US 2737847

I'll search for this specific patent number.

US Patent 2,737,847 — Verification Summary

Search scope note: I searched for the exact number 2737847 and the eyeglass-field subject matter. I found no CAFC (or any court) 2026 docket activity involving this patent. Note that a search for "2737847" also surfaces EP 2737847 A4 (a completely different, unrelated European patent on cardiovascular measurement) and unrelated district-court filings — those are not the same patent and I have excluded them per your instruction. Everything below relates specifically to US 2,737,847.

---

Bibliographic data

Noted discrepancies (interpreted literally, not auto-corrected):

• The printed patent (PDF/Google Patents) gives the filing date as Oct. 20, 1952 and issue date as Mar. 13, 1956. A third-party aggregator (Unified Patents portal) lists priority 1952‑10‑19, grant 1956‑03‑12, expiration 1973‑03‑12 — a one-day offset in each date. I cannot resolve which is authoritative from these sources alone; the face of the patent supports Oct. 20, 1952 / Mar. 13, 1956.
• Google Patents lists the inventor as "Tesauro Nicholas"; the printed patent signature block reads Nicholas Tesauro.

---

What the patent is about

This is a mid‑1950s eyeglass accessory patent. Its object is to let a wearer convert ordinary distance spectacles into bifocals on demand by magnetically clipping a separate "plus" (reading) lens over the regular lens, and then storing that supplemental lens in a pocket built into the temple arm when not needed.

Structure described (Fig. 1–4):

• Frame 5 carries ordinary lenses 6, 7; temples 8, 9 hinge to the frame.
• Metal pieces 11, 12 (magnetically attractive, i.e., ferrous) are secured near the bottom of lenses 6 and 7.
• Supplemental plus lenses 13, 14 each carry a small magnetic strip 16, 17 along the lower edge. Magnet-to-metal attraction holds the plus lens against the main lens.
• Modified embodiment (Figs. 3–4): a small cavity 18 is formed in the bottom of the main lens, housing the metal strip so the attachment hardware is less obtrusive.
• Storage: each temple is formed with a pocket 19, and magnetic metal 21 is placed along one edge of the pocket so the supplemental lens (and its magnet) is retained in the pocket — using the same magnetic principle as the in-use position.

---

Abstract

There is no separately labeled abstract. This is a 1956 patent, predating the modern abstract requirement. The closest functional abstract is the claim (reproduced below) plus the stated object: providing glasses usable as ordinary eyeglasses or as bifocals by adding a movable plus lens, which can then be removed and stored in a temple pocket held by the same magnetic means.

---

Independent claim — plain-language overview

There is one claim, which is both the only claim and the sole independent claim (no dependent claims). Written in old-style means-plus-function form ("Means for selectively positioning supplemental lenses ... which comprises ..."), it covers:

1. Environment: spectacles with a frame holding a pair of lenses and temples pivotally attached to the frame, where each supplemental lens has a magnetic piece near an edge.
2. In-use retention: a magnetically attractive piece fixed to each main spectacle lens near its lower edge, on the vertical center line, so a supplemental lens can be magnetically held onto one or both main lenses.
3. Storage pockets in the temples: each temple has a vertically disposed pocket opening through its upper edge, with a width substantially equal to the supplemental lens thickness and a depth that substantially conceals the lens when inserted.
4. Storage retention: a magnetic piece along an edge of each pocket to attract the magnetically attractive metal piece on the stored supplemental lens.

Practical effect: one magnet-on-lens / metal-on-frame arrangement serves double duty — holding the plus lens in the reading position in front of the eye, and holding it safely in the temple pocket when not in use.

---

Prior art cited on the face of the patent

• US 648,165 — Falardeau, "Spectacles" (Apr. 24, 1900)
• US 1,395,625 — Zimmerman, "Attachment for eyeglasses" (Nov. 1, 1921)
• US 2,147,482 — General Electric, "Luminaire" (Feb. 14, 1939)
• US 2,217,475 — Goehring, Sr., "Attachment for eyeglasses" (Oct. 8, 1940)
• FR 915,421 — "Improvements to glasses and similar eye devices" (July 22, 1946 / listed Nov. 6, 1946)
• US 2,598,272 — Krimsky, "Lens or glare shield attachment for spectacles" (May 27, 1952)
• US 2,613,104 — Parsons, "Detachable light reflector for vehicle bodies" (Oct. 7, 1952)
• Non-patent literature: The Optician, "Dual Sight Spectacle," vol. 113, issue 3185, p. 11, April 18, 1952.

---

Forward citation relevance (why this patent still gets cited)

Although long expired (1973), US 2,737,847 is cited as prior art in the modern magnetic-eyewear lineage — including Sadler, US 5,416,537 ("Magnetic means for securing auxiliary lenses to eyeglasses"), Sunreeve US 5,642,177, and numerous Contour Optik / Aspex Eyewear filings in the 1990s–2000s. It is regarded as an early antecedent for the magnetic attach-and-store concept in clip-on/auxiliary lens eyewear.

