US 11397800

I'll run targeted searches for this specific patent number and any associated litigation, then summarize.

One more targeted check for any 2026 Federal Circuit activity involving this patent or its owner.

Summary — US Patent No. 11,397,800 B2

Important search caveat up front: I ran multiple searches against public patent databases and news/docket aggregators. I found no USPTO litigation, PTAB proceeding, or CAFC 2026 docket entry naming U.S. Patent No. 11,397,800 (or its application 17/061,099, or its owner 1PerfectID, Inc.). The CAFC 2026 decisions surfaced in my searches (TrackTime v. Amazon, Definitive Holdings v. Powerteq, Ravin Crossbows v. Squires, VL Collective v. Netflix, Netflix v. DivX, etc.) involve entirely different patents and parties. I cannot state authoritatively that no such proceeding exists — my searches are not a substitute for a PACER/PTAB docket query — but nothing found links this patent to any 2026 Federal Circuit appeal.

Also, per your literal-ID rule: a search on the digit string "11397800" surfaces an unrelated record (US Patent 7,259,531, "Speed control of brushless DC motors," which lists application No. 11397800, i.e., 11/397,800, filed April 5, 2006). That is a different instrument and is not the patent at issue. I did not conflate them.

Bibliographic data (US 11,397,800 B2)

Continuity chain (all claiming priority to provisional 60/665,043, filed 2005-03-24): 17/061,099 ← continuation of 16/416,924 (abandoned, filed 2019-05-20) ← 15/676,232 (US 10,296,735) ← 15/162,063 (US 9,734,317) ← 14/263,349 (US 9,342,932) ← 13/482,206 (US 8,708,230) ← 12/251,131 (US 8,186,580) ← 11/389,387 (US 7,481,364). A child continuation, 17/872,389, issued as US 12,050,674.

Note on term: Because the chain runs back to a March 24, 2005 priority date, the 20-year term expired 2026-03-24 — i.e., before today's date (April 26, 2026). The patent is expired.

Abstract (as granted)

"A removable card-enabled BPID Security Device integrates a removable card reader with a biometric authentication component to provide secured access to electronic systems… The BPID Security Device is based on a custom application specific integrated circuit that incorporates removable card terminals… In an alternative embodiment… a commercial off-the-shelf microprocessor… The device allows for enrolling a user's credentials onto the BPID Security Device and for authenticating an individual using the BPID Security Device."

Observation: The title and abstract were evidently carried over from the parent "removable card capabilities" application. The granted claims of the '800 patent do not recite a card reader, removable card, aperture, or smartcard terminals — a notable inconsistency between the abstract/specification framing and the issued claim set.

Independent claims — plain-language overview

Claim 1 (method):

1. A biometric sensor on a "personal identification device" receives a first biometric input from the user. The first input is associated with an identification credential of an integrated circuit of the personal identification device, and that integrated circuit is at least partially inside the device's housing during this first reading.
2. The device then causes enrollment with an external enrollment station. The device is defined as including (a) the housing, (b) the biometric sensor coupled to the housing, and (c) a strap coupled to the housing, configured so the user can wear the device.
3. The biometric sensor receives a second biometric input, with the integrated circuit again at least partially inside the housing.
4. After enrollment, if the second biometric input is determined to match the first, the user is permitted to access previously-stored electronic data associated with the user via the device.

In short: a wearable, strap-mounted biometric fob containing an IC; enroll a fingerprint with an external station; later verify a fingerprint on the same wearable device and thereby unlock stored user data. Note the third "strap... configured to permit the user to wear" element is a structural limitation common to biometrically-keyed wearable devices and is a likely point of attack in validity or infringement analysis.

Claim 11 (non-transitory processor-readable medium):
Code stored on a medium executed by a processor inside the housing of a wearable personal identification device causes the processor to:

1. Receive a first biometric input via the device's biometric sensor;
2. Associate that input with an identifier of an integrated circuit at least partially within the housing when the input is received;
3. After the first input, cause the user to be enrolled with an enrollment station;
4. Read the identifier stored on the integrated circuit;
5. Determine whether that identifier matches a stored identifier;
6. After enrollment, receive a second biometric input; and
7. Permit access to previously-stored electronic data only if both (i) the second input matches the first and (ii) the read identifier matches the stored identifier, and after enrollment.

So claim 11 adds a hardware-binding check (IC identifier match) and an enrollment step, layered on top of the biometric match — i.e., a two-factor (biometric + integrated-circuit identifier) unlock, performed on-device.

Dependent claims (briefly): sending a signal upon a biometric match (2, 12); the previously-stored data being financial data (3, 13) or enabling a financial transaction (4, 14); the data being user identification data, such as a license, passport, or ID card (5–6, 15–16); sending the identification/financial data to an external device after access is permitted (7); transmitting data enabling logical access to secured data (8, 17) or physical access to a secured location (9); and determining whether the user was previously enrolled and enrolling if not (10, 18).

Key uncertainties / flags

• Assignee naming: sources render the owner as "1PerfectID, Inc.," "1PERFECTID, INC.," and "Iperfectld Inc." I have reproduced these literally rather than normalizing; the underlying entities appear to be the same Alabama corporation, formerly linked to Privaris, Inc.
• Claim/abstract mismatch: the claims recite an integrated circuit "of the personal identification device" inside the housing, whereas the abstract and specification describe a removable smartcard inserted into an aperture. The published application (US 2021/0165863 A1) reportedly carried removable-card-style claims (reading an identifier of a "removable card," determining biometric match at the device or card), so the claim set was evidently rewritten during prosecution. I have not verified the exact prosecution history from authoritative sources, so treat this characterization as an inference from the two documents, not a confirmed record.
• Litigation: as noted, I found no 2026 CAFC docket, PTAB proceeding, or district-court case involving US 11,397,800. Absence of a search hit is not proof of absence.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11397800B2](/patent/US11397800B2)/en ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/11397800 ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/20210165863 ; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a3/e7/c3/05cb214b9b52da/US11397800.pdf

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 11397800 across patent litigation databases.

Let me search more specifically for litigation involving this patent and its assignee.

Summary of Findings

Based on my searches, I found no litigation (district court, Federal Circuit, or PTAB) involving U.S. Patent No. 11,397,800.

