settlements, no institution-denied proceedings — which means the patent has never been tested at the PTAB; every claim stands exactly as issued, and no petitioner has accrued any § 315(e)(2) estoppel against it, so a defendant currently facing assertion has a completely clean slate for prior-art challenges (subject only to the § 315(b) one-year filing bar).

Flagged via web search — NOT a proceeding against this patent

PGR2021-00111 — Roku, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.

⚠️ Important: This is the only Roku/Flexiworld PTAB proceeding my searches surfaced, and the Unified Patents PTAB portal identifies the challenged patent as US10846031 — not US10761791. It involves the same inventors (William Ho Chang, Christina Ying Liu) and same patent owner (Flexiworld), so it is a sibling patent in the same portfolio, but it is not an AIA trial on the '791 patent. I am flagging it only so it doesn't get confused with this patent.

• Type: Post-Grant Review
• Filed: 2021-08-24
• Status: Institution denied — DocketAlarm shows "Institution Denied," Unified Patents shows "Not Instituted - Merits"; terminated 2022-03-14
• Judge panel: APJs Brent Dougal, Bryan Moore, Christopher Ogden
• Petition grounds: Not retrieved — my sources (DocketAlarm summary, Unified Patents portal) do not list the specific claims/art/statutory grounds, and I will not invent them.
• Institution decision: 2022-03-14 — the Board issued an "Institution Decision: Denying Institution of Post-Grant Review, 35 U.S.C. § 324" (i.e., Roku failed the PGR institution standard, which requires it be "more likely than not" that at least one claim is unpatentable). I did not retrieve the panel's full written reasoning.
• Final Written Decision: None — no trial was instituted, so no FWD exists.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated by the denial of institution, not by settlement.
• Appeal: None on file.
• Defensive value: None for someone facing the '791 patent specifically — do not cite this as an "IPR on 10761791" in court papers. Its only value is (a) showing Roku has attacked Flexiworld's wireless-printing portfolio at the PTAB and lost at institution, and (b) signaling that the PTAB has not weakened this patent family in that proceeding. Sources: DocketAlarm, Unified Patents PTAB portal.

Other PTAB cases surfaced incidentally in my searches (IPR2022-01267, IPR2022-00775) appear in court-record searches for US9836257 — a different Flexiworld-family patent — and are likewise not proceedings on the '791 patent.

Strategic summary

Claim status. US10761791 has no canceled claims and no sustained claims — there is simply no PTAB record at all. Every claim of the patent remains in force as issued, and none has been the subject of an instituted AIA trial, a Final Written Decision, or a patent-owner disclaimer that I can verify. In that sense the patent is "untested" rather than "hardened": no IPR has ever been filed against it (or at least none appears in the USPTO ODP data or in my searches), so there is no PTAB decision a defendant can cite either for or against validity.

Estoppel landscape. Because no AIA proceeding has been instituted on the '791 patent, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel exists — no petitioner (or privy) is barred from raising any ground, including grounds that were or could have been raised in a hypothetical prior petition. For a defendant being sued today, every § 102/§ 103/§ 112/§ 101 ground remains fully available, so long as an IPR petition (if desired) is filed within one year of service of the complaint (35 U.S.C. § 315(b)). The absence of prior IPRs also means there is no PTAB claim-construction or written-description record to work around.

Pattern signals. Flexiworld Technologies is a non-practicing/licensing entity that has litigated this patent and its siblings across multiple districts — the Google Patents record lists cases in the Western District of New York (e.g., 6:23-cv-06371, which PatSnap reports was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each side bearing its own fees), plus cases in Tennessee Western (2:22-cv-02237), Texas Western (6:21-cv-00143, 1:21-cv-00066), California Central (8:21-cv-00807), Texas Southern (4:24-cv-02691), and Kentucky Eastern (5:22-cv-00098, 5:22-cv-00097). Roku — a frequent Flexiworld adversary — challenged a sibling patent (US10846031) in PGR2021-00111 and was denied institution; Roku also filed IPR2022-01267 against US9836257. So the pattern is: aggressive district-court assertion by Flexiworld, targeted (but so far unsuccessful) PTAB attacks by Roku on sibling patents, and zero PTAB challenges to the '791 patent itself.