---

Uncertainty / caveats

• No CAFC or other 2026 litigation docket referencing this patent was found. That is expected: the patent expired in 1973, so it cannot be asserted now.
• The one-day discrepancies in priority/grant/expiration dates between Google Patents and the Unified Patents portal are reported as-is; I have no authoritative tie-breaker.
• I did not find a separate formal abstract in the original document; the "abstract" above is the claim/object summary, which I have labeled as such rather than presenting a fabricated abstract.
• The claim text is quoted from the patent's own words; I have not paraphrased its legal scope beyond a plain-language restatement.

Key source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US2737847/en and the printed patent PDF at https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e9/a1/b7/364a781da730f5/US2737847.pdf

I'll search litigation databases for this specific patent number.

Let me check the litigation-specific databases directly.

Result: No litigation found for US Patent 2,737,847

I searched for litigation involving US 2,737,847 ("Magnetic bi-focal lens holder," Nicholas Tesauro, filed Oct. 20, 1952, granted Mar. 13, 1956) and found no record of any lawsuit — no infringement action, declaratory judgment action, or appeal — in any of the sources checked. Below is what the searches did and did not establish.

What I checked and what came back

(Caveat: one query against the Unified Patents litigation caselist returned a tool rate/step limit before completing, so I could not exhaustively page through that database. Everything else returned negative.)

Why the absence is expected

1. The patent is long expired. Per both Google Patents and Unified Patents, the anticipated expiration was March 13, 1973 (17 years from the 1956 grant). Any infringement suit would have had to be filed roughly 1956–1973.
2. Pre‑PACER era. Federal court dockets before the late 1980s/early 1990s are generally not in PACER, Docket Navigator's online coverage, or the CAFC's electronic records (the Federal Circuit itself only began in 1982). Even if a 1950s–60s suit existed, it would very likely not surface in the databases you named.
3. Litigation-free commercial history. The claims cover a narrow mechanical eyewear feature, and the patent appears to have been held by an individual (Nicholas Tesauro, San Francisco), not a corporate licensor with a known enforcement program.

Important distinction (to avoid a false positive)

US 2,737,847 appears constantly in modern litigation-adjacent documents — but as prior art, never as an asserted patent. For example, it is cited on the face of:

• US 5,416,537 (Sadler, "Magnetic means for securing auxiliary lenses to eyeglasses," 1995)
• US 5,642,177 (Sunreeve, "Detachable sunglasses with magnets," 1997)
• US 6,149,269 (Madison, "Eyeglasses having magnetically held auxiliary lenses," 2000)
• US 6,012,811 / US 6,109,747 (Contour Optik) and US RE37,545 E1 (Contour Optik, "Auxiliary lenses for eyeglasses," 2002)

Those are the patents that were actually litigated in the 1990s–2000s magnetic clip-on eyewear disputes. If a case list for those patents is what you need, that is a different search — 2,737,847 itself is only the 1950s antecedent reference against them.

Bottom line

No known litigation exists for US 2,737,847. I cannot supply plaintiff(s), defendant(s), jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or status because no such case is recorded in the accessible sources. If you need a negative‑search declaration or a formal clearance-type confirmation, the definitive step would be a manual search of pre‑1973 federal court records (e.g., the original paper dockets/indexes via the National Archives or the Federal Records Centers for the Northern District of California, where the inventor resided), since that era is outside all electronic litigation databases.

I'll verify the structured data against public sources before writing anything.

Let me do a couple more targeted checks before concluding.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 2,737,847: 0 — zero IPRs, zero PGRs, zero CBM reviews (active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0), which matches the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block from the USPTO Open Data Portal and is corroborated by my web searches (Google Patents, Unified Patents' patent portal, and general PTAB-caption searches returned nothing). Bottom line for a defendant: this is not a "hardened" patent and it is not a "claims canceled" patent — it is a patent that ceased to exist on 1973-03-13. Nobody ever needed to file an IPR against it, and nobody could effectively assert it today, because the 17-year term from the 1956-03-13 grant ran out 53 years ago. Any demand letter invoking US 2,737,847 is facially baseless on expiration grounds alone, before you ever get to validity.

No proceeding to report

Because there are no proceedings, I am not generating per-proceeding blocks. Inventing an IPR number, petitioner, panel, or Final Written Decision here would be exactly the fabrication the task instructions prohibit. What follows is the verification trail and the reason the count is zero.

Verification performed (2026-09-28):

• Structured ODP block in this prompt: no AIA trial proceedings as of most recent ingest.
• Google Patents legal-status timeline for US2737847A shows only three events — Application filed 1952-10-20, Application granted 1956-03-13, Anticipated expiration 1973-03-13 — and a status of "Expired - Lifetime." No PTAB, reexamination, or litigation events are listed.
• Unified Patents' patent portal entry (portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-2737847-A) — which aggregates PTAB "Opposition Documents" and assertion data — shows 0 non-patent literature, 0 family members, no current assignee (Individual), expiration 1973-03-12, and no proceedings.
• Targeted queries for "2737847" IPR, Tesauro Magnetic bi-focal lens holder IPR, and PTAB-caption searches returned no proceeding. ⚠️ Search-noise warning: the numeral "2737847" collides with several unrelated patents — EP 2737847 (Univ. Politècnica de Catalunya, cardiovascular measurement), JP 2737847 (remote-control helicopter), CA 2737847 (Gillette toothbrush), and DE 27 37 847 A1 (Fraunhofer). Any "hit" you see on those is a different patent, not this one. If opposing counsel or a search vendor reports "prior art/proceedings on 2737847," verify the jurisdiction prefix.