What I searched

I ran queries across patent-litigation aggregators and general web indexes targeting the exact patent number and its assignee:

• The exact terms "11397800" and "11,397,800" (kept literal, not auto-corrected)
• Assignee-based searches: "1PerfectID Inc patent lawsuit infringement," "1PerfectID biometric patent litigation defendant," and "Privaris 1PerfectID biometric identification device patent infringement lawsuit"
• Sources surfaced included Google Patents, Justia, FreePatentsOnline, Unified Patents portal, Docket Alarm, CourtListener/RECAP, and PACER Monitor

Result

Every hit returned either (a) the patent's own bibliographic/prosecution record, or (b) unrelated cases involving different patent numbers. No court or PTAB docket naming U.S. 11,397,800 as a patent-in-suit appeared.

Notable specifics:

• The Google Patents record for US11397800B2 lists no "Litigation" or "Cases" section at all — there is no litigation data associated with the patent. Its "Cited By" entry is only US12050674B2, which is 1PerfectID's own child continuation (application 17/872,389), not a litigation reference.
• The Unified Patents portal entry I retrieved for the closely related US-12050674-B2 likewise did not surface any litigation.

Important caveats

1. I could not access PACER or CourtListener's full docket search directly in this session, and the searches I could run did not return a Unified Patents litigation "case list" page for this patent. It is possible a suit exists that was not indexed by the sources reachable to me.
2. The patent's status is "Expired – Lifetime," with an anticipated expiration of 2026-03-24 (per Google Patents, which attributes priority to 2005-03-24). This term exhaustion materially reduces (though does not eliminate) the likelihood of active infringement suits, since damages windows would be closed.
3. Assignee history is complex: 1PerfectID, Inc. is the current assignee, with prior assignments recorded to/from Privaris, Inc. (inventors Charles Cannon and Thomas Reigle). If litigation exists, it may be captioned under "1PerfectID," "Privaris," or the individual inventors rather than "1PerfectID Inc."

Bottom line

No known litigation is associated with U.S. Patent No. 11,397,800. I was unable to identify any plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome because no case naming this patent was found in the sources available to me. If you need a definitive clearance, I recommend a direct PACER/RECAP query on patent number 11397800 and a check of the Unified Patents litigation caselist (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist), which I was unable to fully retrieve here.

I'd rather flag this as "not found" than assert litigation that I cannot ground in a specific docket citation.

I'll verify the structured block against live sources before drafting.

Let me check the family patents and the owner for any AIA trial history, plus confirm the family chain's PTAB posture.

Verdict up front

No PTAB activity on file. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block — sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) — reports zero AIA trial proceedings naming U.S. Patent No. 11,397,800. My independent web searches (PTAB petition documents via ptacts.uspto.gov, Docket Alarm PTAB corpus, Unified Patents portal, CourtListener, and general patent-litigation indexes) surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding involving this patent, its application number (17/061,099), its owner (1PerfectID, Inc. / "Iperfectld Inc"), or its named inventors. I did not find a proceeding number to report, and I will not invent one.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 11,397,800: 0 — 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials. No petitioner has ever challenged this patent at the Board.

Defensive posture: The patent is untested at the PTAB, not "hardened." A defendant cannot point to a canceled claim as a shield, but neither does it face a precedent that the patent survives IPR. Two facts materially blunt the assertion risk and are developed in the sections below: (1) the patent's 20-year term expired 2026-03-24 (priority 2005-03-24), so any assertion today is a backward-looking damages play with a closed or near-closed window; and (2) the claim set appears to have been rewritten during prosecution — the issued claims recite an integrated circuit of the personal identification device, whereas the abstract, specification, and the published application's claims (US 2021/0165863 A1) were framed around a removable card in an aperture. That specification/claim divergence is exactly the kind of § 112 written-description and claim-construction exposure an IPR or a district-court Markman would probe. The absence of any IPR is a signal that no one has yet had a damages incentive large enough to fund one — not a signal that the patent is strong.

No proceedings to enumerate

There is no {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} — {Petitioner} v. {Patent Owner} entry to populate. To be explicit about the required fields, they are all not applicable:

Conflation check (important given the literal-ID rule)

Digit-string searches for "11397800" and family-adjacent terms surface unrelated PTAB proceedings that must not be attributed to this patent. Among the false positives my searches returned:

• IPR2024-00334 — U.S. Patent 11,514,138 B1 (authentication translation; RightQuestion, LLC-related) — different patent, different owner.
• IPR2025-00106 / -00107 / -00108 / -00109 — U.S. Patent 10,776,471 B2 (FaceTec facial-recognition, Jumio iProov) — different patent.
• IPR2017-02167 — U.S. Patent 7,281,135 (Unified Patents v. Pen-One Acquisition Group) — different patent.
• CBM2019-00025 — U.S. Patent 8,577,813 (Visa v. Universal Secure Registry) — different patent.

None of these names US 11,397,800, 1PerfectID, Privaris, Cannon, or Reigle. The earlier-generated sections flagged a similar trap on the digit string (US 7,259,531, app. 11/397,800); the same discipline applies here.

Family-level negative finding

Because a single patent's PTAB history is often only part of the picture, I also searched for AIA proceedings against the continuation family claiming the same 2005-03-24 priority date — US 7,481,364; US 8,186,580; US 8,708,230; US 9,349,232; US 9,734,317; US 10,296,735; and the child US 12,050,674 (app. 17/872,389) — as well as against Privaris, Inc.-originated biometric patents generally. Nothing surfaced. Google Patents shows the only "Cited By" entry for US 11,397,800 as US 12,050,674, which is 1PerfectID's own child continuation, not a challenge. The Unified Patents portal entry retrieved for US 12,050,674 likewise shows no litigation or PTAB caselist entries. So the "no proceedings" result is not an artifact of checking only the '800 patent.

Caveat, stated plainly: absence of a search hit is not proof of absence. Public AIA-trial coverage is high but not perfect, and I could not execute a direct PTAB E2E / PTAB API docket query in this session. Treat the ODP block as canonical and re-verify before relying on this in a filing.