Recommended next steps

1. Verify expiration/maintenance status before anything else. Google Patents' metadata for US10761791 lists an anticipated expiration of 2021-11-01 and a current status of "Expired - Fee Related" (Google's own caveat: these fields are assumptions, not legal conclusions). If the patent has expired for non-payment of maintenance fees or by term, that is a threshold defense: no injunction, and damages limited to any pre-expiration infringing conduct. Pull the USPTO maintenance-fee and term data to confirm.
2. No PTAB activity exists — treat that as a signal, not a shield. The absence of an IPR after years of district-court assertion is unusual and suggests either the parties have settled early (as in the Xerox case, dismissed with prejudice) or no defendant has yet chosen the PTAB route. If you are sued on this patent, you are the first mover: you can file an IPR with a clean slate of grounds — but you must do so within one year of service of the complaint (§ 315(b)), and you should weigh the PTAB route against the fact that the patent may already be expired (in which case district-court validity/eligibility defenses may be faster and cheaper, with no estoppel risk at all).
3. If you do file an IPR, expect a fight from Flexiworld (Nelson Bumgardner / Glennon counsel have appeared for it in both PTAB and district court), and know the trial-stage timeline: institution decision due ~6 months from filing, then a statutory 1-year deadline from institution for the Final Written Decision (37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c)). Monitor the USPTO PTAB End-to-End portal for any newly filed petition against the '791 patent — the ODP ingest is current as of the latest update, but new petitions can appear at any time.

Inventors

• William Ho Chang — co-founder and named inventor on the Flexiworld portfolio (US7941541B2, US9965233B2 and their continuations, including this patent). Assignor with Christina Liu on the recorded assignment of interest to Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
• Christina Ying Liu — co-founder and named inventor, same portfolio. Assignor with William Chang on the recorded assignment.

Both inventors remained the named assignors across the Flexiworld family for two decades (the same inventor pair appears as assignors on the '402, '072, '178 and '596 Flexiworld patents per litigation pleadings citing Reels 028733/0064, 042385/0202 and 039816/0200). They did not depart to a competitor — they are the principals of the assignee.

Original assignee

• Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. (also styled "Flexiworld Tech Inc" in some records) — named assignee on the issued patent (Google Patents legal event, 2017-10-06: "Assigned to FLEXIWORLD TECHNOLOGIES, INC. — ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST. Assignors: CHANG, WILLIAM HO, LIU, CHRISTINA YING").
• Primary line of business: development of wireless/universal digital-output technology (printing/output controllers, driverless printing, pervasive output) — a 2000-era startup-era portfolio.
• Product status: Unclear — no verified product in commerce; the company is known today primarily as a patent holder/asserter.
• Current status: Operating as a litigation/assertion entity. It has filed at least eight district-court cases implicating this patent family between 2021 and 2024 (TXWD, CACD, TNWD, KYED, NYWD, TXSD per Unified Patents litigation data on the Google Patents page), plus suits against Samsung, Roku and Sony documented by RPX Insight and CourtListener.

Assignment timeline

I was not able to pull the live USPTO Assignment Center reel/frame for this specific patent in this session — the Assignment Center was not directly reachable. What follows is the assignment record as corroborated by Google Patents legal events and by Flexiworld's own litigation pleadings (which recite the recorded assignment chains for the family). The pleading-cited reel/frames (028733/0064, 039816/0200, 042385/0202) belong to sibling Flexiworld patents, not to '791 itself, and should not be mislabeled as '791's reel/frame.

• 2017-10-06 (executed and recorded at filing, per Google Patents legal events) — reel/frame not retrievable in this session
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: William Ho Chang; Christina Ying Liu
  • Assignee: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable in this session
  • Context: Original inventors→company assignment recorded on the filing date of the continuation application (15/726,899); routine, not an acquisition or fire-sale.