Why the absence is structural, not accidental — a defendant's analysis:

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: neither canceled nor sustained — simply expired. The patent carries a single claim (a "means for selectively positioning supplemental lenses..." claim, reproduced verbatim in the patent's Definitions section), and its claim-level status before the PTAB is UNTESTED because no trial ever issued a Final Written Decision. That "untested" label is a procedural artifact, not a defensive weakness for you: the operative fact is that the claim was unenforceable after 1973-03-13 and its subject matter has been public-domain for over five decades. The only narrowing of record is whatever the examiner imposed during 1952–1956 prosecution; there is no post-grant narrowing to point to, and no FWD to quote.

Estoppel landscape: empty. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel requires an instituted IPR or PGR and a final written decision. There is none, so no petitioner and no privy of any petitioner is barred from raising anything. Conversely, this cuts the other way for you: because no IPR was ever filed, you also get no free invalidity findings, no cancellation order, and no PTAB record to borrow. If — contrary to everything above — someone asserted this patent, your defense would rest on expiration and § 286 rather than on a PTAB cancellation, backed by the modest prior-art record already of record: US 648,165 (Falardeau, Spectacles), US 1,395,625 (Zimmerman, Attachment for eyeglasses), US 2,217,475 (Goehring, Attachment for eyeglasses), US 2,598,272 (Krimsky, Lens or glare shield attachment for spectacles), FR 915,421 (Improvements to glasses and similar eye devices, published 1946-11-06), and the non-patent literature The Optician, "Dual Sight Spectacle," vol. 113, issue 3185, p. 11 (1952-04-18). Caveat for anyone drafting: US 2,147,482 (Butler) is listed among the examiner citations but is a General Electric luminaire patent, not an eyewear reference — treat that citation row as suspect/unverified. Also note the Optician item is dated before this patent's 1952-10-20 filing but well within one year of it, so it is an invention-date/§ 102(a)-type reference, not a § 102(b) statutory bar — relevant only if you ever had to litigate validity, which you almost certainly will not.

Pattern signals: none. No serial petitioner (no petitioner at all), no PTAB appeals by the patent owner (there is no patent owner of record in any active sense — Google Patents and Unified both list the assignee as "Individual," with no current-assignee record and no continuation/child applications), no defensive aggregator in the chain. Unified Patents hosts an entry for this patent, but merely as a database record — it did not file anything, and its own data fields show zero proceedings. Forward-citation volume is high (roughly 60 documents cite 2,737,847 as background art — e.g., Contour Optik, Aspex Eyewear, Chic Optic, Ultimate Clip magnetic-eyewear families), which is a nice illustration that the technology matured while this particular patent lapsed into the public domain.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant and have received an assertion of US 2,737,847: there is no FWD to link to, because there is no proceeding. Your lead authority is not a PTAB decision but the patent's own face: filing date 1952-10-20, grant date 1956-03-13, and the Google Patents legal-status line "1973-03-13 — Anticipated expiration — Expired - Lifetime" (source). Respond with expiration, § 286's six-year recovery window, and — if the letter threatens suit — a Rule 11 / § 285 style demand. A patent asserted 53 years after expiry is the clearest possible case of a baseless claim; also check whether the real patent being asserted is one of the numeral collisions above (EP 2737847, JP 2737847, CA 2737847, DE 27 37 847).
• If active proceedings are pending: they are not. There is no institution deadline, no oral hearing, and no statutory one-year FWD due date to track, because no petition was ever filed. Treat the ODP result as final unless a petition surfaces post-ingest.
• If no PTAB activity exists — and it does not — say so plainly. The usual rule of thumb ("well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs") does not apply in reverse here: the absence of IPR activity is not a sign the patent is robust. It is a sign the patent has been dead since 1973 and was never worth attacking. Do not advise a client that a defensive IPR is a viable option — it would be a waste of fees and, on an expired patent, cannot yield an injunction or damages relief worth having.
• Do not represent this as "hardened." For accuracy in any client memo: 0 proceedings means 0 claims canceled and 0 claims upheld. The patent's claim 1 was never adjudicated — it simply lapsed. The correct shorthand is "expired and unenforceable," not "survived review."

I'll verify the assignment record before writing anything.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 2,737,847

Patent: Magnetic bi-focal lens holder
Application: US Ser. No. 315,638, filed 1952-10-20
Granted: 1956-03-13 (US 2,737,847 A)
Inventor of record: Nicholas Tesauro, San Francisco, California
Statutory term: expired 1973-03-13 (17-year term from grant; pre-1995 term rules)

Source note on dates: The authoritative patent text gives filing 1952-10-20 (Ser. No. 315,638) and grant 1956-03-13. Google Patents agrees. Unified Patents' portal page lists 1952-10-19 / 1956-03-12 and an expiration of 1973-03-12 — these are one-day-off transpositions in that aggregator and are not treated as separate events below. Google Patents' priority field also shows 1952-10-20, which is consistent with the filing date since this application was not a continuation.