Strategic summary

Claim status. All 18 claims of US 11,397,800 — including independents claim 1 (method) and claim 11 (non-transitory processor-readable medium), and dependents 2–10 and 12–18 — are UNTESTED. None has been canceled, none has been confirmed, and none has been construed by the Board. Contrast that with a patent that has been through IPR, where the surviving claim set is sharply defined and § 315(e) estoppel constrains the art a defendant can use. Here there is no prior adjudication to lean on: every claim is live on paper and every ground is available to a first petitioner. Practically, though, "live on paper" overstates the exposure — the term expired 2026-03-24 (see the Patent summary section), so a demand letter asserting the '800 patent is chasing a pre-expiration damages window and, for prospective relief, has nothing left to enjoin on this instrument.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estoppel is a non-issue because no IPR has been instituted. No petitioner, real party in interest, or privy is barred from raising any § 102 or § 103 ground — the entire prior-art universe, including art that would have been "reasonably could have been raised" in an IPR, remains available in litigation. Symmetrically, the patent owner has made no binding claim amendments in a PTAB trial, so the claims as issued (not as narrowed) are what a defendant attacks. The practical consequence: a defendant is not forced into the § 315(b) one-year window by an existing institution, and can calendar a petition freely — subject to the usual § 315(b) bar triggered by service of an infringement complaint, and to § 325(d) / Advanced Bionics discretion if the same art was before the examiner. Because the Board has never construed these claims, a petitioner would get a clean Phillips construction (correct for an expired patent) in the first IPR — a meaningful advantage over a crowded patent with a settled PTAB record.

Pattern signals. Three observations, offered as patterns rather than proof:

1. No serial petitioner. There is no Lex Machina-style repeat filer, no Unified Patents-type defensive aggregator in the chain (Unified's portal shows entries for the family but no case list involving this patent), and no joinder cluster. A patent that is asserted broadly eventually attracts IPRs — the absence here correlates with a portfolio that has not been actively asserted in district court, consistent with the litigation section's "no known litigation" finding.
2. Realistic vehicle limits. For this patent, PGR was never available (PGR applies only to post-AIA patents; this family's priority is 2005-03-24, pre-AIA) and CBM review is closed as a path (the AIA transitional CBM program sunset 2020-09-16, and this patent did not issue until 2022-07-26). So an AIA challenge, if any is ever filed, would be an IPR only — a § 102/§ 103 vehicle. That also means the specification-support/§ 112 weakness flagged in the Patent summary is not reachable in an IPR and would have to be litigated in district court or raised via ex parte reexam-type routes.
3. No patent-owner appellate aggression. With no FWD, there is no PTAB appeal to the Federal Circuit, matching the earlier finding of no 2026 CAFC docket activity involving this patent.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant being asserted against:

• Do not treat "no IPR" as a validity shield. You have no FWD to cite, and you cannot quote a disposition. Your invalidity case must be built from scratch.
• Exploit the specification/claim gap. The issued claims require the integrated circuit to be "of the personal identification device" and "at least partially disposed... within a housing," while the specification's enablement is directed to a removable card inserted into an aperture. Consider (a) a district-court § 112 written-description/enablement attack, and/or (b) an IPR petition under § 102/§ 103 mapping the claimed "integrated circuit of the personal identification device" to the removable-card embodiments of the cited prior art (e.g., Zuili's US 6,991,174 and Maes's US 6,016,476, both of which the specification itself distinguishes and both of which are already of record). Cross-check § 325(d) / Advanced Bionics — art already before the examiner raises discretionary-denial risk, so lead with references the examiner did not consider.
• Check the term. Confirm the expiration date independently (Google Patents and the family record give 2026-03-24 / 2026-03-23). If the patent is expired, scope any damages theory to the pre-expiration window and consider whether the case is worth defending on the merits versus a nuisance-value posture.
• Verify the assignment chain. Assignee naming is inconsistent across sources ("1PerfectID, Inc.," "1PERFECTID, INC.," "Iperfectld Inc," with a 2021-04-13 reassignment recorded from Privaris, Inc.). Confirm standing and the current owner of record before responding on the merits.

If you need a definitive PTAB clearance:

• Query PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and the PTAB API / USPTO ODP endpoint directly for patent number 11397800 and for application 17/061,099, and repeat for each family member (US 7,481,364, 8,186,580, 8,708,230, 9,349,232, 9,734,317, 10,296,735, 12,050,674).
• Cross-check Unified Patents' litigation caselist (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) and CourtListener/RECAP (https://www.courtlistener.com/) for any district-court assertion that would create the § 315(b) clock and the damages incentive for a future IPR.
• Confirm the numbers returned are for this patent — the digit-string searches in this family of terms reliably return unrelated patents.

Statutory milestones — not applicable here, since no proceeding exists. Had one been filed, the clock would run: institution decision ≤ 6 months from the petition's § 315(b) filing date (35 U.S.C. § 314(b)), and a Final Written Decision ≤ 12 months from institution (§ 316(a)(11)), extendable ≤ 6 months for good cause. Nothing is currently on that calendar for US 11,397,800.

Sources

• Canonical proceedings list: "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP), reporting no AIA trial proceedings for US 11,397,800 as of 2026-09-26.
• Patent record: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11397800B2](/patent/US11397800B2)/en ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/11397800 ; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a3/e7/c3/05cb214b9b52da/US11397800.pdf
• Published application (removable-card claims): https://patents.justia.com/patent/20210165863
• Child continuation: https://patents.justia.com/patent/12050674 ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-12050674-B2
• PTAB petition repository (searched, no hits for this patent): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/
• PTAB decisions: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/ptab-decisions
• CourtListener / RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/
• Unified Patents caselist: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist

I'll research the assignment chain for US 11,397,800 using the USPTO Assignment Center data and cross-references.

Let me dig into the specific assignment records, reel/frame numbers, and 1PerfectID's entity nature.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 11,397,800 B2

Critical sourcing caveat up front: My tool budget for this session was exhausted before I could retrieve the Assignment Center record set directly (the assignment.uspto.gov / assignmentcenter.uspto.gov query and two follow-up queries returned no usable payload). I could not verify reel/frame numbers or the correspondent of record from a primary USPTO source. Everything below that is grounded is drawn from Google Patents' legal-events feed for US 11,397,800 B2, the granted patent front page, and contemporaneous press reporting on the Privaris portfolio sale. Where I lack primary-source data (reel/frame, correspondent attorney), I say so rather than fabricate. A direct Assignment Center query should be run to confirm before this is relied on.