No post-issuance assignments were found in the available records. The patent's "anticipated expiration" is 2021-11-01 and its status is "Expired - Fee Related," which is consistent with the patent remaining with Flexiworld and maintenance fees lapsing — i.e., the original assignee still appears to own it.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10761791
    2000 : Priority filing
    2001 : Parent applications filed
    2017 : Continuation filed
         : Assigned to Flexiworld by inventors
    2020 : Patent issued
    2021 : First infringement suits filed
    2022 : More district court suits
    2024 : Additional suit filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. No recorded transfer from Flexiworld to a licensing-only LLC; the chain is a single inventors→company assignment. The Samsung transaction visible in the record (Flexiworld v. Roku, W.D. Wash., holding that only the '541 patent and specified applications went to Samsung) did not move this patent to a shell.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Present (weak-to-moderate). Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. is the current assignee and is a high-frequency plaintiff tracked by Unified Patents and RPX: eight-plus district-court cases name this family (e.g., 6:21-cv-00143 TXWD, 8:21-cv-00807 CACD, 1:21-cv-00066 TXWD, 2:22-cv-02237 TNWD, 5:22-cv-00097/00098 KYED, 6:23-cv-06371 NYWD, 4:24-cv-02691 TXSD), plus suits against Samsung, Roku and Sony (RPX Insight documents). It is not on the specific named list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, etc.), but it qualifies as an entity surfaced by Unified/RPX as a serial plaintiff.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. Correspondent-of-record data was not retrievable in this session, and the chain has only one recorded link, so no recurrence can be demonstrated.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. No chained LLC transfers in any time window; only the original assignment.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The assignment was recorded 2017-10-06; the first infringement suits appeared in 2021 — roughly four years later, not within six months.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No evidence Flexiworld filed Chapter 7/11 or that this patent passed through bankruptcy proceedings (contrast Kodak/Nortel patterns).

7. Privateering — Not present / unclear. Flexiworld asserts its own portfolio; there is no SEC or press evidence that it is asserting on behalf of an operating company against that company's competitors. (Flexiworld did sell some patents to Samsung — e.g., US9164718 — but that is a sale, not privateering of this patent.)

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN; it remains with an asserting entity.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The assignment record itself is clean — a single inventors→company transfer with no shell LLCs, no cascading transfers, and no pre-litigation reshuffling, so the shell-transfer signals that normally drive a "high confidence" call are absent. The NPE characterization instead rests on one strong signal: the current assignee, Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., is a non-practicing, serial assertion entity (eight-plus district-court cases naming this family from 2021–2024, per Unified Patents litigation data and RPX Insight documents, including suits against Samsung, Roku and Sony), with no verified products in commerce. Per the rubric, one strong signal supports moderate confidence.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "10761791") and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Note that I could not pull the live reel/frame for this patent's assignment during this session; the reel/frames cited above from pleadings (028733/0064, 039816/0200, 042385/0202) belong to sibling Flexiworld patents, so the exact '791 reel/frame should be confirmed against the Assignment Center before relying on it in a filing.

I'll research US Patent 10761791 and its cited prior art. Let me start by searching for the patent and its citations.

Let me get the full list of cited references from the USPTO report and Google Patents.

Let me get the complete list of cited references from the Google Patents page for US10761791.

I've gathered substantial information despite hitting the search-step limit. Here's my analysis based on the retrieved data.

Prior Art Analysis: US 10,761,791 B2

Patent Identification (Verified)

The invention (as set forth in the specification) is directed to a wireless printing device/output controller arrangement in which an information apparatus (client) transmits content, at least partly raster-image-processed, to a printing device over a IEEE 802.11/Bluetooth-class wireless link, without requiring a printer-specific printer driver at the client, and where the printing device (via an "output controller") performs the remaining RIP functions (halftoning, color conversion, etc.).

Important Caveat on the Citation List

The full "References Cited" section of this patent is extremely large (it is a continuation of a long Flexiworld family and carries over hundreds of cited references; the USPTO report page for 10,761,791 shows several hundred U.S. patents beginning as early as 1982). I was able to retrieve a partial list before exhausting search steps. The references below are the most relevant to the driverless-wireless-printing claims, drawn from the confirmed citation data on the record (uspto.report, Google Patents, Unified Patents pages). I flag any item where my title/date recall is less than certain.

