US 1493119

I'll verify the record against live sources before summarizing.

US Patent 1,493,119 — Summary

Verification note: I confirmed this record against the Google Patents full text at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US1493119A](/patent/US1493119A)/en. I could not directly query USPTO PatentCenter, PACER, or the CAFC docket system with the tools available; my docket-related statements below rest on web search plus the public patent record, so treat them as "no evidence found" rather than an affirmative negative clearance.

---

Bibliographic data

Assignee caveat: Google Patents expressly warns that its assignee listing "may be inaccurate" and reflects no legal analysis. Because no assignment is recorded, the patent is best described as unassigned/individually held. I have no authoritative information on any chain of title after issuance.

---

Abstract

There is no formal abstract. US patents of this era were not required to include one, and none appears in the printed patent. The closest thing to an abstract is the two-paragraph "objects of the invention" passage in the specification:

"This invention relates to furniture, and has special reference to furniture adapted particularly for use in constricted places, such as are found in apartments and bungalows for dining purposes, such arrangements [as] Pullman breakfast rooms."
"One important object … is to provide furniture for a room of this description, which may be readily moved out of the way at times when not in use, and which may also, without difficulty, be quickly placed in position for use."
"A second important object … is to provide improved furniture of this description wherein the chairs and table commonly used will cooperate, the chairs being so arranged as to properly support the table in unfolded position."

(The quoted text is lightly de-OCR'd; the source page contains garbled strings such as "Pullman breakfast rooms." and "diiiculty.")

---

Disclosure in brief

A wall-mounted space-saving dining set:

• A fixed vertical rod (10) is bracketed to a wall (11) by brackets (12) and (13), the lower bracket/stop thereby setting a limit on travel of a sliding member (18).
• A single arm (15) is pivoted at the bottom of the rod via bracket (14). Its free end carries the table (17) — preferably circular — pivoted at the table's center through a downward lug (16).
• A pair of links (19) are pivoted to each other and run from the sliding member (18) down to a lug (20) on the table's edge.
• The arm (15) has an angular portion (21) near bracket (14) that contacts the floor when the table is unfolded, blocking further downward travel (Fig. 5). The stop bracket (13) is at a height that makes the links (19) hold the table horizontally.
• To stow: raise arm (15) to vertical and slide member (18) upward, so table (17) hangs vertically against the wall (Fig. 6).
• Chairs: rear legs (22) tied by cross bars (23); seat (24) and rungs (25) hinged to the rear legs and to front legs (26). One front leg (26) extends above the seat and carries a hinged chair arm (27) whose rear end hinges to a rear leg. The arm projects forwardly past the front leg (28) at a height matching the table underside, so the chairs themselves are the table's supports when unfolded. Optional casters (29). Folding is by lifting the front legs (Fig. 3; the text's cross-reference to "Fig. 8" appears to be an OCR/typographical error, since only Figs. 1–7 are listed).

---

Independent claims — plain language

There are two claims, both independent (no dependent claims; claim 2 is a narrower species of claim 1).

Claim 1 — the wall-mounted folding table plus chair-supports, broadly:

1. A fixed vertical support;
2. an arm pivoted at one end to the lower part of that support;
3. a table pivoted at its center to the free end of the arm;
4. a sliding member on the vertical support;
5. a link connection pivoted at one end to the edge of the table and at its other end to the sliding member; and
6. a plurality of chairs positioned and arranged to constitute supports for the table when the table is unfolded.

Plain reading: the novel combination is a three-point linkage (bottom-pivoted arm + center pivot + edge link to a slider on the same vertical rail) that lets the table swing up and down against a wall — combined with chairs arranged to bear the table's weight in the use position. Claim 1's final element requires only that the chairs be "positioned and arranged to constitute supports," without reciting any particular chair structure.

Claim 2 — same table mechanism, with the chair positively recited:

1. A fixed vertical support;
2. an arm pivoted at one end to the lower part of that support;
3. a table pivoted at its center to the free end of the arm;
4. a sliding member on the vertical support;
5. a link connection pivoted at one end to the edge of the table and at its other end to the sliding member; and
6. a plurality of chairs positioned to be engaged by the table when unfolded, each chair provided with an arm of sufficient height to constitute a support on which the table rests in the unfolded position.

Plain reading: this simply imports the chair structure actually described in the specification — the forward-projecting chair arm (27/28) at table height — as an express limitation on the chair-support element.

Drafting observations (my analysis, flagged as such):

• Both claims recite "an arm pivoted at one end …" and then "pivoted at its center to the free end of said bar." There is no antecedent "bar" in either claim; "bar" is a leftover from the specification's interchangeable use of "bar or arm 15." This is an antecedent-basis/indefiniteness defect by modern § 112(b) standards.
• The claims are silent on the stop (13) and the floor-engaging angular portion (21) — two features the specification presents as load-bearing for the "horizontal positioning" and "prevents further downward movement" effects. An accused device could omit both and still arguably read on the claims.
• Claim 1's chair element is arguably functional-only at the point of novelty and may be indefinite as to how the chairs "constitute supports."

---

Litigation / CAFC 2026 docket check

No relevant results. I searched for US 1,493,119 in connection with Federal Circuit and 2026 docket activity and found no litigation, IPR/PGR, or CAFC appeal involving this patent. This is expected: the patent expired May 6, 1941, roughly 85 years before the current date, so it is incapable of being asserted. The only "1493119"-adjacent hit in the searches was Brazilian Supreme Court proceeding ARE 1.493.119 (Alagoas) — an unrelated FUNDEF education-funding matter, included here only to show I did not conflate it with the US patent.

I have no authoritative information regarding any historical infringement suits from the 1920s–1940s; none surfaced, and I cannot confirm or deny them from these sources.

The Google Patents "Cited By" list shows five later US patents that cite US 1,493,119, all post-expiration: US 2,461,683 (Dierickx, 1949), US 2,570,301 (Adsit, 1951), US 3,109,678 (Wilson, 1963), US 3,212,815 (Fixtures Mfg Corp, 1965), and US 6,045,193 (Johnson, 2000). These are citations by later patents to this one — not assertions of it.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 1493119.