Inventors

• Both are named as assignors on the inventor→company assignment (Google Patents legal events, entry for 2021-04-13: "PRIVARIS, INC. … Assignors: CANNON, CHARLES, REIGLE, THOMAS"). The employer is therefore determinable from the assignment record itself: the inventors conveyed their rights to Privaris, Inc., the operating company that developed the BPID / plusID device.
• Unusual-pattern check: I found no evidence of inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing, and I have no LinkedIn/employment data to test that. What is notable is the reverse pattern — the assignee (Privaris) wound down, not the inventors. Privaris' website went un-updated from ~2009–2010, its last financing was 2011, and PitchBook/CB Insights both list it as "Out of Business" (~2016). MacRumors reported the company "essentially shut down roughly five years" before June 2015. So the fire-sale signal here attaches to the company, not to inventor attrition.

Original assignee

Two entities matter, and they must not be conflated:

1. Privaris, Inc. (original assignee in fact). A Charlottesville, VA biometric-security company (founded 2001; formerly "Transforming Technologies"), primary line of business: wireless biometric access devices. It shipped a real product embodying the specification — the plusID™ personal biometric device (fingerprint sensor, 125 kHz / 13.56 MHz RFID, Bluetooth, ISO 7816/CCID, USB; FIPS 140-2 Level 3 design). The patent's own specification describes the "Privaris® BPID™ Security Device." Raised ~$19–29M from Harbert Growth Partners, SpaceVest, RedShift, Noro-Moseley, RC Capital. Status: ceased operations / out of business (circa 2016). It did not publicly file Chapter 7 or 11 (no bankruptcy docket surfaced); it liquidated its patent portfolio piecemeal.

2. 1PerfectID, Inc. (assignee named on the face of the issued patent). Address on the granted patent: Tallassee, AL. It appears to be a patent-holding entity with no product in commerce for these claims. I found no evidence of a 1PerfectID product, a 1PerfectID website with offerings, or 1PerfectID revenue. It acquired the smartcard family from Privaris (see timeline) and continued prosecuting continuations from 2012 through the 2022–2024 grants.

Assignment timeline

Reel/frame notation: The task asks for a "Reel NNNNNN/NNNN" per entry. I was unable to retrieve reel/frame numbers or the correspondent-of-record for either link — my Assignment Center queries did not return. The entries below are reconstructed from Google Patents' legal-events feed. Where a date is a recording date rather than an execution date, I mark it as such.

• 2006-03-24 (executed, contemporaneous with filing of US 11/389,387; corresponding to the original chain priority) — Reel/Frame: not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest ("see document for details")
  • Assignor: CANNON, CHARLES; REIGLE, THOMAS
  • Assignee: PRIVARIS, INC.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Ordinary employee/founder invention assignment to the operating company that employed the inventors and commercialized the BPID/plusID device.

• 2012-08 (per press reporting of the Privaris divestiture; the Google Patents record for this link is stamped 2021-04-13) — Reel/Frame: not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest ("see document for details"); Google Patents legal event: "Assigned to 1PERFECTID, INC. … Assignors: PRIVARIS, INC."
  • Assignor: PRIVARIS, INC.
  • Assignee: 1PERFECTID, INC. (Tallassee, AL)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Portfolio carve-out / distressed-asset sale. Chinese-language and Western coverage of the Apple/Privaris transactions (derived from a CNN Money report) states Privaris "in August 2012 sold another 4 'smartcard' patents to a company called 1PerfecId." That matches this family (the "Biometric Identification Device with Smartcard Capabilities" chain). This was part of the same wind-down in which Privaris later transferred 26 of its 31 patents to Apple (first 3 on 2012-12-19; the bulk in October 2014).
  • ⚠ Date discrepancy to flag: Google Patents surfaces both assignments (inventors→Privaris and Privaris→1PerfectID) with an effective date of 2021-04-13, whereas press reporting places the Privaris→1PerfectID sale in August 2012. Either (a) the Privaris→1PerfectID assignment was executed in 2012 but not recorded until 2021, or (b) Google Patents' "reassignment" date reflects recordation/indexing rather than execution. I could not resolve this without the reel/frame record. A ~9-year gap between execution and recordation would itself be a noteworthy administrative signal.

• 2022-07-26 — the patent issues. No further assignment of record; 1PerfectID, Inc. remains the assignee on the face of the patent and in the Unified Patents "Current Assignee" field (parent company listed as "1perfectid Inc"). No defensive-aggregator transfer appears.

Post-issuance: none found. The continuation child US 12,050,674 B2 (app. 17/872,389, granted 2024-07-30) is still held by 1PerfectID per Unified Patents — i.e., the family has stayed with the same holder, consistent with a small single-family patent-holding operation rather than a large aggregator.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11397800
    2006 : Filed by Privaris Inc
         : Inventors assign rights to Privaris
    2012 : Privaris sells family to 1PerfectID
         : Apple buys other Privaris patents
    2016 : Privaris ceases operations
    2021 : Both assignments stamped at USPTO
    2022 : Patent 11397800 issues
         : 1PerfectID remains assignee

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Unclear. The patent did move from an operating company (Privaris) to a holder (1PerfectID) with no evident product, which is the substance of this signal. But the classic tells are absent or unverified: 1PerfectID is a corporation ("Inc."), not an LLC, carries no "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" suffix, and I have no evidence about its registered-agent address or membership structure. Per the task's own rule ("could be a shell" is not a finding), I mark this unclear pending registered-agent verification.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Neither "1PerfectID" nor "Privaris" appears on the enumerated NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). No Unified Patents / RPX high-frequency-plaintiff listing surfaced.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Insufficient data. I could not retrieve the correspondent of record for either assignment, so I cannot test recurrence. This is the single most valuable field the task asked for and it is missing; it should be pulled from the Assignment Center next.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Only one transfer (Privaris → 1PerfectID), over many years. No chained LLC hop, no <24-month cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not applicable. No infringement suit naming this patent was found in the prior analysis session, so there is no litigation anchor to measure a 6-month window against.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Partially present (distressed sale, but not a formal bankruptcy). Privaris was an insolvent/winding-down operating company that sold its portfolio off in tranches (4 smartcard patents to 1PerfectID in 2012; 26 patents to Apple 2012–2014). That is functionally a fire-sale of a failed company's assets, but no Chapter 7/11 proceeding was identified, so it does not strictly satisfy the "sold in proceedings" definition. I mark it present-as-distressed-sale, not present-as-bankruptcy.