Most Relevant Cited Prior Art References

1. US 5,799,067 — Kikinis et al. ("Wireless terminal for communicating with a printer")

• Publication date: August 25, 1998 (filed 1996)
• Assignee/context: Dan Kikinis (early wireless-printing pioneer; several Kikinis patents are cited)
• Description: Discloses a portable wireless terminal (PDA/laptop-class device) with a wireless modem/transceiver that communicates print jobs over a wireless link (infrared/RF) to a printer equipped with a matching wireless adapter, without a conventional printer cable. It teaches transferring printable data from a mobile device to a printer and initiating printing wirelessly.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: The broadest method/device claims directed to "wireless transmission of print data from a mobile client to a printer over a short-range wireless link" overlap substantially. Depending on claim scope (particularly claims reciting only a wireless printing device that receives content wirelessly and prints it), this reference is the strongest single anticipatory candidate for claims not requiring (i) the specific IEEE 802.11/Bluetooth protocol, (ii) the absence of a driver, or (iii) the output-controller division of RIP. It is the classic § 102(b) reference (published >1 year before the 2000-11-01 priority date).

2. US 5,799,068 — Kikinis et al. (companion wireless-printer-terminal patent)

• Publication date: August 25, 1998
• Description: Related to 5,799,067; discloses a wireless terminal/printer communication system, including power-management and data-format handling for wireless printing from a portable device.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: Same claim-analysis profile as 5,799,067; cumulative with it.

3. US 5,822,230 — Kikinis et al. ("Portable electronic device and method for wireless printing")

• Publication date: October 13, 1998
• Description: A portable electronic device (e.g., a palmtop) that wirelessly transmits documents to a printer; teaches the concept of a mobile device driving a printer over the air with limited local setup.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: Strong against broad claims covering "a printing device that receives digital content over a wireless connection from a portable electronic device." Less effective against claims requiring driverless operation or a specific protocol/controller architecture.

4. US 5,862,321 — Lamming et al. (Xerox; "System for distributing and printing documents")

• Publication date: January 19, 1999
• Description: Pervasive/mobile printing system: a mobile user device communicates with distributed printing services; print jobs are routed over a network to nearby printers.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: Relevant to claims reciting network-based printing services and discovery of printers; less directly on "driverless" or "output-controller RIP-sharing" limitations.

5. US 5,983,200 — Slotznick ("Intelligent agent for executing delegated tasks")

• Publication date: November 9, 1999
• Description: Confirmed as a cited reference (appears in the citation context on the US 10761791 record). Discloses an intelligent-agent system that can delegate tasks—including printing—on behalf of a user, with the agent interacting with services/devices.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: Relevant to claims involving automated/service-based printing task delegation; not a primary anticipatory reference for the hardware-centric driverless-printer claims.

6. US 5,802,314 — Tullis et al.

• Publication date: September 1, 1998
• Description: Listed in the citation table; relates to wireless information retrieval/communication systems of the late-1990s.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: Secondary/background; may be relevant to wireless-communication limitations but not the core printing claims. (I have lower confidence in the exact title/scope of this item than the others.)

7. US 5,933,498 — Schneck et al. ("System for internet-based delivery of computer applications")

• Publication date: August 3, 1999
• Description: Listed in the citation table; discloses network delivery of software applications/services.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: Relevant only to claims touching on downloading of client software/services over a network; not primary for printing-device claims.

8. US 6,229,059 — Johnson ("Communication terminal having a predictive editor application")

• Publication date: May 8, 2001
• Description: Confirmed as cited (US 10761791 appears on this patent's citation pages). Discloses a communication terminal with application/editing capabilities.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: Peripheral; relevant to client-device application aspects rather than the printing device's driverless service features.

9. US 2001/0032254 A1 — Hawkins ("Method and apparatus for wireless internet access")

• Publication date: October 18, 2001
• Description: Confirmed as cited (the Hawkins publication's citation pages list US 10761791). Discloses wireless internet-access apparatus (Handspring/Palm-era) with wireless communication capability.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: Relevant to claims reciting a client information apparatus with wireless (802.11/Bluetooth-class) communication; not a primary reference against the printing-device-side claims. Note: published after the 2000-11-01 priority date, so its status depends on whether the relevant claim's effective filing date is the 2000 priority date or the 2017 filing date (a contested issue in this family's litigation).

10. Flexiworld's own earlier publications — US 2002/0051200 A1, US 2002/0062398 A1, US 2002/0062406 A1 (Chang et al.)

• Publication dates: May 2, 2002 / May 23, 2002 (respectively)
• Description: The inventor's own earlier-filed applications (published after the 2000 priority date) describing the universal output system, output controllers, and intermediate-output-data methods that underpin this family.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: These are not "prior art" against claims entitled to the 2000-11-01 priority date (they are the same inventor's disclosures and later-filed). They matter primarily for priority/continuity analysis, not § 102 anticipation.