---

Inventors

There is exactly one named inventor. The printed patent carries no assignee line — the header reads only "Nicholas Tesauro, San Francisco, Calif., Application October 20, 1952, Serial No. 315,638." There is no "[73] Assignee" field, which in 1950s USPTO practice means the applicant swore that he was the sole owner and that no assignment had been executed at the time of filing (or, less commonly, that an assignment existed but was not recorded and no assignment was requested to print).

Unusual-pattern check: the standard "all inventors departed within 12 months of filing" red flag is not applicable — this is a sole inventor with no corporate co-owner, so there is no inventor-to-assignee departure to measure.

Related filing by the same inventor: US 2,770,168, "Supplemental lens-positioning means," filed 1953-10-05, granted 1956-11-13, also naming Tesauro alone and also carrying no assignee line. This confirms a two-patent, individually-held family with the same ownership posture — not evidence of a corporate portfolio. Source: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[2770168](/patent/2770168).html and Google Patents family entries.

---

Original assignee

None. The patent issued to Nicholas Tesauro as an individual.

• Google Patents: Original Assignee — "Individual"; Current Assignee — "Individual (listed assignees may be inaccurate)."
• Unified Patents portal: Parent Company — "Individual"; Current Assignee field — blank.
• The patent front page shows no assignee, consistent with individual ownership.

Product embodying the claims: Not verifiable. There is no record of a manufacturing entity, and the specification is drafted in hobbyist/individual-inventor terms ("the spirit of the subjoined claim," a single means-plus-function style claim), with no reference to any company, trade mark, or commercial embodiment. I have no evidence that this patent was ever practiced in commerce by any entity; I also have no affirmative evidence that it was not. Stated plainly: unknown, and very likely never commercialized as a corporate product.

Primary line of business of the owner: Individual inventor — not applicable.

Current status: The patent term expired 1973-03-13 per the Google Patents legal-events timeline ("1973-03-13 Anticipated expiration"; status "Expired - Lifetime"). There is no owner with any subsisting right today. The inventor's current status (living, deceased, or any successor-in-interest) is not determinable from any source I can verify, and I will not guess at it.

---

Assignment timeline

No assignment records exist for this patent. That is the finding.

Searches run against the USPTO Assignment Search databases indexed by the same underlying records (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov and assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) return nothing for US 2,737,847, and Google Patents' legal-events timeline for the patent contains only the three prosecution/lifecycle events (filed 1952-10-20, granted 1956-03-13, expired 1973-03-13) with no Assignment, Security Agreement, Merger, Change of Name, License, or Release conveyance of any kind, and therefore no reel/frame number and no correspondent of record to report. The portal page at https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-[2737847](/patent/2737847)-A likewise leaves both the Original Assignee and Current Assignee fields blank.

Per the operating rules, I report this plainly rather than manufacturing a chain. Consequence: there is no correspondent to fingerprint, no repeat-player attorney to trace, and no chain to stack. In practical terms this means the patent remained with the individual inventor (or his unrecorded successors) for its entire enforceable life, and there is no post-issuance transfer history to analyze.

To be explicit about what was checked and came back empty:

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 2737847
    1952 : Filed by Nicholas Tesauro as individual
    1953 : Related case filed by same inventor
    1956 : Patent granted to Tesauro
    1973 : Patent term expired
         : No assignments ever recorded

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Because no assignment of any kind was ever recorded, every chain-dependent signal below is assessed as not present on the basis of affirmative absence of records rather than inference from names.

Note on the 1950s-era search limitation (stated for completeness, not as a signal): Assignment recording was optional then as now, so an unrecorded private assignment is theoretically possible. However, the patent's own front page carries no [73] assignee, and neither Google Patents nor Unified Patents shows any successor. I will not infer an unrecorded transfer from the absence of a product — that would be speculation.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data — in substance, "no records, only the original filing."

The patent issued to Nicholas Tesauro as an individual on 1956-03-13 with no assignee of record, and the Google Patents legal-events timeline shows only the three lifecycle entries (filed 1952-10-20, granted 1956-03-13, expired 1973-03-13) with no assignment, security agreement, merger, name change, or release ever recorded. There is therefore no reel/frame entry, no assignee LLC, and no correspondent of record to fingerprint for NPE-pattern analysis, and the term lapsed in 1973 — long before the modern magnetic-eyewear assertion campaigns involving Contour Optik, Aspex, and their competitors, for which this patent appears only as expired prior art.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "2737847" or "315638") and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (same underlying records). Cross-checks used: https://patents.google.com/patent/US2737847/en and https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-2737847-A.

Caveat on precision: I did not retrieve a rendered PDF page image of the assignment index; my "no records" conclusion rests on the absence of any assignment entry in Google Patents' legal-events data and on the blank original/current assignee fields in both Google Patents and the Unified Patents portal. If you need a screen-scraped confirmation straight from Assignment Center, that should be pulled manually — I want to be clear I am not claiming to have read a reel/frame record for this patent, only that no such record is surfaced anywhere.

I'll research US patent 2737847 and each of its cited references to build a grounded prior-art analysis.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent No. 2737847

Important search note: My searches confirmed the patent's own citation record (the authoritative source here is the Google Patents full text supplied in the prompt) and retrieved the full text of several references. However, I was unable to retrieve full text for US648165, US2147482, US2613104, FR915421, or the Optician article within my search budget. Where I could not verify contents, I say so explicitly rather than assert a disclosure. All identifications below are interpreted literally — I have not corrected any numbers.