7. Privateering — Not present. No evidence that a still-operating company transferred to an NPE to assert against competitors. The transferor (Privaris) was defunct, not an operating parent.

8. Defensive aggregator — Not present. Chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN. The patent is not neutralized by a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The chain runs from a genuine operating company that shipped a product embodying the disclosure (Privaris, Inc., maker of the plusID/BPID device) to a non-practicing holder (1PerfectID, Inc., Tallassee AL) with no product in commerce. The transfer that drives this call is the Privaris → 1PerfectID carriage of the smartcard family (reported executed Aug 2012; Google Patents legal event stamped 2021-04-13), made as part of the same wind-down in which Privaris sold 26 of its 31 patents to Apple — i.e., a fire-sale from a defunct operating company (strong signal #6, in substance). That is one strong signal, which caps confidence at moderate rather than high: there is no known-asserter match (#2), no cascading-transfer pattern (#4), no defensive-aggregator endpoint (#8), and no litigation naming the patent. I could not verify the correspondent of record or reel/frame, so signal #3 is untested — if the same recording attorney recurs across 1PerfectID's small portfolio, this could escalate. Note the patent is expired (term ran 2026-03-24), which independently suppresses any live assertion value.

Verify at: USPTO Patent Assignment Search — Patent No. 11397800 (and the Assignment Center at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/). Request the reel/frame and correspondent fields for both entries above — those are the two data points this analysis is missing.

Flags / contradictions to carry forward: (i) The 2021-04-13 vs. August 2012 execution-date discrepancy for the Privaris→1PerfectID transfer is unresolved. (ii) The assignee name is rendered three ways across sources — "1PerfectID, Inc.," "1PERFECTID, INC.," and "Iperfectld Inc." — reproduced literally, not normalized; they appear to denote the same Tallassee, AL entity. (iii) As noted in the prior sections, the granted claims do not recite the removable-card/smartcard subject matter of the title and abstract; the assignment analysis still binds them because assignment attaches to the application, not the claim text.

I'll search USPTO and related sources for this specific patent and its cited references.

Let me pull the full citation list and verify the key references.

Let me verify a few more high-relevance cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 11,397,800 B2

Title: Biometric identification device and methods of use
App. No.: 17/061,099 · Filed: 2020-10-01 · Granted: 2022-07-26
Inventors: Charles Cannon; Thomas Reigle · Assignee: 1PerfectID, Inc. (formerly Privaris, Inc.)
Earliest priority: 2005-03-24 (provisional 60/665,043)

A. Scope, method, and a sourcing caveat

I searched the USPTO-facing records (Google Patents, Justia, USPTO.report, patentimages full text) for the literal number 11397800 and for each citation in its front page.

Two things to flag before the analysis:

1. Citation-count discrepancy. The Google Patents record for US11397800B2 carries a header reading "Citations (113)", while the appendix table on the same page is captioned "Patent Citations (124)." These two numbers disagree. I treat the enumerated table (the larger one) as the operative list and have not "corrected" either figure. Justia renders the same reference set with the addition of at least one non-patent-literature item (see §F).
2. What "prior art" means here. Because every claim of the '800 traces to a 2005-03-24 effective filing date and the specification adds no new matter over the 2006 parent, the pre-AIA §102 framework governs: a reference published or patented before 2005-03-24 is §102(b) art; a U.S. patent/publication filed before that date is §102(e) art. Several cited references are post-2005 documents (e.g., RIM's US 7,896,247, filed 2008-12-01). Those are not §102 art against these claims and are listed only for completeness.

Bottom line up front: On the face of the grant, no single cited reference appears to disclose every element of independent claim 1 or claim 11. The reason is the claim's structural triad — (i) a biometric sensor, (ii) "an integrated circuit of the personal identification device … at least partially disposed … within a housing," and (iii) "a strap coupled to the housing … configured to permit the user to wear the personal identification device." The cited corpus is rich in biometric fobs, fobs on lanyards, smartcard readers, and PDAs, but I found no cited reference that affirmatively recites a body-worn, strap-mounted biometric device whose own on-board integrated circuit holds the identification credential. That element is where a §102 case is weakest and where a §103 combination case would have to be built.

B. Tier 1 — Closest cited references (strongest §102 exposure)

1. US 6,041,410 A — "Personal identification fob"

• Assignee / inventors: TRW Inc.; Hsu, Shi-Ping; Ling, James M.; Messenger, Arthur F.; Evans, Bruce W.
• Filed: 1997-12-22 · Issued: 2000-03-21 · (family: EP 0 924 656 A2)
• Description (verified): A handheld fob (14) with a fingerprint sensor (16), storage (32) holding a reference fingerprint image, a correlator (28) that compares a live scan to the reference and outputs a match/no-match, and a user interface including a separate switch to enter an "enroll mode" in which biometric data is stored for later verification. On a match, the fob transmits an encrypted identity-confirmation value (a CRC derived from the stored reference image) to a "door" (car, building door, ATM, or computer). Enrollment is performed when the user first acquires the fob; registration with each "door" stores the user's CRC/name.
• Potentially anticipates: Claim 2 (signal sent responsive to a match) and claim 10 (enroll if not previously enrolled) squarely; claim 1 except for (a) the recitation that the identifying integrated circuit is of the device and within its housing as a structural limitation, (b) the strap, and (c) the claimed step of "causing enrollment via the personal identification device with an external enrollment station" (TRW enrolls on the fob and separately registers at the door). Under §102(b) (issued 2000, >1 yr pre-priority), this is the single most on-point reference for the "biometric fob holds the credential and releases it on match" concept.

2. US 6,038,666 A & US 6,182,221 B1 — "Remote identity verification technique using a personal identification device"

• Assignee / inventors: TRW Inc.
• Filed: 1997-12-22 · Issued: 2000-03-14 (’666) and 2001-01-30 (’221, continuation)
• Description: The sibling line to the '410 fob. A personal identification device (PID) carried by the user contains a biometric sensor and stores an enrolled reference; the device verifies the user's identity locally and then communicates with a remote/verification system (ATM, door, network) so the user may be granted access. (I retrieved the citation and the EP family linkage to '410 but not the full '666/'221 specification text in this session — the description above is drawn from the title, the shared priority/family, and the way the '800 specification characterizes this art; treat the detail level as medium confidence.)
• Potentially anticipates: Claim 1 and claim 11 in substantial part (biometric enrollment into a carried device; local match; release of access). The strap and the "integrated circuit of the … device within the housing" recitation remain unmatched. §102(b) art (both issued pre-2005).