Let me run additional targeted searches on litigation databases.

Let me do a couple final verification searches.

Litigation Search: US Patent 1,493,119

Bottom line: I found no litigation involving US Patent 1,493,119. No district court case, CAFC appeal, ITC action, PTAB proceeding, or foreign proceeding asserting or challenging this patent appeared in any of the searches run.

Patent identification (confirmed, interpreted literally)

• Patent number: US 1,493,119 — "Combination Table and Chairs"
• Inventor: Minnie Love, San Diego, California
• Application: Serial No. 642,629, filed May 31, 1923; granted May 6, 1924
• Assignee: Individual (no corporate assignee of record)
• Legal status: Expired – Lifetime; anticipated expiration May 6, 1941 (i.e., the patent term ended roughly 85 years ago)
• Claims: 2 claims, directed to a wall-mounted fixed vertical support, a pivoted arm carrying a center-pivoted table, a sliding member with a link connection to the table edge, and a plurality of chairs (with arms of sufficient height) that support the table in its unfolded position.

Searches performed and results

Searches were run against Google Patents (which would surface the litigation/Darts-IP-style data tab if any existed), and general web indices that include litigation aggregators, CAFC materials, PACER-adjacent docket repositories (Docket Alarm, CourtListener, Unified Patents litigation pages, patentimages litigation exhibits).

Every hit containing the string "1493119" was a false positive — unrelated to this patent:

Relevant nuance on "cited by" data

Google Patents lists 5 later patents that cite US 1,493,119 as prior art (US 2,461,683; US 2,570,301; US 3,109,678; US 3,212,815; US 6,045,193). These are prior-art citations in prosecution, not litigation. Citing a patent is not an assertion of infringement and does not create a case.

Important caveats

1. I could not consult fee-based dockets with certainty. The Unified Patents litigation portal, Darts-IP, Lex Machina, and Westlaw/Lexis "KeyCite" / "CourtLink" patent-litigation histories were not directly searchable here. A definitive negative would require those.
2. The relevant litigation window predates electronic dockets. US 1,493,119 issued in 1924 and expired in 1941. Any infringement suits would have been filed 1924–1941 in federal district courts and reported in print reporters (F., F.2d, F. Supp.) — a body of material that is poorly indexed online. My searches would not reliably surface a 1920s–30s equity suit against a furniture manufacturer, if one ever existed.
3. No assignment or corporate ownership trail appears in the record (Individual assignee), which is consistent with a patent that was never commercially enforced.

Conclusion: Based on the sources available, there is no known litigation involving US Patent 1,493,119. I am stating this as "not found," not as an absolute certainty, given the pre-1941 time period and the fee-based databases I could not query.

PTAB Search: US Patent 1,493,119

Let me verify the structured data against live sources before finalizing.

PTAB Search: US Patent 1,493,119

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0 — 0 active, 0 with claims invalidated, 0 with claims sustained, 0 settled, and 0 institution denials. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP) returns nothing, and independent web searches surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding naming US 1,493,119, Minnie Love, or Serial No. 642,629.

Bottom-line defensive posture for a defendant: there is no PTAB history at all, and that is the expected result rather than a gap in the data. US 1,493,119 issued 1924-05-06, was filed 1923-05-31, and (per the Google Patents record, matching the 17-year pre-1995 term) reached its anticipated expiration on 1941-05-06. AIA trials only became available on 2012-09-16. There is no live term, no damages window inside the 6-year limitations period of 35 U.S.C. § 286, and therefore no economic reason for any petitioner to file — and no PTAB finding to lean on. If you receive a demand letter citing this patent, the defect is not an IPR outcome; it is that the patent expired roughly 85 years ago.

(No proceedings on file)

No proceeding number can be reported, because none exists. Per the task constraint to not invent proceeding numbers, no per-proceeding entries are fabricated below. For completeness, here is the negative result broken out against the template:

Why each AIA vehicle is unavailable or unattractive here (statutory check)

• Post-Grant Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 321–329) — Categorically unavailable. PGR requires a patent with a claim having an effective filing date on or after 2013-03-16. US 1,493,119 has an effective filing date of 1923-05-31.
• Covered Business Method review (AIA § 18) — Unavailable. The claims are directed to furniture (a "combination table and chairs"), not a "financial product or service," and the CBM program's petition window closed 2020-09-16.
• Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319) — Legally permissible in the abstract (the Board has instituted IPRs on pre-AIA patents; retroactive application was upheld, e.g., Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and again in the Genentech line of appeals). But an IPR cannot revive or extend a term, and with the patent expired since 1941-05-06 and § 286 time-barring pre-2020 damages, there is no cognizable controversy to motivate a filing.
• Ex parte reexamination (35 U.S.C. §§ 301–307) — Not an AIA trial and therefore outside the structured data, but I also found no reexamination certificate or reexam proceeding associated with US 1,493,119 (no reexam record appears on the Google Patents "Also Published As / Post-Grant" data). Stated as "not found," not as a certified negative.

What the record does contain (and why it is not PTAB activity)

• 5 forward citations, all prosecution-time prior-art citations, not challenges: US 2,461,683 (Dierickx, "Table and chair combination"); US 2,570,301 (Adsit, "Table and chair unit"); US 3,109,678 (Wilson, "Table and seat structure"); US 3,212,815 (Fixtures Mfg Corp, "Table and chair structure"); US 6,045,193 (Johnson, "Combination multiple ottomans and coffee table"). These are applicants/examiners citing Love as art — there is no petitioner and no patent owner participating, and none is a PTAB paper.
• False-positive identifiers that do not refer to this patent (same set surfaced in the earlier litigation pass, re-confirmed): Brazilian STF ARE 1493119 / AL (FUNDEF precatório), Brazilian STJ AGRAVO EM RECURSO ESPECIAL Nº 1493119, EP 1493119 A1, CN 1493119 A, and US trademark Reg. No. 1493119 ("SUPERIOR," dog chews). The USPTO Assignment and ODP records show an individual inventor/assignee with no corporate trail.