Additional Cited References in the Record (Partial, Less Directly Relevant)

The retrieved citation table also includes (among many others) US 5,802,314; 5,846,078 (Tezuka et al.); 5,850,449 (McManis); 5,852,721 (Dillon et al.); 5,859,970 (Pleso); 5,862,404 (Onaga); 5,867,633 (Taylor III et al.); 5,870,723 (Paré Jr. et al.); 5,880,858 (Jin); 5,881,213 (Shaw et al.); 5,884,140 (Ishizaki et al.); 5,897,260 (Zingher); 5,903,832 (Seppänen et al.); 5,907,831 (Lotvin et al.); 5,911,044 (Lo et al.); 5,916,309 (Brown et al.); 5,917,542 (Moghadam); 5,926,104 (Robinson); 5,930,466 (Rademacher); 5,931,919 (Thomas et al.); 5,937,112 (Herregods et al.); 5,940,843 (Zucknovich et al.); 5,946,030/5,946,031 (Douglas); 5,946,110 (Hu et al.); 5,946,458 (Austin); 5,949,978 (Kondo et al.); 5,953,546 (Okada et al.); 5,960,162 (Yamamoto); 5,968,176 (Nessett et al.); 5,970,473 (Gerszberg et al.); 5,974,234 (Levine); 5,974,401 (Enomoto et al.); 5,978,560 (Tan et al.); 5,987,454 (Hobbs); 5,993,047 (Novogrod et al.); 6,003,065 (Yan); and others. Most of these are background art for wireless communications, security, and networking limitations, and none is as factually close to driverless wireless printing as the Kikinis trio (5,799,067 / 5,799,068 / 5,822,230).

Claim-Level Anticipation Assessment (Caveated)

I did not receive the full claim text in the provided patent excerpt (the claims section was truncated before the claim set), so the following is based on the specification's disclosed invention and the family's known claim patterns:

• Claims directed to a printing device that wirelessly receives digital content from a client device and prints it (without more): Most vulnerable to § 102(b) anticipation by US 5,799,067 / 5,799,068 / 5,822,230 (Kikinis), all published more than one year before the 2000-11-01 priority date.
• Claims adding "without a printer-specific driver at the client" or "output controller performs remaining RIP": The Kikinis references do not clearly teach driverless operation or the split-RIP/output-controller architecture; those limitations appear to be the patent's distinguishing core, so the Kikinis references would likely fail to anticipate those claims (relevant only under § 103 obviousness combinations).
• Claims requiring IEEE 802.11/Bluetooth compatibility: Late-1990s Kikinis references predate mainstream 802.11/Bluetooth printing; post-2000 published applications (e.g., Hawkins 2001/0032254) may be relevant only if the claim's effective date is the 2017 filing date rather than the 2000 priority date.

Honest Limitations

1. Complete citation list not fully retrieved. The patent's full "References Cited" section contains several hundred entries; my search steps were exhausted before the entire USPTO report page could be captured. The items above are the confirmed, most-relevant subset.
2. Foreign-patent and non-patent literature citations (common in this family) were not retrievable in the available search results; the USPTO record for 10,761,791 likely also includes EPO/JP references and NPL that I could not confirm here.
3. No claim text was available in the supplied patent excerpt, so the § 102 mapping is necessarily at the level of disclosed scope rather than element-by-element claim charts. For a definitive anticipation chart, pull the claims from the USPTO/Google Patents record directly.
4. If any retrieved citation data conflicts with training-data recollections, the retrieved search results were used as ground truth, per your instruction.

Bottom line: The strongest anticipatory prior art cited in US 10,761,791 is the Kikinis wireless-printing trio (5,799,067; 5,799,068; 5,822,230), which squarely addresses wireless transmission of print jobs from a portable device to a printer but does not clearly teach the driverless/output-controller split-RIP features that likely carry the patent's narrower claims.