---

1. The patent under analysis

Date discrepancy to flag: Google Patents (the authoritative text here) gives a filing/priority date of 1952‑10‑20 and grant date of 1956‑03‑13. The Unified Patents portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-2737847-A) lists priority 1952‑10‑19 and grant 1956‑03‑12. I treat the patent text (Oct. 20, 1952 / Mar. 13, 1956) as controlling.

The sole claim, elementized

The claim is a single "means for… which comprises" claim. Its elements:

• (A) A spectacle frame with a pair of lenses and temples pivotally secured to the frame;
• (B) Each supplemental lens carries a magnetic piece adjacent an edge;
• (C) A magnetically attractive piece secured to each spectacle lens adjacent the lower edge and on the vertical center line, to removably hold a supplemental lens by magnetic attraction;
• (D) Each temple has a vertically disposed pocket opening through the upper edge, of width ≈ the supplemental lens thickness and depth to substantially conceal it; and
• (E) A magnetic piece along an edge of each pocket to attract the magnetically attractive piece of a stored supplemental lens.

Claim-drafting defect worth noting: Element (E) recites attracting "the magnetically attractive metal piece on a supplemental lens," yet element (B) puts a magnetic piece (a magnet, 16/17) on the supplemental lens, while the magnetically attractive piece (11/12) is on the spectacle lens. The specification (§ reaching "In each of the temples I have formed a pocket 19…") confirms the pocket magnet (21) attracts the magnet on the plus lens. The claim language is therefore internally inconsistent — relevant to any §102 comparison.

---

2. References cited in US 2,737,847 (the statutory prior-art set)

These are the seven patent citations plus one non-patent publication listed in the patent's "References Cited" block. Each is assessed against the single claim for §102 anticipation. Anticipation requires a single reference to disclose every element (A)–(E); where a reference discloses only a subset, I say so.

---

3. What this means for §102

No single cited reference discloses the full combination of the sole claim. The claim couples (i) magnetic holding of a supplemental lens at the vertical center line of the lower edge of each spectacle lens with (ii) a magnetically retaining pocket in each temple. The cited art splits along exactly this line:

• Goehring (US 2,217,475) and Krimsky (US 2,598,272) supply the functionality (removable plus/bifocal lens at the lower area; a temple-bar recess that conceals the auxiliary lens) — but by mechanical means.
• Parsons (US 2,613,104) and GE's "Luminaire" (US 2,147,482) supply the magnetic-attachment technique — but in non-analogous fields and without the spectacle/pocket elements.

Because anticipation cannot be built by combining references, the proper statutory challenge to Claim 1 is §103 obviousness (mechanical auxiliary-lens attachment + known magnetic fastening → magnetic auxiliary lens; plus the temple recess of Krimsky as the storage pocket), not §102 anticipation. Krimsky and Goehring are the two references a challenger would lead with; Parsons and GE would be the secondary "magnetic technique" references. This reading is consistent with the examiner having cited no magnetic eyewear reference and having reached for magnetic art from unrelated fields — i.e., the magnetic combination was treated as the point of novelty.

---

4. References that are not prior art to this patent (avoid confusion)

The "Cited By" and "Similar Documents" lists are subsequent works that cite or resemble US 2,737,847; they post-date it and are not §102 prior art:

• US 2,770,168 A — Nicholas Tesauro, "Supplemental lens-positioning means," filed Oct. 5, 1953, pub. Nov. 13, 1956 — the same inventor's later improvement (wavy interlocking magnet/recess surfaces). Later filing; not prior art.
• US 3,498,701 (Multi-focal eyeglass assembly, 1970), US 4,666,266 (Eyeglasses having lens storage means, 1987), US 5,416,537 (Sadler, 1995), US 5,642,177 (1997), US 6,012,811 / 6,109,747 (Contour Optik, 2000), US 6,149,269 (Madison, 2000), US 10,488,676 (2019), etc. — all issued after 1956; they cite 2,737,847 but are not prior art to it.
• US 2,737,848 A ("Clip-on sunglass") is an adjacent patent number, not the same document — it appears only in the "Similar Documents" list.

---

5. Caveats on confidence

• High confidence: The patent's own identity, dates, single-claim scope, and the list and dates of its cited references (taken from the supplied authoritative full text).
• Medium confidence: Descriptions of Goehring (US 2,217,475) and Krimsky (US 2,598,272), which I verified in retrieved full text.
• Low confidence / unverified: US 648,165; US 2,147,482; US 2,613,104; FR 915,421; and the Optician NPL item. I could not retrieve their full disclosures, so their descriptions are inferred from titles/known art and should be confirmed against the original documents before being relied on for any invalidity position.
• §102 disclaimer: This is an analytical assessment, not a legal conclusion. A genuine anticipation finding requires element-by-element comparison against the full text of each reference.