Strategic summary

Claim status of US 1,493,119: both claims are UNTESTED at the PTAB — neither canceled, neither sustained, because neither was ever challenged. Claim 1 (fixed vertical support + arm pivoted at its lower part + center-pivoted table + sliding member + link connection to the table edge + "a plurality of chairs positioned and arranged to constitute supports for said table when the latter is in unfolded position") and claim 2 (the same structure where the chairs are "provided with an arm of sufficient height to constitute a support whereon said table rests in said unfolded position") both stand exactly as issued 1924-05-06, and both lapsed with the term on 1941-05-06. There is no narrowing, no certificate, and no surviving-claim list to report.

Estoppel landscape: empty. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to a petitioner in an IPR that has reached a final written decision. There is no petitioner and no FWD here, so no statutory estoppel bars anyone from raising any invalidity ground — a defendant is free to run § 102, § 103, and § 112 theories in district court (including the earlier patents that Love itself cites as references, plus the 1920s furniture art, e.g., US 1,283,733 (Gorny, 1918) on a combined table-and-chair construction). That freedom is academic, however: the same absence of a live term that removes any PTAB incentive also removes the infringement theory that would make invalidity matter. The practical posture is that §§ 102/103/112, § 286, and the expired term are all uncontested ground for a defendant.

Pattern signals: none. No serial petitioner, no repeat filer, no defensive aggregator. Unified Patents did not exist until 2012 and appears nowhere in this record; the patent predates modern patent-assertion finance by decades. The earlier litigation pass reached the same conclusion — no district court, ITC, or foreign action found — which is consistent: well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs, and a patent with no assertion history and an 85-year-old expiration attracts none. This is a "no activity, no live rights" fact pattern, not a "hardened patent" fact pattern.

One internal-inconsistency note for the drafter (not a PTAB item): the specification's chair-folding paragraph references "the position shown in Fig. 8," but the drawing legend and description enumerate only Figs. 1–7. This is an OCR/specification irregularity in the 1924 text (also present in the Google Patents transcription, e.g., "bag legs" for "rear legs," "liilz's" for "links"). It does not affect the PTAB analysis but is worth flagging if claim-construction of the original disclosure ever mattered. It is consistent with — not contradictory to — the earlier sections.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant facing a demand letter citing US 1,493,119: do not build a PTAB strategy. There is nothing to invalidate that has any remaining force, and there is no FWD to link to or quote. The dispositive responses are (1) the patent expired 1941-05-06 (see the Google Patents "Anticipated expiration" entry at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US1493119A](/patent/US1493119A)/en), and (2) any infringement claim is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 286 (six-year damages lookback), since no accused conduct can fall within the recovery window of a term that ended 85 years ago.
• If a counterparty claims PTAB proceedings exist: treat that as unverified. Ask for the proceeding number and pull it in PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) or the PTAB Decisions database (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions). Nothing in the ODP structured data or the open web supports such a claim. No institution date, oral-hearing date, or one-year FWD deadline can be stated because no petition was ever filed.
• If you want a true certified negative (as opposed to "not found"): the gaps in my coverage are the fee-based/closed channels — PTAB E2E full-text search behind authentication, and any pre-1941 equity litigation in print reporters, which is poorly indexed online. Practically, neither is material here: the patent's expiration date alone resolves the defensive question independent of any proceeding history.
• CAFC check: no Federal Circuit appeal is possible or present, because there is no Board decision to appeal. CourtListener returns no case for "1,493,119" (https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%221%2C493%2C119%22).

Verification sources consulted: Google Patents record for US1493119A (https://patents.google.com/patent/US1493119A/en), the USPTO ODP-derived "PTAB proceedings on file" block supplied in this prompt, PTAB E2E document repository (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/), Docket Alarm PTAB corpus, and CourtListener. Statutory points: 35 U.S.C. §§ 286, 311–319, 321–329, and AIA § 18 (CBM sunset 2020-09-16). Dates reported in YYYY-MM-DD format.

I'll search for assignment records and ownership history for this patent.

Let me check the USPTO Assignment Center record and any ownership trail directly.

Assignment Record Reconstruction — US Patent 1,493,119

Scope note up front: This is a 1923-filed, 1924-issued, 1941-expired patent naming a sole individual inventor. I searched the USPTO assignment resources and cross-referenced Google Patents legal events; no recorded assignment exists in the chain. The task instruction says to "stop after" the timeline section when the Assignment Center has no records, but the output spec also mandates a Verdict category ("Insufficient data") that exists precisely for this case. I've resolved that tension by completing all mandated sections, keeping the post-timeline sections short and explicitly negative. Flagging it rather than silently choosing one.

Inventors

• The printed patent (patentimages PDF, US1493119, p. 1) reads: "Be it known that I, MINNIE LOVE, a citizen of the United States of America, and resident of San Diego, in the county of San Diego and State of California, have invented certain new and useful Improvements in Combination Tables and Chairs." There is no "assignor to" language on the face of the patent, which is itself dispositive evidence that no assignment existed at issuance.
• Pattern note (context, not evidence): The inventor is a woman, and the patent is unassigned. In the 1923 era, women inventors held a very small single-digit share of US patents, and unassigned individual grants in household-furniture classes were typically independent inventors rather than employee-inventors. I did not find any source identifying an employer, company affiliation, or commercial backing for Minnie Love, and I will not infer one.
• The "all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months" pattern the task asks about is not applicable — there was no original assignee to depart from.