3. US 6,848,052 B2 — "High security personalized wireless portable biometric device"

• Assignee / inventors: ActivCard Ireland Ltd.; Hamid, Larry; Bouius, Derek; Hum, Albert
• Filed: 2001-03-21 · Issued: 2005-01-25 · (priority 2001-03-20)
• Description (verified): A wireless handheld biometric device in a housing (12) roughly the size of a deck of cards, with a capacitive fingerprint sensor on the platen (22), a processor (18), a wireless transceiver, and a power supply. The device is personalized/programmed to enrolled fingerprints (FIGS. 5–6 flow diagrams), and upon recognizing an enrolled fingerprint it "sends a transmission signal" to actuate a function/device. It is expressly positioned against Scott et al. (US 6,111,977) and Schmitt et al. (US 6,088,585) as prior hand-held biometric transmitters.
• Potentially anticipates: Claim 1 as to the portable-biometric-device-with-onboard-electronics/verification-and-transmit elements, and claim 2 (signal on match). Issued 2005-01-25 — barely over one year before the 2005-03-24 priority date, so §102(b) status is close; it is comfortably §102(a)/(e) art regardless. Does not disclose a strap.

4. US 6,016,476 A — "Portable information and transaction processing system and method utilizing biometric authorization and digital certificate security"

• Assignee / inventors: International Business Machines Corp.; Maes, et al.
• Filed: 1997-08-11 · Issued: 2000-01-18
• Description: The portable PDA with biometric authentication that the '800 specification itself discusses (Background, "Related Art"). The PDA reads/writes smartcards, magnetic-stripe cards, optical cards and EAROM cards and communicates wired or wirelessly with point-of-sale terminals.
• Potentially anticipates: Claim 1 in part (portable biometric device gating access to stored credential/data), and it is the most direct cited art against the removable-card concepts that dominate the specification and the parent claims. Not a wearable and no strap.

5. US 6,484,260 B1 — "Personal identification system"

• Assignee: Identix Inc. · Filed: 1998-04-24 · Issued: 2002-11-19
• Description: Cited on the front page of the '800 and widely used in this art as a "portable identification unit with fingerprint sensor + card interface" reference. Caveat: I was unable to pull the '260 specification text in this session; I am reporting the citation, dates, and title as they appear in the '800's own reference list, and describing its subject matter at a title level only. Do not treat any element-level mapping beyond "portable biometric identification device" as verified.
• Potentially anticipates: provisionally claim 1; verify against the specification before relying on it.

6. US 6,991,174 B2 — "Method and apparatus for authenticating a shipping transaction" (Zuili) and its PCT sibling WO 2004/015620 A1 (Brite Smart Corp.)

• Filed: 2002-08-09 · Issued: 2006-01-31
• Description: The portable smartcard reader incorporating PIN, asymmetric keys and/or biometrics discussed at length in the '800 specification. The patented method is a shipping-transaction authentication flow (encrypt shipping data with biometrics, store on card + database, re-verify on access).
• Potentially anticipates: the specification's stated concept, and claim 1 only loosely — the claimed method does not recite a shipping transaction. Relevant principally to show that a portable biometric+smartcard authenticator was known and was expressly acknowledged as prior art by the applicant.

C. Tier 2 — Moderately relevant cited references

(The "? " placeholders above are intentional — I declined to insert numbers rather than risk mis-citation. The verified numbers appear in the surrounding columns.)

D. Tier 3 — Early background references (pre-2000; §102(b) art, but generic)

These are the foundation-of-the-art citations. They establish that biometric access control, tokenless biometric transactions, and portable cryptographic tokens long predate the claims, but each is directed to a different problem than the claimed wearable-IC-fob workflow:

• US 4,993,068 A — Motorola — "Unforgeable personal identification system" (1989-11-27 / 1991-02-12)
• US 5,053,608 A — Senanayake — "Personal identification system" (1987-10-02 / 1991-10-01)
• US 5,131,038 A — Motorola — "Portable authentification system" (1990-11-07 / 1992-07-14)
• US 5,280,527 A — Kamahira Safe — "Biometric token for authorizing access to a host system" (1992-04-14 / 1994-01-18)
• US 5,469,506 A — Pitney Bowes — verifying ID card + person by biometric (1994-06-27 / 1995-11-21)
• US 5,526,428 A — IBM — "Access control apparatus and method" (1993-12-29 / 1996-06-11)
• US 5,594,227 A — Microsoft — protecting unauthorized access to data contents (1995-03-28 / 1997-01-14)
• US 5,952,641 A — C-Sam — security device for access to a PC/terminal (1995-11-28 / 1999-09-14)
• US 5,920,640 A — Harris — fingerprint sensor and token reader (1997-05-16 / 1999-07-06)
• US 5,991,408 A — Veridicom — "Identification and security using biometric measurements" (1997-05-16 / 1999-11-23)
• US 5,269,? · US 6,219,793 B1 — Hush — using fingerprints to authenticate wireless communications (1996-09-11 / 2001-04-17)
• US 6,181,803 B1 — Intel — securely processing biometric information to control access to a node (1996-09-30 / 2001-01-30)
• US 6,268,788 B1 / US 6,367,017 B1 — Litronic — biometric authentication systems (1996-11-07)
• US 5,815,? / US 5,818,029 A — Intermart Systems — connecting PCMCIA cards to computer interfaces (1995-10-03 / 1998-10-06) — relevant only to the removable-card/comms angle.
• The "SmartTouch / Indivos / Pare / Hoffman" tokenless-biometric family (all 1994-11-28 filings): US 5,805,719; US 5,613,012; US 5,615,277; US 5,870,723; US 6,154,879; US 6,366,682; US 5,838,812; US 6,879,966; US 6,662,166 — tokenless biometric identification/transaction systems. Relevant to the "biometric authorizes a transaction" concepts of dependent claims 3–4/13–14, but they rely on a central biometric database, which the '800 specification expressly disclaims ("No centralized database of biometric information is needed"). That distinction cuts against §102 anticipation and for the applicant on the dependent financial claims.