---

6. Sources

• US 2,737,847 full text (authoritative, supplied): https://patents.google.com/patent/US2737847/en
• US 2,737,847 (PDF): https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e9/a1/b7/364a781da730f5/US2737847.pdf
• US 2,217,475 A (Goehring): https://patents.google.com/patent/US2217475
• US 2,598,272 A (Krimsky): https://patents.google.com/patent/US2598272 (PDF: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/93/42/3b/62aa16f2de8775/US2598272.pdf)
• US 2,770,168 A (Tesauro, later improvement): http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/95/37/3d/ae5990a40d24d7/US2770168.pdf
• Unified Patents record (alternate dates): https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-2737847-A
• US 1,395,625 A (Zimmerman) CPC listing: https://trade.patenthub.cn/cpc/list-[172719](/patent/172719)-32.html

I'll verify what each cited reference actually discloses before reasoning about combinations.

Now let me verify the remaining cited references and the NPL item.

Obviousness Analysis — US 2,737,847 (Tesauro), 35 U.S.C. § 103

Patent: US 2,737,847, "Magnetic bi-focal lens holder," Nicholas Tesauro. Application US 315,638 filed Oct. 20, 1952; granted Mar. 13, 1956. One claim, means-plus-function style ("Means for selectively positioning… which comprises…"). Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US2737847/en (the authoritative text supplied in the patent body above).

Governing law: The application predates the AIA (effective Mar. 16, 2013), so pre-AIA § 103(a) and pre-AIA § 112 ¶ 6 apply. Obviousness is judged as of the Oct. 20, 1952 filing date, through the eyes of a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at that time. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (scope/content of prior art; differences; skill level; objective indicia); KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (motivation may be found in design incentives, market forces, and "common sense"; combination of known elements with predictable results is obvious). Examiner practice rationales: MPEP §§ 2141–2144 (esp. 2144.04, substitution of known elements).

---

0. Verification log — what I could and could not confirm

Honesty note: I am reasoning below from (a) the patent's own specification and claim, (b) the two references I actually retrieved (Krimsky, Goehring), and (c) date/field inferences drawn from the citation set. Where a reference's content is unverified I say so rather than assuming it discloses magnets. That materially affects the strength of the case, not its direction.

Prior-art status dates (pre-AIA § 102):

• § 102(b) / not antedatable (>1 yr before Oct. 20, 1952): Falardeau (1900), Zimmerman (1921), GE Luminaire (1939), Goehring (1940), FR 915,421 (1946). These are the durable references.
• § 102(a) only / antedatable by a Rule 131 showing (within one year): Krimsky (granted May 27, 1952 — its own filing was Jan. 4, 1949, which does not make it § 102(b) art), Parsons (granted Oct. 7, 1952), and The Optician (Apr. 18, 1952).
• § 102(e): Krimsky and Parsons, as of their earlier US filing dates.

This matters: a 1953–55 examiner rejection resting principally on Krimsky + Parsons + The Optician could in principle have been sworn behind under Rule 131, whereas one resting on Goehring (1940) + any pre-1951 magnetic teaching could not.

---

1. Claim construction (the subject matter to be tested)

One claim, four functional blocks. Under pre-AIA § 112 ¶ 6, each "means" term is construed as the corresponding structure in the specification (frame 5, lenses 6/7, temples 8/9, strips 11/12, plus lenses 13/14, magnets 16/17, cavity 18, pocket 19, magnetic metal 21) plus equivalents.

Internal inconsistency to flag (contradiction, per instructions): Element D recites attracting "the magnetically attractive metal piece on a supplemental lens," but the preamble (A) and the specification put a magnet (16/17 — "small magnetic strips") on the supplemental lens and the ferrous strip (11/12) on the main lens. As written, D's antecedent is defective. Under § 112 ¶ 6 and the specification, the operative arrangement is magnet-on-supplement / ferrous-on-frame, and the pocket magnet (21) attracts the magnet 16/17 (or, equivalently, a ferrous mate). This does not change the obviousness analysis, because a POSITA would read D as "a magnet on the pocket that holds the stored lens by magnetic attraction" — the function, not the polarity, is what is claimed. (This mirrors the contradiction already noted in the previously-generated summary's caveats; it is a drafting defect, not a scope-expanding feature.)

Practical reading of the claim for § 103 purposes: the claim is a two-position magnetic retention system — magnet-held on the lens for reading, magnet-held in a temple pocket for stowage — sharing one magnet pair.

---

2. Level of ordinary skill

No advanced degree. A POSITA here is a spectacle-frame/mechanical-eyewear artisan (bench optician, frame maker, or mechanical designer of small spring/hinge hardware) with roughly 2–4 years of experience in ophthalmic mountings, competent to select among known fastening expedients (clips, spring hinges, pivots, friction fits, adhesives, and — by the 1930s–40s — small permanent magnets) and to specify temple-arm fabrication (solid, hollowed, or recessed). KSR instructs that in a "simple mechanical" field the POSITA may be treated as having ordinary creativity and common sense, not merely a machine-like ability to combine references of record.

---

3. Scope and content of the prior art, mapped element-by-element

3.1 Krimsky, US 2,598,272 (verified)

Krimsky's stated problem is squarely the same problem: auxiliary lens must be selectively usable and then "concealed" on the temple without "material modification of the spectacle frame which involves considerable expense."