Original assignee

• Entity named on the issued patent: none. The patent issued to Minnie Love individually. Google Patents renders this as "Original Assignee: Individual" and "Current Assignee: Individual" — but that is a derived/normalized display field for "no assignee of record," not a recorded assignment. There is no reel/frame entry behind it.
• Primary line of business / products embodying the claims: Not determinable. I found no evidence that any product embodying claims 1 or 2 was ever manufactured or sold — no trade catalog, no company record, no corporate successor. The specification describes a furniture concept ("Pullman breakfast rooms," "apartments and bungalows for dining purposes") but a specification is not a product.
• Current status: N/A for an assignee. The patent is expired. Google Patents legal events show: application filed 1923-05-31 → priority 1923-05-31 → granted 1924-05-06 → published 1924-05-06 → anticipated expiration 1941-05-06 → status "Expired – Lifetime." No assignment, security-agreement, merger, change-of-name, or license event appears anywhere in the legal-events timeline.
• Ownership window closed ~85 years ago. Any interest that ever existed in this patent was extinguished by the end of the 17-year term on 1941-05-06.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center / Patent Assignment Search shows no assignment records for US Patent 1,493,119. I found no reel/frame entries, no conveyance of any type, no assignor/assignee pairs, and no correspondent-of-record on this patent.

Consequences of a null chain, stated plainly:

• No assignor → no correspondent to capture. The correspondent-of-record tell (the repeat-player attorney who files every recording for an NPE family) is unavailable here because there are no recordings at all.
• There is no chain to diagram beyond the invention itself. I cannot enumerate assignments in the requested format because none exist.
• Database-coverage caveat (important to the negative): The USPTO's online assignment system is generally understood to be comprehensive for records from roughly 1980 forward; assignments recorded in the 1923–1941 window are pre-digital and sit on microfilm, and their presence in the online text search is not guaranteed. So my negative is "no records found," not a certified "none were ever recorded." That distinction does not change the practical answer: the patent expired in 1941, and any unrecorded or microfilm-only transfer would be of a long-dead right with no assertion value today.
• Citing patents are not assignments. Google Patents lists five later patents citing US 1,493,119 as prior art — US 2,461,683; US 2,570,301; US 3,109,678; US 3,212,815; US 6,045,193. These are prosecution citations by later applicants/examiners. A citation is not a conveyance and does not put any of those entities in the chain of title. None of them ever owned this patent on the record.

Timeline diagram

Only invention and issue/expiry events exist; there are no ownership transfers to plot.

timeline
    title Ownership of US 1493119
    1923 : Filed by Minnie Love sole inventor
    1924 : Patent issued to Minnie Love
         : No assignment recorded
    1941 : Patent term expired
         : Ownership chain ends

NPE / troll-pattern signals

All eight are negative. Because they are negative, none can be cited to a reel/frame — that is the point of the finding.

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No transfer of any kind is recorded. There is no licensing-only LLC, no "IP / Patents / Holdings / Ventures" successor, and therefore no Delaware/Texas single-purpose entity to point at. The patent flowed straight from inventor-death of right to expiry.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. No assignee exists to compare against Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi-LAN/Mosaid-Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Erich Spangenberg entities, or any RPX/Unified high-frequency-plaintiff list. The only name on the patent is the inventor's.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present (no chain exists). There are zero recorded conveyances, so there is no correspondent of record at all — not one appearance, let alone a recurrence. Note for accuracy: the "recurrence" test the task specifies can never be met by a single appearance, and here there are none.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. No consecutive assignments, no chained LLCs, no shared correspondent addresses. The 1923 → 1924 → 1941 events are filing, grant, and statutory expiry — not transfers.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. There is no litigation to precede. A transfer within 6 months of a suit cannot exist when there is neither a transfer nor a suit.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No original corporate assignee exists and therefore no Chapter 7/11 estate; no Kodak/Nortel/Polaroid-style patent sale touches this patent.
7. Privateering — not present. There is no operating-company assignor to transfer to an NPE, and no SEC filing could describe such a transfer because none occurred.
8. Defensive aggregator — not present, but not an anti-NPE signal either. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN. It terminates at statutory expiry on 1941-05-06. Expiry is not neutralization by a defensive aggregator; the patent was never a live assertion asset in the modern NPE era and never could be, since it died decades before that ecosystem existed.

Verdict

Insufficient data (the category the rubric reserves for "no records, or only the original assignment").

Justification: The USPTO Assignment Center returns no reel/frame entries for US 1,493,119 — no assignment, merger, change-of-name, security agreement, license, or release — and Google Patents shows a legal-events timeline consisting solely of the 1923-05-31 filing, 1924-05-06 grant and publication, and the 1941-05-06 anticipated expiration. With a single sole inventor (Minnie Love, San Diego) as the only name ever of record and no corporate assignee, there is no ownership chain to assess for shell entities, repeat correspondents, cascading transfers, or asserter identity. To be explicit about the limits of this negative: the USPTO's online assignment database is generally comprehensive only from ~1980 forward, and pre-1980 recordings are microfilm-era, so I cannot certify that nothing was ever recorded in 1924–1941 — only that nothing appears today and that, given expiry in 1941, any such pre-digital recording would be immaterial. Note also that the prior litigation section likewise found no assertion activity; the two findings are consistent and mutually reinforcing. This is not an NPE finding in either direction — it is an absence-of-record finding.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Legacy USPTO Patent Assignment Search (same underlying records): https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — search by patent number 1493119
• Google Patents record with legal-events timeline: https://patents.google.com/patent/US1493119/en

Correction flag for the assembled document: the litigation section's table and the "current assignee" field above both must not be read as implying an ownership event. Google Patents' "Original Assignee: Individual / Current Assignee: Individual" is a normalized stand-in for no assignee of record; it is not a reel/frame-backed assignment, and it should not be cited as one anywhere in this file.

I'll verify the record and hunt specifically for prior-art citations on this patent's face.

Let me check the FreePatentsOnline and Justia records, which typically expose the front-page "References Cited" (backward citations) separately.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent 1,493,119

Method note / limitation: I do not have a direct API handle to USPTO Patent Public Search or PatentCenter, so I queried the public patent record through Google Patents (which mirrors the USPTO full-text/OCR record and Google's citation graph), plus FreePatentsOnline and Justia — the three aggregators that expose front-page "References Cited" separately from "Cited By." The authoritative document text supplied in this prompt (the printed patent) was used as the controlling source where it conflicts with OCR snippets. Where I could not verify something, I say so below.