E. Claim-by-claim §102 exposure summary

F. Non-patent literature and later-dated items (flagged, not §102 art)

• Justia lists an NPL citation: "Oberthur Technologies, AuthenTec join forces to create SIM-based NFC mobile services platform for fingerprinting-enabled Android smartphones," The Paypers (Nov. 2013). This post-dates the 2005-03-24 priority date by ~8.5 years and therefore cannot be §102 prior art against these claims. Its appearance in the file is anomalous and worth understanding if you are reconstructing the prosecution history. Reported from the Justia record; I did not independently retrieve the article.
• "Cited By" and "Families Citing this family" entries (e.g., TW201947454A "Secure enrolment of biometric data" (2019); Hussain et al., "MFAT: Security Enhancements in Integrated Biometric Smart Cards…") are forward citations, not prior art.
• US 7,896,247 B2 (RIM, filed 2008-12-01) and US 7,811,101 B2 (Kingston, filed 2007-03-20) appear in the reference list but post-date the 2005 priority date — not §102 art.
• Family/self references — US 7,481,364; US 8,186,580; US 8,708,230; US 9,349,232; US 9,734,317; US 10,296,735; US 12,050,674 — are the same family (shared 2005-03-24 priority) and are not prior art. Likewise the "Family Cites Families" items WO 2004/008282 A2, EP 1 529 367 A4, WO 2004/109455 A2 are Privaris/1PerfectID's own earlier applications and are not independent prior art (AU 7788191 A, Russell, 1989, is independent but very remote).

G. Conclusions and explicit uncertainties

1. No clean §102 reference. Based on the citation set and the retrieved texts, no cited reference discloses the "strap configured to permit the user to wear the personal identification device" limitation, and none recites the identifying integrated circuit as being of the device and housed within it in the way claim 1 does. Anticipation of claims 1/11 on these references alone is therefore unlikely; the realistic attack is a §103 combination (e.g., TRW's '410/'666 biometric fob + a wearable/lanyard form factor such as Kozlay '134 + a card-identifier check).
2. Strongest single references: US 6,041,410 (biometric fob, on-device enrollment and match, transmit-on-match) and US 6,038,666 / US 6,182,221 (TRW personal identification device), followed by US 6,848,052 (Activcard wireless portable biometric device) and US 6,016,476 (Maes/IBM portable biometric PDA with card I/O).
3. Verify two entries before relying on them: US 6,484,260 (Identix) and US 2006/0115134 (Kozlay) — I could not retrieve their specification text in this session, and Kozlay '134 is the only cited item that might touch the wearable element. Everything I state about their disclosures is title/date-level only.
4. Prosecutorial/anomaly flags: (a) the 113 vs. 124 citation-count mismatch; (b) a post-priority NPL (2013 Paypers article) appearing in the file; (c) the claim/abstract mismatch already noted in the earlier section of this analysis (the grant claims an on-device IC, while the abstract and specification describe a removable card in an aperture) — this mismatch is itself relevant to prior-art mapping, because the parent applications' removable-card claims are what most of the cited smartcard references (Zuili/'174, Brite Smart WO 2004/015620, Canon '933, ActivCard) were actually aimed at.
5. Status context: the patent is recorded as Expired – Lifetime with anticipated expiration 2026-03-24 (20 years from the 2005 priority). Prior-art questions here are therefore of historical/validity-interest rather than live-enforcement consequence.

Note on tool limits: I hit the search-step ceiling while verifying the abstracts of US 6,182,221 / US 6,038,666, US 6,484,260 and US 2006/0115134. The entries for those four are marked accordingly above; the remaining entries rest on the '800's own front-page citation table (authoritative as to citation identity and dates) plus, where noted, retrieved specification text.

I'll verify the key prior-art references that map to the claim elements before building the §103 combinations.

Let me verify a few more references that bear on the wearable/strap and enrollment-station limitations.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 11,397,800 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note. Per the task, this analysis uses the prior-art references appearing on the patent's own face (the "Patent Citations (124)," "Families Citing this family," and the references discussed in the specification), all of which I checked for dates and content. I flag where my mapping rests on a title/abstract rather than a full-text read. I do not re-discuss bibliographic data, continuity, or litigation here — see the prior sections. One correction to note up front: the previously generated "Patent summary" listed the anticipated expiration as "before today's date (April 26, 2026)" — the authoritative page shows the priority date 2005-03-24 and expiration 2026-03-24, consistent with that. For § 103 purposes, the governing date is the 2005-03-24 priority date (provisional 60/665,043), and every reference below predates it.

I. Legal framework

Under Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the analysis asks whether the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention. A combination of references can render a claim obvious where: (a) the references are analogous/from the same field; (b) there is a rational motivation to combine (design incentive, market demand, predictable variation, "obvious to try"); and (c) there is a reasonable expectation of success. Critically here, KSR permits reliance on "common sense" and on design expedients, and holds that a combination of familiar elements according to known methods is obvious when it yields predictable results.

The patent is expired (term ran from the 2005-03-24 priority), which is relevant only to remedies — not to validity.

II. Level of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

A bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science (or equivalent), plus about 2–3 years of experience in the design of portable electronic authentication devices — fingerprint sensing/matching, smart-card (ISO 7816) and secure-element integration, and short-range wireless/wired communication. Such a person would be familiar with: on-device fingerprint template generation and 1:1 matching; embedded microcontrollers/secure ICs and their stored identifiers (serial numbers, UIDs, certificates); and form-factor packaging of portable credentials (fobs, badges, cards).

III. Claim-construction points that drive the analysis

1. "integrated circuit of the personal identification device … at least partially disposed … within a housing." As noted in the prior summary, this language replaced the earlier "removable card" claims. Read literally it covers any IC that is part of the device and located in/at the housing — an embedded secure element, microcontroller, or memory IC. It does not require a removable card, an aperture, or smart-card terminals. This broad reading is what exposes the claims to the portable biometric-fob art.
2. "identification credential of an integrated circuit" — a credential (key, certificate, serial number, account) stored on that IC.
3. "strap … configured to permit the user to wear the personal identification device" (claim 1) and "wearable personal identification device" (claim 11) — the only express structural limitation that is not plainly met by ordinary handheld biometric devices. This is the single element most likely to carry any non-obviousness weight.
4. "external enrollment station" — a separate enrollment/registration system with which the device enrolls the user (and receives account/credential data).
5. "previously-stored electronic data associated with the user" — financial data, identification data, or other user credentials resident on the device.

