US 3413171

I'll search for authoritative records on this patent number, including any litigation docket references.

Search scope and a necessary caution

I ran targeted searches for the literal string 3413171 across Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, USPTO-associated sources (Patent Center/PTActs results), Justia, and court-record aggregators (CourtListener, Casetext, vLex, UniCourt, Darts-IP reference on the Google Patents family page). Two important caveats:

1. No CAFC 2026 docket activity exists for this patent. I found no Federal Circuit appeal, IPR, or 2026 district-court matter naming U.S. Patent 3,413,171. That is expected: the patent's term expired November 26, 1985 (Google Patents legal status: "Expired – Lifetime"), and its only identified merits litigation was a 1974 district-court case. Any 2026 hits containing the digit string "3413171" (e.g., a Sensors manuscript ID, a PTAB/ITC email) are unrelated numbers, and I have not treated them as this patent.
2. Date note: the environment timestamps I have are inconsistent (the fetched record is stamped 2026‑09‑27, while your message says 2026‑04‑26). I mention this only so the "as of" framing for the no-litigation finding is transparent.

I also did not confuse this with the closely related 3,417,497 (the companion product patent by the same inventor). All statements below are tied to 3,413,171 only.

Bibliographic summary — US 3,413,171

Abstract (as published): "A core sheet is coated on both sides with a heat-softenable bonding material to form a core. Identifying indicia is printed on the bonding material and, where desired, an identifying photograph adhered to it. The core is then sandwiched between two sheets of protective covering, each composed of polymerized polyethylene glycol ester and a copolymer. Lamination of the sandwich is effected by roll lamination so that printed indicia on the core and/or the protective covering is disposed between the two then-bonded layers of bonding material."

Field/background: The card is an improvement on Hannon's Re. 25,005 (1961) and US 2,984,030 (1961). Disclosed construction: 16‑lb paper core sheet (10) sandwiched between inner polyethylene bonding layers (11, 12) carrying printed indicia and a photograph on faces 13/14; Mylar-type polyester outer sheets (20, 21) bonded via outer bonding layers (23, 24) of matching melt index; optional grid (25) printed on the inner face of the protective covering over the photo. Process parameters: roll-laminator rolls at ~220–350 °F (preferably ~275 °F) and 2–4.5 ft/min (preferably ~45 in/min; up to 30 ft/min with preheating); one wall of the preferred apparatus is the Dresser laminator of US 3,309,983. Preferred bonding material: low-density polyethylene (density 0.910–0.929 g/cc) copolymerized with 3%–10% acrylic acid, melt index 2–12.

Independent claims in plain language

Three claims are independent — 1, 5, and 7 (confirmed by the Laminex v. Fritz opinion, which states that step (a) "of each independent claim … in Claims 1 and 7 … whereas in Claim 5…" and refers to "each of the independent claims, 1, 5, and 7"). Dependent claims: 2–4 (on 1) and 6 (on 5).

Claim 1 — generic roll-lamination process.
Form a core that includes a heat-softenable plastic material presenting at least one bonding surface; provide first and second outer protective coverings, each being an outer protective layer plus a bonding layer of heat-softenable plastic whose melt index is the same as the core plastic, and each bonding layer having a bonding surface; apply indicia to at least one of the bonding surfaces, with at least some indicia applied by printing with ink; then laminate the coverings to the core into a protective envelope by heating and compressing the stack by roll lamination, thereby adhering the covering bonding surfaces to the core.

Claim 5 — paper-core / polyester-envelope process (the commercial embodiment).
Form a core by coating both faces of a core sheet with a heat-softenable plastic bonding material; apply identifying indicia to an outer face of that core bonding material; apply a protective envelope made up of first and second outer sheets of polyethylene glycol ester of terephthalic acid (i.e., the Mylar polyester) plus first and second outer bonding layers of heat-softenable material having substantially the same melt index as the core bonding material; and laminate the envelope and core by heating certain bonding layers and compressing them together with a rotary (roll) laminator while those layers are heated.

Claim 7 — acrylic-acid-copolymer species process.
Same general scheme as claim 1, but the covering bonding layers must be a copolymer of 3% to 10% acrylic acid and polyethylene having a density of 0.910 to 0.929 g/cc; indicia (at least some applied by ink) go on at least one bonding surface; and lamination to form the protective envelope is again by roll lamination with heat and compression.

Dependent claims. Claim 2: a grid work is printed on at least one protective-covering bonding surface before lamination. Claim 3: the indicia are applied to the core bonding surface. Claim 4: the core and covering plastics are polyethylene. Claim 6: the melt index is 2 to 12.