---

1. The critical finding, stated up front

US 1,493,119 has NO cited prior art on its face. Neither the printed patent document nor any of the three aggregators shows a "References Cited" / "Patent Citations" (backward-citation) block for this patent. Google Patents' page for US1493119A contains only:

• Cited By (5) — forward citations (later patents citing this one), and
• Similar Documents — an algorithmic similarity list, not citations at all.

This is historically normal: examiner front-page prior-art listings were introduced by USPTO rule in 1947, roughly 23 years after this patent issued. A 1924 patent has no "References Cited" field because the field did not yet exist.

Consequence for the task as framed: the only references associated with patent number 1493119 in the public record are the five forward citations. None of them is prior art, and none can anticipate claims 1 or 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, for the dispositive reason that every one of them was filed and granted after this patent's 1923 filing date and 1924 issue date. I detail each below, then identify what the actual most-relevant § 102 art would be, with the caveat that those are my candidates — not citations appearing on the patent.

---

2. Confirmed record for 1493119

---

3. Section A — The patent's own cited references (backward citations)

Finding: zero references cited. A search of the record for a "References Cited" block on US1493119A returned nothing — the printed patent PDF (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a9/f8/e6/353b4d402b9191/US1493119.pdf) goes directly from the specification to the claims with no citation column, and the Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, and Justia entries for this number likewise carry no backward-citation table.

Because there are no cited references, there is no reference to map against claim 1 or claim 2 under § 102 on the patent's face. Any § 102 analysis of this patent is therefore necessarily an external reconstruction, which I give in Section D.

---

4. Section B — The five "Cited By" references (forward citations)

These are the five documents that Google Patents/USTPO list as citing US 1,493,119. I list them with full citation, date, description, and the § 102 conclusion.

B-1. US 2,461,683 A — "Table and chair combination"

• Inventor: Walter C. Dierickx · Filed: March 15, 1947 · Granted: February 15, 1949 · Appl. No. US 735,037
• Class: A47B 83/02; F16D 3/54
• Description (from the FPO full text): A table top supported by and resting on a plurality of chairs. Each chair arm is cut away to form a ledge 10 at a depth equal to the tabletop thickness, and each ledge carries an upstanding dowel pin 11 that engages a recess 12 in the underside of the round tabletop. The chairs are arranged in a circle and serve as the sole supports for the table top; the top can be lifted off and hung on a wall as a plaque. It explicitly states as an object "to provide an article of furniture that combines a table top and a plurality of chairs as supporting means for the top."
• On its face: FreePatentsOnline's "US Patent References" table for 2,461,683 lists "1493119 | Combination table and chairs | 1924-05-06" — confirming the direction of citation.
• § 102 analysis: Does not anticipate claims 1 or 2. Two independent grounds: (a) its 1947 filing date is 24 years after 1493119's 1923 filing — it is not prior art to 1493119 under any subsection of § 102; and (b) even disregarding date, it lacks every structural element of claim 1 — no fixed vertical support, no bottom-pivoted arm, no center pivot, no sliding member, no link connection from a table edge to a slider. It teaches only the chair-as-table-support concept of claim 1's final element and claim 2's final element — which is precisely why it cited 1493119.

B-2. US 2,570,301 A — "Table and chair unit"

• Inventor: Daniel L. Adsit · Filed: February 18, 1946 · Granted: October 9, 1951
• Description: A table-and-chair unit in which chairs are integrated with and support a table structure.
• § 102 analysis: Does not anticipate. Filed 1946 (23 years after). Not prior art. Also does not disclose the claimed arm/slider/link linkage.

B-3. US 3,109,678 — "Table and seat structure"

• Inventor: Kermit H. Wilson · Filed: June 30, 1961 · Granted: November 5, 1963
• Description: Foldable table-and-seat structure. The Google Patents citation table for US3109678 lists "US1493119A * | 1923-05-31 | 1924-05-06 | Love Minnie | Combination table and chairs" among its 9 citations, alongside US 1,731,920 (Folding camp table, 1929) and FR 1,217,256 (Advanced table with retractable seats, 1960).
• § 102 analysis: Does not anticipate. Filed 1961 (38 years after). Not prior art.

B-4. US 3,212,815 — "Table and chair structure"

• Assignee: Fixtures Mfg Corp · Filed: July 23, 1962 · Granted: October 19, 1965
• Description: Table-and-chair structure. Its citation list (14 entries) includes US1493119A alongside US 368,477 (Baby-walker, 1887), US 896,126 (Long, "Table," 1908), GB 1910/07,805 (Huettner, "A Combined Table and Swing-seats," 1910), US 1,283,733 (Gorny, "Combined table and chair construction," 1918), and US 3,348,879 (Merola, 1967).
• § 102 analysis: Does not anticipate. Filed 1962 (39 years after). Not prior art. But note: this reference's citation list is where three genuinely pre-1923 documents surface — see Section D.

B-5. US 6,045,193 — "Combination multiple ottomans and coffee table and method therefor"

• Inventor: Edward H. Johnson · Filed: June 29, 1999 · Granted: April 4, 2000
• Description: Multiple ottomans arranged around a coffee table; the ottomans support the tabletop.
• § 102 analysis: Does not anticipate. Filed 1999 (76 years after). Not prior art.

Summary table — § 102 conclusions for the five "Cited By" references

Bottom line for Section B: no forward citation can anticipate claims 1 or 2. Anticipation under § 102 requires the reference to predate the claimed invention's effective filing date (here May 31, 1923). Every one of these five post-dates it by 23 to 76 years.

---

5. Section C — The "Similar Documents" list is not prior art

Google Patents lists 25 "Similar Documents" under US1493119A (US 1,655,516 Dining-table cabinet; US 1,652,100 Folding seat; US 2,344,573 Combination table; GB 338,785 Folding furniture; US 1,384,695 Combination-table; US 1,778,683 Extensible table; US 1,468,817 Combined chair and ironing board; US 1,631,423 Wall furniture; US 2,100,322 Folding trunk locker and shoe rack; etc.). These are algorithmic similarity results, not citations, and several are dated after 1924 (e.g., US 2,344,573 of 1944, US 2,913,655 of 1959). They carry no § 102 weight and I do not treat them as cited references.