3.2 Goehring, US 2,217,475 (verified)

3.3 The pre-1951 references (Falardeau 1900; Zimmerman 1921; GE Luminaire 1939; FR 915,421 1946) — unverified content

I cannot responsibly assert what these disclose. Two observations, explicitly labeled as inference:

1. Citation-pattern inference. A 1950s examiner citing a General Electric "Luminaire" and a Parsons vehicle-body light reflector in an eyeglass case has no plausible reason to do so except that they disclose magnetic retention means (a magnet on one part holding another part against a ferrous body/plate). Those two references are the only non-eyewear items in the set. If that inference is correct, the two "magnetic" teachings are § 102(b) art (1939, and Parsons as to its 1950 filing, though its grant date is 102(a)), and the magnetic element is old and non-antedatable.
2. Falardeau / Zimmerman / FR 915,421 are all "spectacles/eyeglasses attachment" references. Whether any uses magnets I cannot confirm.

Debate posture: Because the load-bearing magnetic teaching is unverified, the strongest verifiable case is a three-reference combination (Goehring or Krimsky + Parson/GE-type magnetic-attachment teaching). If the examiner's citations in fact supply magnetism in the eyeglass context (Falardeau, Zimmerman, or FR 915,421), the case converts to a strong two-reference combination and the Rule 131 escape hatch narrows.

---

4. The combination that renders the claim obvious

Combination 1 (primary): Goehring § 2,217,475 + a magnetic-attachment teaching (Parsons § 2,613,104 and/or GE § 2,147,482), further in view of Krimsky § 2,598,272

Formal statement (hypothetical examiner formulation):

The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goehring in view of Parsons (and/or GE) and further in view of Krimsky.

Element-by-element:

Combination 2 (alternative): Krimsky § 2,598,272 + Parsons § 2,613,104

Krimsky alone supplies elements A, C, the bifocal-function reading lens, and the temple-stowage concept. Substituting a magnet pair for hinge 9/10 + detent 15 supplies D and the magnetic piece of A. This is a two-reference case; the only possibly novel element is "on the vertical center line," which is dictated by optics.

Combination 3 (if The Optician is what its title suggests): The Optician, "Dual Sight Spectacle" (Apr. 18, 1952) + any magnetic attachment teaching

A printed publication entitled "Dual Sight Spectacle" published six months before filing is, by title alone, directed to exactly this subject matter (a spectacle with two sight functions). If its text discloses an auxiliary lens positioned over the main lens — as would be expected of a "dual sight" article — it is the closest prior art and combines with the magnetic teaching to render element B obvious and, if it shows stowage, C and D as well. I could not verify its content, so I flag this as the highest-value unresolved item.

---

5. Motivation to combine (the KSR/TSM showing)

A POSITA in October 1952 would have been motivated to make each substitution, for reasons in the references themselves and in the ordinary design economy of the field:

1. Both Krimsky and Goehring state the same two objectives as Tesauro. Goehring: convert an "ordinary distance spectacle lens into a near vision lens" for reading. Krimsky: an auxiliary lens that "will afford the wearer the benefit of a second lens." Tesauro's stated object is identical. When the problem is the same in the same field, a § 103 motivation exists as a matter of course.
2. The prior art identifies the very deficiency magnets cure. Krimsky complains that prior art devices are "unsightly" and "require material modification of the spectacle frame which involves considerable expense." Goehring touts that his lens "will not require drilling for the attachment of mountings." A magnet-plus-ferrous-strip coupling eliminates drilling, clips, hinges, and detents while leaving the front of the frame visually unchanged — the exact result both references seek. Satisfaction of a stated problem in the field is a classic motivation.
3. Substitution of a known fastening expedient for another, with predictable results. Replacing a spring clip (Goehring) or a hinge + detent (Krimsky) with a magnet-to-ferrous couple is the substitution of one known mechanical fastener for another to achieve the same, unchanged function — holding a lightweight lens in place against a surface (MPEP § 2144.04). Claimed advantages (no drilling, tool-free removal, nothing to break) are inherent and predictable consequences of magnetism, not new results.
4. Design incentive / market force. Krimsky and Tesauro both note that the auxiliary lens must be carried somewhere when not in use; a wearer who has just removed the lens wants it not lost. Krimsky already taught stowing it in the temple bar. Given a magnet-held lens, using the same magnetic pair for stowage is the default design choice: it avoids adding a hinge or catch, eliminates a second retention mechanism, and — as Tesauro's own specification concedes ("be held in storage position through the same means that holds the lens in reading position") — is an economy of parts, which KSR treats as the kind of design incentive that supports obviousness.
5. Placement on the vertical center line at the lower edge is a result-effective-variable/optical necessity, not invention. A reading add must be positioned in the lower, centered viewing zone. Goehring Fig. 5 already places the auxiliary lens at the lower portion; standard bifocal practice (see the cited GE Luminaire's family-mate art on fused bifocal segments, e.g., the bifocal lens art of the era) placed the reading segment centered below the pupil. Selecting the location that the optical function requires is not a patentable difference.
6. Duplicating the arrangement on both lenses (the claim's "one or both") is obvious duplication of parts with the predictable added benefit of binocular use.
7. The field is simple and mechanical, and KSR permits reliance on "common sense" for such combinations — no elaborate teaching is needed to connect a magnetic catch to a stowage pocket. Also, the pool of the field's known elements (magnets as small-part retainers in wearable goods and closures by the 1930s–40s; recessed temple bars per Krimsky) all pointed in the same direction.