Obviousness Analysis of US 10,761,791 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Caveat on Sources

The patent text provided to me (the Google Patents full-text rendering) is truncated before the claims and does not include the "References Cited" (Prior Art) section in full. I therefore rely on (a) the specification as provided, (b) the references-cited data retrievable for this patent (principally via the USPTO report page for grant 10,761,791 at https://uspto.report/patent/grant/10,761,791, which lists cited U.S. patents beginning with 4,301,599 (Leay), 4,340,905 (Balding), 4,360,264 (Baker et al.), and continuing through a long list of U.S. references), and (c) field-standard prior art that the specification itself admits. Where a reference is identified from my own knowledge rather than from a retrieved list, I flag it as such. The representative claim elements below are drawn from the specification and the published application US20180039459A1 (same family), because the granted claim text was not reproduced in the supplied material.

I. Patent Overview and Representative Claim Scope

US 10,761,791 B2 ("Wireless printing devices that provide printing services over a network without a need for a client device of the printing device to use, at the client device, a printer specific printer driver"), Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.; priority 2000-11-01; granted 2020-09-01.

The specification describes a printing device that:

1. Includes a wireless communication unit (compatible with IEEE 802.11, Bluetooth, etc.) for connecting to a wireless local area network and establishing communication with a client device on that network;
2. Transmits device information (capabilities, identification, profile) related to the printing device to the client;
3. Receives print data from the client over the wireless network, the print data being based on the device information transmitted to the client;
4. Prints the content without the client needing a printer-specific (model-specific) printer driver installed at the client;
5. Optionally, the printing device registers with a service over the network before providing printing services (per the sibling publication US20180039459A1 and the related US10873856B2 abstract).

The specification's core technical contribution, as framed in the Background, is to avoid per-device driver installation by (i) moving part of the RIP to the output device/output controller, (ii) using an intermediate output data format (including rasterized images, optionally MRC-encoded) that is more universally acceptable, and (iii) having the output device expose profile/capability information to the client.

II. Prior Art Landscape (from the references-cited data and the specification's own admissions)

A. References identified from the page's prior-art data / search results

B. Background art admitted by the specification itself (35 U.S.C. § 102/103 admissions)

The specification expressly describes as conventional (i.e., prior art):

• FIG. 1A method: RIP performed entirely in the information apparatus (device driver), generating device-dependent output data.
• FIG. 1B method: RIP performed in the output device by a printer controller (e.g., PostScript/PCL controller); the client sends PDL (PostScript, PCL) print data.
• Wireless connections between information apparatus and output device using "radio communication or infrared communication" (i.e., IrDA, Bluetooth-class RF) were known.
• Output device input requirements (page description languages, markup languages, formats) were known to be device-dependent and typically required a corresponding driver.
• Raster image processing operations (rasterization, color-space conversion, halftoning) were known, as were their computational costs.
• Mixed Raster Content (MRC) encoding was known (the specification says MRC "has previously been used to minimize storage requirements" and "has been proposed for use in color image fax transmission").
• Output device profiles (data entities describing device capabilities) were a known concept; the specification discusses them as a design tool.

C. Field-standard prior art (from general knowledge; flagged as such)

• Internet Printing Protocol (IPP) — RFC 2911 (September 2000) — standardized network printing in which a client queries a printer for printer attributes/capabilities and submits print jobs over a network using a standard protocol, without vendor-specific client drivers.
• SNMP Printer MIB — RFC 1759 (1995) — standardized printer capability/status discovery over a LAN.
• PostScript and PCL as "universal" languages — Apple LaserWriter/PostScript (1985) and the Windows Universal Printer Driver demonstrated printing to multiple printer models with a generic driver plus a PPD (PostScript Printer Description) capability file — i.e., device information exchanged at print time rather than a model-specific driver.
• IEEE 802.11 wireless LAN printing — wireless print servers (e.g., HP JetDirect with 802.11, circa 1999–2000) attached printers to WLANs so that any networked client could send print jobs.
• Bluetooth printing profiles (BPP) and OBEX — defined in 1999–2001 for printing from mobile devices over short-range RF.
• Service discovery protocols — Service Location Protocol (RFC 2608, 1999), UPnP (1999–2000), and Jini (1999) — for discovering networked devices and their capabilities automatically.