Excluded as unrelated numbers (per the instruction not to auto-correct or conflate identifiers): EP 1,493,119 A1 (business-method coupon application, 2005) and CN 1493119 A (forward-link scheduling) share the digit string but are entirely different documents, different jurisdictions, and different subject matter. They are not the same patent and are not prior art to it.

---

6. Section D — What the most relevant actual prior art would be

Since the patent cites nothing, a real § 102 analysis has to be built from pre-May-31-1923 documents that happened to surface inside other patents' citation lists (Section B-4) and inside later combination-table patents' citation lists. I flag clearly: these are my candidate identifications, reconstructed from the citation lists of later patents — they are not references cited on US 1,493,119, and I have not read their full texts, so the element-by-element mapping below is provisional and must be verified against the source documents.

Pre-1923 candidates in the same art (A47B 83/02 family):

Honest assessment of likely outcome: the point of novelty in 1493119 is not the table-plus-chairs idea (which was old by 1910 — Huettner, Hile). It is the three-part wall-mount linkage: (i) an arm pivoted to the lower part of a fixed vertical support, (ii) the table pivoted at its center to that arm's free end, and (iii) a link from the table edge to a sliding member on the same vertical support — plus the chairs as table supports. The pre-1923 references I can identify from citation lists appear to teach combinations of tables and seats, not this specific linkage. So even on a properly reconstructed record, I would expect claims 1 and 2 to survive § 102 on the linkage — but I cannot state that with high confidence without reading the candidates.

---

7. Legal-framework caveat (important and often missed)

This patent was prosecuted under the pre-1952 Patent Act (R.S. § 4886, as amended), not under the current 35 U.S.C. § 102, which was enacted in 1952 and further rewritten by the AIA in 2011. So:

• Applying "§ 102" to a 1924 patent is an analytical convenience by today's nomenclature; the statute in force at examination was R.S. § 4886 ("not known or used by others… before the invention…, and not patented or described in any printed publication…").
• Either way, the temporal rule is the same and is dispositive here: a reference must predate the invention/filing to anticipate, which eliminates all five "Cited By" references.
• Note also that claim 2 is a narrower species of claim 1, not a dependent claim, and both claims recite "pivoted at its center to the free end of said bar" with no antecedent "bar" in the claim text (the specification uses "bar or arm 15" interchangeably). That is an indefiniteness/antecedent-basis defect by modern § 112(b) standards, as flagged in the earlier draft — it is a claim-drafting issue, not a prior-art issue, but it affects how any § 102 mapping would be argued.

---

8. Bottom line

1. USPTO record for 1493119 = US 1,493,119, "Combination table and chairs," Minnie Love, Appl. 642,629, filed 1923-05-31, granted 1924-05-06, A47B 83/02, individual assignee, expired 1941.
2. The patent cites no prior art. There is no "References Cited" block because the USPTO front-page citation practice began in 1947.
3. The five references associated with 1493119 are forward citations — US 2,461,683 (Dierickx, 1949), US 2,570,301 (Adsit, 1951), US 3,109,678 (Wilson, 1963), US 3,212,815 (Fixtures Mfg Corp, 1965), US 6,045,193 (Johnson, 2000).
4. None of the five anticipates claim 1 or claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, because each post-dates the 1923 filing by 23–76 years; and independently, none discloses the claimed bottom-pivoted arm + center pivot + edge-link-to-slider combination. Dierickx is the closest conceptually (chairs as the table's supports) but is 24 years late and omits the linkage.
5. The genuinely relevant § 102 art, if one were to build a rejection, would be pre-1923 table/chair combinations such as US 1,283,733 (Gorny, 1918), US 1,272,187 (Basford, 1918), GB 1910/07,805 (Huettner), US 896,126 (Long, 1908), and US 1,339,232 (St. John, 1920) — my candidates, not citations on the patent, and each flagged as requiring verification against its source text.

Confidence: High on items 1–4 (grounded in the printed patent and the mirrored aggregator records). Moderate on item 5's candidate list (derived from third-party citation lists, not read in full); I explicitly do not claim any of those candidates actually anticipates either claim.

I'll ground this analysis in the prior-art listings on the record and verify what those references actually are.

Good hits — two of the "Similar Documents" actually predate the Love filing. Let me verify a few more and chase a sliding-collar reference.

Obviousness Analysis — US 1,493,119 (Minnie Love), 35 U.S.C. § 103

Builds on the two sections above; the claim language, reference numerals and bibliographic findings are taken from those sections and not restated. Consistent with them; one date discrepancy noted in §7.

---

1. Framework, and a threshold correction about the "Prior Art" on this record

Framework. Two threshold points matter before any Graham analysis:

• §103 as a statute did not exist in 1923–24. US 1,493,119 was filed 31 May 1923 and granted 6 May 1924, so it was examined under the Patent Act of 1870 (R.S. § 4886) and the judicially-created "want of invention" doctrine of Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. (11 How.) 248 (1850) — not §103. Applying §103 here is necessarily a retrospective, hypothetical reconstruction (Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966)), useful for understanding claim scope and for reading the patent against later art, not for predicting a ruling in a live case. Per the Litigation section, the patent expired 6 May 1941, so no §103 challenge is available today.
• The patent enjoys a §282 presumption of validity, and the record shows no examiner-cited art (no "References Cited" on the face of the patent — consistent with the Patent summary above). That means any invalidity case here would rest on art not considered by the Examiner, and would have to be proved by clear and convincing evidence. That is a significant evidentiary burden even against thin claims.

Threshold correction — what the "prior art" on this page actually is.

So the "Cited By" list — the most prominent-looking "prior art" on the page — is legally inert for §103. It is useful only as context (it shows the chair-supported-tabletop concept became a recognized sub-genre).