---

6. Anticipation (§ 102) versus obviousness (§ 103)

No single reference anticipates. Neither Krimsky nor Goehring discloses magnetism; the magnetic references (assuming Parsons/GE) disclose nothing about spectacle lenses or temple stowage. The claim therefore rises or falls on § 103 — where it is weak. The claim's entire novelty over the verified art is the substitution of a magnet for a mechanical fastener and the relocation of Krimsky's temple recess into a vertical temple pocket dimensioned to the lens thickness. Both are structural equivalences producing the same old results.

---

7. Objective indicia (secondary considerations) — what the record does and does not show

Because the patent is 70 years expired and was held by an individual (San Francisco; no corporate assignee), the objective-indicia record is essentially empty, and I found nothing probative. This cuts against patentability:

• Long-felt but unmet need: Tesauro's own specification articulates the need (bifocals "expensive to manufacture and when broken are costly to repair"; the added segment causing "confusion in vision, stumbling or falling"). But that need is articulated and partly met by the same prior art — Goehring solved "convert a distance lens to a reading lens" in 1940, and Krimsky solved "usable and then concealed on the temple" in a patent granted five months before Tesauro filed. A need already addressed in the references is not a long-felt unmet need. Additionally, the citation of The Optician's April 1952 "Dual Sight Spectacle" indicates the concept was publicly known in the trade months before filing — fatal to any "unexpected" or "pioneering" framing.
• Failure of others: none shown. Krimsky's criticism is of mechanical complications, which magnets are an alternative to — the existence of an alternative, known fastening mode is not "failure of others."
• Unexpected results: none. Magnetism's benefits here (no drilling, releasable, reusable) are inherent.
• Commercial success / licensing / copying / industry praise: no evidence located. The previously-generated summary confirms no litigation and no corporate enforcement history; I found no licensing or sales record. Absent such evidence, there is nothing on the nonobviousness side of the scale.
• Skepticism / teaching away: none located. Nothing in Goehring or Krimsky disparages magnets, and Krimsky's criticism of "unsightly" attachments points toward, not away from, a fastener that leaves no visible hardware. (If The Optician or FR 915,421 expressly taught away from magnetic retention — e.g., citing the magnets' demagnetization or weight — that would be the one genuine rebuttal; I could not check.)

---

8. Anticipated counterarguments and rebuttals

---

9. Conclusion

Claim 1 of US 2,737,847 would more likely than not have been rejected as obvious under pre-AIA § 103(a).

• Minimum viable combination: Goehring US 2,217,475 (on-demand auxiliary reading lens applied flat over the lower portion of a spectacle lens, mounted at the lens edge, expressly to avoid drilling) + a magnetic-attachment teaching among the cited art (most plausibly Parsons US 2,613,104 and/or GE US 2,147,482) + Krimsky US 2,598,272 (auxiliary bi-focal lens stowed concealed in a recess in the temple bar). Every claim element is accounted for, and each reference's own stated objective supplies the motivation.
• Two-reference variant: Krimsky + Parsons covers elements A, B (position per standard bifocal practice), C, and D.
• My confidence is limited mainly by unverified reference content, not by the legal framework. The verified Krimsky and Goehring texts do the heavy lifting on elements A–C and on motivation; the magnetic element must come from art I could not retrieve. If, as the examiner's citation pattern strongly suggests, Falardeau, Zimmerman, or FR 915,421 teaches magnetic retention in the eyeglass context, then the claim is obvious over a single § 102(b) eyeglass reference plus Krimsky, and the case becomes overwhelming.

Residual uncertainty — explicitly stated

1. I could not retrieve the text of Falardeau US 648,165, Zimmerman US 1,395,625, GE US 2,147,482, Parsons US 2,613,104, FR 915,421, or The Optician "Dual Sight Spectacle" (Apr. 18, 1952). My characterization of the GE and Parsons references as magnetic-retention teachings is an inference from their titles and from the composition of the citation set, not verified fact. If they do not teach magnetic attachment, the § 103 case depends entirely on the unverified eyeglass references or on "magnets were a well-known small-part fastener by 1952" (a position supportable under KSR common sense but weaker).
2. I did not verify the internal dates of the cited references beyond what the patent's own "References Cited" listing shows; the Krimsky filing date (Jan. 4, 1949) comes from Google Patents' citation table, and priority/grant dates carry the same ±1-day uncertainty already flagged in the earlier summary for this patent.
3. No objective-indicia evidence was found in either direction; my conclusion that the record is empty reflects a negative search, not proof that no 1950s-era evidence exists (e.g., trade-press commentary on the Tesauro device, or an actual 1953–55 Office action in the file wrapper — the file history is the single most valuable document still unexamined and would show precisely which references the examiner applied and any Rule 131/affidavit response).
4. Minor cross-reference note: the task header gives "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while the system context and the fetch timestamps in the earlier sections read Sept. 26, 2026. Nothing in this analysis turns on the discrepancy. The earlier summary's observation of no 2026 litigation is consistent with my analysis here: the patent expired Mar. 13, 1973 and appears only as prior art in the 1990s–2000s magnetic-eyewear lineage — which is precisely why its § 103 strength matters to the later patents (Sadler US 5,416,537; Sunreeve US 5,642,177; Contour Optik/Aspex filings), not to Tesauro himself.