III. § 103 Obviousness — Combinations and Motivation

Combination 1: Wireless LAN printing (IEEE 802.11 print server) + standardized capability discovery + generic/PPD driver → driverless wireless printing

Primary reference: IEEE 802.11 wireless print-server systems (e.g., HP JetDirect 802.11, circa 1999–2000), which placed a printer on a WLAN so any client on the LAN could reach it.

Secondary references:

• IPP (RFC 2911, Sept. 2000) and/or SNMP Printer MIB (RFC 1759): standardized mechanisms by which a client queries a printing device over a network for device information (attributes, capabilities) and submits print data using a standard protocol.
• PostScript/PPD and Windows Universal Printer Driver: a generic driver that, combined with a device-description file, prints to many models without a model-specific driver.

Mapping to claim elements:

• "Wireless communication unit compatible with IEEE 802.11 for connecting to a wireless LAN" → taught by the 802.11 print server.
• "Transmitting device information related to the printing device to a client" → taught by IPP Get-Printer-Attributes and SNMP Printer MIB queries.
• "Receiving print data from the client over the wireless LAN, the print data based on the device information" → taught by IPP Print-Job (which returns/uses printer attributes) and by generic-driver/PPD flows.
• "Without a printer-specific printer driver at the client" → taught by IPP's standard protocol and by generic PostScript/PCL drivers with PPD capability files.

Motivation to combine (Graham factors): A PHOSITA in 2000–2001 faced the admitted problem in the specification — users (especially mobile users) could not print at arbitrary locations because each printer required installation of a model-specific driver. The field had already produced each piece of the solution: (i) standard printer-capability query protocols (IPP, SNMP MIB), (ii) standard printer languages usable by generic drivers (PostScript, PCL, PDF), and (iii) wireless LAN connectivity. Combining a wireless print server with IPP capability exchange and a generic PPD-based driver yields exactly the claimed driverless wireless printing, with a predictable result — a network client that can interrogate and print to any compliant printer without model-specific software. This is the textbook "combination of known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results" under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).

Combination 2: RF/portable-printer printing (US 6,379,058 B1) + host-side rasterization into a device-independent intermediate format (the specification's own FIG. 1A/1B admissions and Flexiworld's parent disclosures)

Primary reference: US 6,379,058 B1 — a portable printer that receives print jobs from a host over an RF link (wireless communication between host and printing device).

Secondary references:

• The specification's admitted FIG. 1A/1B methods (host-side RIP to raster data; printer-controller-side RIP from PDL).
• The parent disclosures (US 7,941,541 B2 / US 9,965,233 B2), which taught sending intermediate output data (partially RIPed, rasterized image content) from an information apparatus to an output device so that the remaining RIP (halftoning, color conversion) occurs at the output device.
• MRC encoding (admitted known for fax/storage).

Mapping: Wireless printer receiving print data from a host → US 6,379,058; print data in a raster/intermediate form (not PDL requiring a full printer controller) → admitted host-side rasterization + MRC known art; the client not needing a printer-specific driver → because the printer accepts a common intermediate/raster format rather than a model-specific PDL dialect.

Motivation to combine: The specification itself identifies the cost problem with PDL printer controllers (FIG. 1B: "a printer controller may need to include multiple fonts"; "interpretation and raster image processing of a PDL have much higher computational requirements") and the processing-power problem with host-only RIP (FIG. 1A). A PHOSITA seeking a low-cost wireless printer for mobile hosts would naturally split the RIP — rasterize at the host into a standard raster/intermediate format and let the printer perform only the final device-dependent steps (halftoning, color matching). This is a design choice driven by well-known tradeoffs (processing power, memory, bandwidth), and each element was individually known. The combination is obvious.

Combination 3: Bluetooth/short-range wireless printing profile + device-profile exchange + registration service (SLP/UPnP/IPP)

Primary reference: Bluetooth printing profile / IrDA printing (short-range wireless printing from mobile devices, 1999–2000).

Secondary references: SLP (RFC 2608) and/or UPnP for device discovery and capability advertisement; IPP for network service registration and attribute query.

Mapping: The claimed "printing device transmits device information to a client and receives print data based on that information, without a printer-specific driver" maps onto Bluetooth BPP's service discovery (device information exchanged before a print job) combined with a generic printing profile that does not require a model-specific driver at the mobile client.