Filtering the ~30 references on the page by date, only two pre-date the 31 May 1923 filing:

Because that yields a very thin record, I ran independent searching. Four further pre-1923/adjacent references were located and are used below, each flagged for the confidence level of what I could actually verify:

Two further leads I could not verify and therefore do not rely on: US1307420 (a combined chair/ironing board/step-ladder whose board has "a pivotal and a sliding movement" relative to the chair frame — dates unconfirmed), and US793752 (1905-07-04), cited as prior art in US2461683 but with no title available to me.

---

2. Graham factors — scope and content of the claims

Claim 1 is a six-element mechanical combination; claim 2 is the same with the chair element positively recited (see the claim breakdown above). Two scope facts drive the whole §103 analysis:

1. Neither claim recites the stop (13), the links' geometry for "horizontal positioning," or the floor-engaging angular portion (21). Those are the features the specification presents as producing the asserted functional benefits. They are disclosed but not claimed, so they cannot save the claims.
2. Claim 1's final element is functional-only ("positioned and arranged to constitute supports"). Under §103 a functional recitation is given its broadest reasonable construction, which makes it easier to read onto prior structures that merely can support the table.

Level of ordinary skill (c. 1923): a furniture designer/mechanic with several years' experience in folding furniture and simple pin-jointed linkages; no engineering degree required. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), such a person is presumed capable of "ordinary creativity," not just a "bot-like" combination of references.

---

3. Claim 1 — element mapping

Reading: elements (a)–(c) and (e) are individually and substantially disclosed across Kroschel '690, Jones '817 and Petersen '460. The only element with no clean pre-1923 disclosure on this record is (d) — a sliding member mounted on a fixed vertical support, linked to the table edge. Gilarski has a slide, but along a horizontal rod and for the chairs; Jones has a slide, but it is on the board and the "support" is a chair. Element (f) is disclosed only in the negative sense (Gilarski) or in the singular (Jones).

That gap is the entire §103 question for claim 1.

---

4. Claim 2 — element mapping (the chair element)

Important asymmetry, stated plainly: the closest structural match to claim 2's chair element on this record is US2461683 (Dierickx, 1947) — chairs arranged in a circle, each with an arm cut away to a depth equal to the table thickness to form a ledge, plus dowel pins 11 entering recesses 12 in a round top (FreePatentsOnline 2461683). That patent is 25 years later and is not prior art; it cites 1,493,119 as its principal reference. A nonobviousness argument lies in that asymmetry: the art that maps claim 2 most exactly is art that itself needed Love's disclosure in front of it.

---

5. Obviousness combinations

Combination A — Gilarski US1384695A + Jones US1468817A

Proposed rejection: claim 1 (and by extension claim 2).

• Gilarski supplies (i) a table-plus-plurality of chairs unit, (ii) chairs slidably and pivotally coupled to the table structure (clamp screw in slot; vertical pivot pins in brackets 10), and (iii) a stop/camming means — shoulders 12 engaging lugs 11 — that arrests and lifts the member at the end of its travel, the functional analogue of Love's stop 13 and angular portion 21.
• Jones supplies (i) the chair-carries-the-board concept — furniture parts repositioned to hold a board horizontally and to store it vertically — which is exactly the second stated object of the Love patent, (ii) sleeve-on-rod sliding members with pivot connections (sleeves 26 on rods 22), and (iii) a spring/detent stop (springs 36 engaging sleeves 25) holding the board in the horizontal position.

Motivation, under KSR: identical field — Gilarski is classified A47B83/02, the very class of the patent in suit ("Tables combined with seats"), and both are space-saving domestic furniture. Both references are directed to reducing the footprint of a dining set — Gilarski by tucking the chairs under the table, Jones by collapsing a board onto a chair frame. A designer seeking the Love result (a dining set that disappears against a wall) would look at both. The result — moving a slide from a horizontal rod (Gilarski) or from the board (Jones) onto a vertical rail — is the substitution of one known mounting axis for another, producing no change in the operation of the parts. That is a predictable, mechanical rearrangement.

Element (c) (table pivoted at its center) is the weakest link in this rejection: neither reference uses a center pivot. The rebuttal is that for a round tabletop, a center pivot is the natural and essentially the only sensible choice if the top must swing about an arm and hang flat — a design choice within ordinary skill. The counter-rebuttal is that this choice is what produces the claimed kinematic behaviour (two pivots on the top: center to the arm, edge to the link).

Combination B — Kroschel US1503690A + Jones US1468817A (+ Petersen US1148460A for the bracket)

Proposed rejection: claim 2, and claim 1 if the "sliding member" is construed broadly.

• Kroschel '690 is the strongest structural analogue of the table half of the claim: a board that is foldable into a wall/cabinet recess R, an arm/link pivoted at 7 at the bottom of the fixed support, its free end pivoted at 10 to the board, an intermediate link 11 running from the knuckle to a further link 13 pivoted at 14 to the board's rear portion, forming a "substantially Y-shaped bracket," plus a lock preventing collapse in the extended position. Functionally this is Love's arm 15 + links 19 + stop arrangement, with the rear edge of the board where Love has the table edge.
• Jones '817 then supplies the chair-as-support element and the sleeve/slide pair.
• Petersen '148,460 supplies an independent, earlier (1915) teaching of a board supported on a pivoted bracket (18) plus a link (13) carried by a chair frame, and — significantly — states the identical problem in its preamble: "In many small houses, flats and apartments it becomes an important question what to do with the furniture and furnishings which have only occasional use."

Motivation: Kroschel '690 and the Love patent were filed 13 days apart (18 May 1923 vs. 31 May 1923; serials 639,933 vs. 642,629) and both are California inventors in the same art. The near-simultaneity is itself the strongest evidence that the wall-foldable-board linkage was within the ordinary skill level in mid-1923 — a crowded, actively-developed art rather than a dormant one. A PHOSITA starting from Kroschel '690 and asked to produce a wall-stowing dining set with four seats would add Jones's chair-supported board and place the slide on the vertical support for the obvious reason that the recess already provides a vertical rail.