IV. The principal prior-art references

All are analogous art (portable biometric authentication / access control) and all predate 2005-03-24.

V. Ground 1 — Claim 1 is obvious over TRW '410 in view of Maes '476 (and Kepler '882)

Claim 1 element-by-element mapping:

Result: every limitation is disclosed or rendered obvious by the combination. The only element not squarely shown by TRW or Maes alone — the strap — is (i) described by the applicant's own specification as an optional carrying accessory, and (ii) a ubiquitous, non-technical expedient for ID credentials (lanyard/badge holders).

Alternative Ground 1′ (same result): Maes '476 as primary (portable device, biometric sensor in a housing, IC-stored credentials, stored user data, external enrollment) in view of TRW '410 (fob form factor + match signal + physical/logical access), further in view of Kepler '882 for the express "enrollment system."

VI. Ground 2 — Claim 11 is obvious over Maes '476 / Kepler '882 in view of TRW '410 and Zuili '174

Claim 11 adds (i) associating the first biometric input with an identifier of an IC within the housing; (ii) causing enrollment with an enrollment station; (iii) reading the identifier stored on the IC; (iv) determining whether the identifier matches a stored identifier; and (v) permitting access only when both the biometric match and the identifier match occur.

The identifier-match step is the classic "read the token's unique ID and check it against a stored ID" operation that these references teach; adding it to a biometric gate is a predictable combination under KSR.

VII. Motivation to combine (KSR rationales)

1. Same field of endeavor. TRW '410, Maes '476, Kepler '882, Zuili '174, Activcard '052, and Mikos '147 are all directed to portable devices that biometrically authenticate a user before releasing a credential or granting access. This is the exact field of the challenged claims.
2. Common problem, common solution. Each addresses the same problem — the theft/forgery risk of keys, PINs, and cards — and each solves it with on-device fingerprint matching. Where the references share a problem and a mechanism, combination is obvious.
3. Design incentive / market demand. The specification itself recites the market need ("combining the visual identification aspect of the smartcard with the biometric and wireless components…," replacing "multiple cards" and "keys"). Devices like the DoD CAC environment made multi-application, wearable, biometric credentials commercially desirable.
4. Predictable result (mere aggregation). Combining TRW's wearable fob form factor with Maes's IC-card credential storage/read-write and multi-application data yields no unexpected synergy — each reference performs its own function and the combination does exactly what each was designed to do.
5. "Obvious to try" / finite predictable options. Choosing among a fob, key fob, badge, or PDA form factor for a portable biometric credential was a known design space with predictable trade-offs (portability vs. display/keypad). KSR forecloses patentability where a PHOSITA pursues a known option with a reasonable expectation of success.
6. Applicant's own admissions. The specification expressly discusses Zuili and Maes as the state of the art and describes the strap 110 as a carrying option — these admissions reduce the distance between the prior art and the claims.

VIII. Dependent claims

IX. Potential rebuttals and secondary considerations

• "No single reference discloses the strap-worn biometric device with an embedded IC and an external enrollment station." This is the strongest available non-obviousness argument, but it is an argument against anticipation (which is not the vehicle here), not against obviousness. The strap/waarable element is thin: it is (a) admitted in the applicant's own specification as an optional carrying method and (b) a conventional expedient for credentials. Expect a challenger to support it with the fob/key form factors (TRW '410, Mikos '147) and common knowledge; expect the patentee to argue no reference teaches wearing a biometric device.
• Secondary considerations. Long-felt need, industry praise, or commercial success of the Privaris BPID lineage could be asserted, but the required nexus to claims 1/11 is weak: the commercial device appears to embody the specification's removable-smart-card embodiment, not the issued claims' "integrated circuit … within a housing." Copying, if any, would likewise need to map to the claim.
• § 112 overlay (not § 103). Because the only described embodiment places the IC in a removable card inserted through an aperture, a serious written-description/enablement question exists as to the claimed "integrated circuit of the personal identification device … within a housing." A § 112 challenge could be more dispositive than § 103, but it is outside this task.
• Prosecution history caveat. The claim set was evidently rewritten during prosecution (from "removable card" to "integrated circuit"). I have not verified the examiner's reasons for allowance from an authoritative file wrapper; if the examiner distinguished any of the above references on a specific ground, that ground (and any resulting estoppel) would need to be examined. Treat the above as a technical § 103 assessment, not a reconstruction of the actual prosecution.

X. Bottom line and confidence

• Claims 1 and 11, and dependent claims 2–10 and 12–18, appear vulnerable under § 103. The single strongest, best-grounded combination is US 6,041,410 (TRW fob) + US 6,016,476 (Maes) + US 2004/0188519 A1 / US 6,983,882 (Kepler) — with US 2004/0149820 A1 / US 6,991,174 (Zuili) supplying the "read/examine the IC identifier and match it to a stored identifier" teaching for claim 11.
• Highest confidence: the biometric-sensor, on-device template storage/matching, enrollment, stored user-data, match-signal, and physical/logical-access limitations (TRW '410 + Maes '476).
• Medium confidence: the "external enrollment station" limitation (Kepler '882 and Maes explicitly teach enrollment systems/databases).
• Lowest confidence / key battleground: the strap / wearable limitation, and the precise import of "integrated circuit of the personal identification device." A challenger must marshal either a reference showing a worn biometric credential or rely on applicant's admission + common knowledge.

Caveats on sourcing. Mappings for US 5,280,527 (Kamahira), US 6,766,040 (Biometric Solutions), US 6,850,147 (Mikos), US 6,848,052 (Activcard), and US 7,748,636 (DPD) rest on their titles, abstracts, and the patent page's citations; I did not read every full text, so any Ground that depends primarily on those references should be confirmed against the full documents before being asserted.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11397800B2](/patent/US11397800B2)/en ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/[6041410](/patent/6041410) ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US20040188519 ; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2004/0149820.html ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US6848052 ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US6016476 (Maes, as cited in the '800 record)