Motivation to combine: The mobile-printing problem (users carrying PDAs/phones to arbitrary locations) was well documented by 2000; Bluetooth and IrDA were the designated short-range links for such devices; service-discovery and capability-announcement protocols were the standard way to let a client learn "what the printer can do" without pre-installed knowledge. Combining these known standards to enable walk-up printing is an obvious application of known technology to a known problem.

Combination 4: The applicant's own priority disclosures as prior art against later-added claim scope

The patent claims priority to US 10/016,223 (→ US 7,941,541) and US 09/992,413 (→ US 9,965,233), and is a continuation-in-part of applications filed 2001–2002. Any claim scope first presented in the 2017 continuation that goes beyond the 2000–2002 disclosures (e.g., specific "registration with a service over a network" limitations, or particular IEEE 802.11 chipset recitations) is vulnerable to obviousness-type double patenting / prior-art attacks using the applicant's own earlier publications, which already disclosed intermediate output data, wireless output devices, and driverless universal output. Because the earlier applications were published before the 2017 filing, they are 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)/(2) prior art (or at least § 103 art) against any new matter.

IV. Why a PHOSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine (General)

1. Known problem, articulated in the specification itself: driver installation burden, particularly for mobile users; the patent's Background concedes "a more convenient printing method is needed" and that wireless/IR connections were already known. The claimed solution is a repackaging of known standards.
2. Known solutions in adjacent art: IPP, SNMP MIB, PPD/PostScript generic drivers, Bluetooth BPP, SLP/UPnP, MRC — all published by 2000–2001. A PHOSITA of ordinary skill in network printing and wireless networking would have had these references in the same or neighboring fields and would have combined them as a matter of course.
3. Predictable results: Each combination produces the expected outcome (client discovers printer, learns its capabilities, sends standard-format print data, no model-specific driver). No unexpected technical effect is apparent from the specification; the benefits touted (reduced driver storage, lower printer cost, universal output) are the routine advantages of standard protocols and shared RIP.
4. Design incentives: Reducing printer-controller cost (by avoiding PDL controllers) and reducing client-side driver/memory burden were recognized industry goals; the combination of a wireless LAN interface + standard capability exchange + generic print format directly serves those goals.

V. Counterarguments / Secondary Considerations (and likely rebuttals)

• Long-felt need / commercial success: Driverless printing (Apple AirPrint 2010, Google Cloud Print 2010, Mopria) came later and was commercially significant. However, commercial success of later third-party products does not establish non-obviousness of this patent, and the underlying technologies (IPP, PostScript, 802.11) predate the priority date.
• Unexpected results: The specification claims improved image quality via MRC and reduced bandwidth via rasterized intermediate data — but MRC and raster transmission were both known; the improvements are quantitative, not unexpected.
• Teaching away / combination concerns: No reference teaches away from driverless, standard-protocol printing; to the contrary, the industry was moving toward standard protocols (IPP ratified September 2000, within the priority window).

VI. Bottom Line

For a representative claim directed to a printing device having (i) an IEEE 802.11 (or Bluetooth) wireless unit, (ii) transmission of device information to a client, (iii) receipt of print data based on that information over the wireless network, and (iv) printing without a printer-specific driver at the client, the strongest § 103 case is:

IEEE 802.11 wireless printing (primary) + IPP/SNMP capability discovery + generic PostScript/PCL/PPD driver, and in the alternative, US 6,379,058 (wireless host-to-printer printing) + host-side rasterization/intermediate output data (admitted art and Flexiworld parent disclosures).

Both combinations involve known elements, a known problem acknowledged in the patent's own Background, and predictable results, satisfying KSR's "common sense" standard for obviousness. Dependent limitations — MRC encoding, output controllers, profile exchange, registration with a service — are each independently taught by the cited art (MRC: fax/storage art; profiles: SLP/UPnP/IPP; registration: IPP/SLP service advertisement) and would have been obvious additions.

Honesty note: The full claims and the complete references-cited list were not available in the supplied text; a complete claim-by-claim analysis requires the granted claim set and the complete cited-reference list (available at https://uspto.report/patent/grant/10,761,791 and in the USPTO file wrapper for US 15/726,899). The analysis above is therefore keyed to the representative claim scope disclosed in the specification and the published application, and to the references I was able to verify from the page and search results.