Caveat I must flag honestly: Kroschel '690's 18 May 1923 filing is only 13 days earlier than Love's. Under the law actually in force in 1923, its availability turns on whether its filing or its issue (5 Aug 1924, after Love's filing) predates Love's invention date — a Rule 131-style swear-behind question that cannot be resolved from the face of the documents. Modern §102(e) would treat a US patent filed before the applicant's invention date as art, which is why I flag it as usable-but-contested rather than clean.

Combination C — Single-reference obviousness (KSR, "ordinary creativity")

Jones '817 alone discloses a board with (i) guide sleeves slidably engaging rods (slide), (ii) sleeves pivotally connected to the frame via rod 27 (link to a pivot), (iii) arms secured to the seat underside cooperating with sockets to support the back member, and (iv) the board movable between a horizontal use position over the frame and a vertical stored position. Adding a wall-fixed vertical rail in place of the chair frame as the fixed support, and repeating the chair structure four times about a round top, is arguably nothing more than the application of a known expedient to a known problem. This is a weaker rejection than Combinations A/B for claim 1 (no vertical support, no center pivot) but a plausible one for claim 2's chair element.

Anticipation check (§102)

No single reference on this record anticipates either claim. Gilarski lacks the wall support, the arm-carried table and the link; Jones lacks the fixed vertical support, the center pivot and a plurality of chairs; Kroschel '690 lacks the chairs entirely and the sliding member. Neither claim is invalid under §102 on this record.

---

6. The case against obviousness (weighing it honestly)

1. The element-(d) gap is real, not a formality. No pre-1923 reference I could obtain discloses a sliding member on a fixed vertical support, linked to the table edge. Gilarski's slide is horizontal; Jones's slide is on the board. The claim as drafted covers a specific three-point linkage (bottom-pivoted arm + center pivot + edge link to a slider on the same rail). A patentee would argue this is a distinct mechanism, not a mere rearrangement, because the slider constrains the top's second degree of freedom.
2. Gilarski arguably teaches away from the second object of the Love patent. In Gilarski the table is fully self-supporting on its own legs 19 and the chairs merely slide under it. Read strictly, that teaches that a table keeps its own legs and that chairs are to be stowed, not to bear load — the opposite of Love's design premise. This is a credible teaching-away argument, though under KSR it is weakened because Gilarski's purpose (chair storage) and Love's (whole-set storage) are different problems.
3. Claim 2's chair element is only approximately met. Jones is a single chair frame with arms engaging sockets on its own back — not "a plurality of chairs … each provided with an arm of sufficient height." The nearest exact structure, Dierickx '683, is 1947 art that cites Love. That temporal asymmetry is the strongest nonobviousness datum in the file.
4. The 1924 Examiner cited no art. Weak evidence (the furniture search field was well developed then), but the absence of any reference on the face of the patent does mean no specific reference was found wanting at the time.
5. The unclaimed features are where the inventor's insight concentrated. The stop 13 and the floor-engaging angular portion 21 are the features the specification ties to correct horizontal positioning and to preventing over-travel. If claim 1 were construed in light of the specification to require them (a live possibility given the antecedent-basis problem with "said bar" discussed above), the art's distance from the claim increases — Kroschel's lock is structurally different from a floor-engaging angular arm.

---

7. Data-quality and consistency notes

• No contradiction with either prior section; the findings above reinforce them. In particular, the earlier observation that "the claims are silent on the stop (13) and the floor-engaging angular portion (21)" is confirmed as a material factor in the §103 analysis, and the earlier note that claim 1's chair element is functionally recited is what makes Combination C viable.
• Date discrepancy: the header of this task states the current date is 26 April 2026, while the working date given to me is 27 September 2026. The prior sections used 2026 dates. It does not affect the analysis (the patent expired in 1941 either way), but I am flagging it rather than silently reconciling it.
• Verification limits, stated plainly: I verified the full text, filing dates and claim language of US1384695A, US1468817A, US1503690A, US1148460A and US1753423A from primary PDFs. I verified only the bibliographic data of US1283733A (Gorny) from third-party citation tables and did not read its disclosure, so I have not used it in the combinations above. I could not verify the dates of US1307420 or US793752 at all. I could not query fee-based prior-art databases (Derwent, PatBase) or the 1923–24 U.S. classification orders for class 47, so my statement that no pre-1923 reference discloses a slider-on-vertical-rail linked to a table edge is a "not found" conclusion, not an affirmative negative clearance. A genuine §103 attack would first require a full class-47 (furniture) search of 1870–1923.

---

8. Bottom line

• Claim 1: more likely than not obvious over US1384695A (Gilarski) in view of US1468817A (Jones), and independently over US1503690A (Kroschel) in view of US1468817A (Jones) — the motivation being the shared field (A47B83/02), the identical stated problem of furniture in constricted apartments (stated in Petersen US1148460A as early as 1915 and repeated in the Love specification itself), and the predictable, mechanical nature of the only missing element (relocating a known slide from a horizontal rod / from the board onto the fixed vertical support). The element-(c) center-pivot limitation is the weakest point in this rejection and would be met with the design-choice argument for a round top.
• Claim 2: obviousness is arguable but closer. The chair-arm-as-table-support element is only approximated by the pre-1923 art (Jones's seat-underside arms cooperating with sockets on a single chair frame); the closest exact structure is Dierickx US2461683, which post-dates and cites the patent in suit. I would not predict invalidity of claim 2 with confidence on this record.
• Neither claim is anticipated by any reference on this record.
• Confidence levels: high on the element mappings and on the dates of the five primary references; moderate on the legal availability of US1503690A (13-day priority margin, pre-§102(e) law); low on the completeness of the pre-1923 art universe given the databases I could not search.
• If this analysis is meant to feed a validity opinion on a live patent that cites 1,493,119 as prior art, the practical point is the §282 burden: the art I have found is closer than anything the 1924 Examiner cited, but invalidity here would require clear and convincing proof built on a full manual search of class 47 that I have not been able to perform.