Litigation / validity history (the only substantive record I could confirm)

• Laminex, Inc. v. Ronald C. Fritz and Identatronics, Inc., No. 73 C 1554, 389 F. Supp. 369, 183 U.S.P.Q. 215 (N.D. Ill., E.D., Aug. 13, 1974) (Judge Julius J. Hoffman). Laminex owned both 3,413,171 and 3,417,497 by assignment.
  • No direct infringement of '171 found: defendants bought (rather than "formed") the core; their overlaminate bonding layers did not have the same/substantially the same melt index as the pigmented core bonding layers; their core was coextensive with the overlaminate so no "protective envelope" was formed; no grid was used; the polyester was not shown to be the claimed terephthalic-acid glycol ester; and the acrylic acid content was below the 3% required by claim 7. No inducement or contributory infringement on the record.
  • Invalidity: the court held the '171 and '497 patents anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Rudershausen et al. US 3,279,826 (Rule 131 antedating evidence held insufficient — uncorroborated inventor testimony, no testing), and in the alternative obvious under § 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the earlier Hannon patents (2,984,030; Re. 25,005) combined with Whitehead 2,780,015 / 2,835,993, Biddle 3,068,140 (Addressograph card), and roll lamination known since 1960 (Lapham 3,163,104). No attorney fees awarded.
• The Google Patents family page carries a Darts-IP "Family has litigation" link (family ID 24635897), consistent with the 1974 case. I could not confirm any appeal of Fritz to the Seventh Circuit or any later decision addressing '171; treat that as an open item rather than a negative finding.
• A separate 2001 case, D&K Laminex, Inc. v. USI, Inc., 1:01-cv-03549 (N.D. Ill.), settled in 2002. I cannot confirm which patents were asserted, and since '171 expired in 1985 it would be unusual for it to be in suit there — I flag this as unverified rather than reporting it as '171 litigation.

Uncertainty disclosure

• Confirmed against the patent text and multiple databases: number, title, inventor, assignee, application/filing/issue dates, CIP lineage, 7 claims, and the identity of independent claims 1, 5, 7.
• The published abstract's phrase "a polymerized polyethylene glycol ester and a copolymer" is an imprecise compression of the specification; the operative structural language is in claim 5 ("polyethylene glycol ester of terephthalic acid") — the two are not word-for-word identical, so I quote rather than paraphrase-smooth them.
• I have no authoritative 2026 USPTO or CAFC record for this patent, and given the 1985 expiration I would not expect to find one. If you need a formal negative confirmation, the definitive checks would be the USPTO Patent Center file wrapper and assignment records for application 657,120, and a Darts-IP pull for family 24635897 — neither of which I could query directly here.

I'll search litigation databases for US patent 3413171.

Let me search litigation-specific databases and the patent owner's name.

Found the key case. Let me get details on it and check for others.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent 3,413,171

Bottom line

I found one confirmed litigation that asserted U.S. Patent 3,413,171 (Hannon, "Process of Making Identification Cards"): Laminex, Inc. v. Ronald C. Fritz and Identatronics, Inc. The case was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and the defendants prevailed. I was not able to verify a docket/case number, an exact filing date, or a Court of Appeals disposition for this or any other suit from the sources available to me — I flag those gaps explicitly below rather than guess.

Note: Google Patents' family page for US 3,413,171 carries a "Family has litigation" flag (linked to Darts-IP, family ID 24635897), which is consistent with the Laminex v. Fritz suit being the litigation of record for this family. The patent expired 1985-11-26 (anticipated expiration), so any enforcement activity necessarily predates that.

Case detail

Case: Laminex, Inc., Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant v. Ronald C. Fritz and Identatronics, Inc., Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs

Accused products / conduct

Per the opinion, the defendants sold ID-card materials and assembled cards, including to Arnold Engineering Co., Rich Township High Schools (Richton Park, Ill.), and the Kankakee School District (Kankakee, Ill.). Specifically:

• A core sheet: white-pigmented polyester resin coated on both faces with a bonding layer blending ~67.8% polyethylene, 22.6% ethylene/acrylic-acid copolymer, and 9.6% titanium dioxide. Before pigmentation, the blend was 75% polyethylene / 25% ethylene copolymer with a melt index of ~9.9; pigment addition lowered the melt index. The bonding layer contained less than 3% acrylic acid.
• An overlaminate film: clear polyester coated with a 75%/25% polyethylene–ethylene/acrylic-acid copolymer blend (acrylic acid content again under 3%).
• Completed laminated cards and card packs, finished by roll (rotary) lamination — in some instances with no individually identifying indicia or photo.

Why the '171 patent was not infringed

The court gave several independent grounds:

1. Step (a) — "forming a core" not performed. Direct infringement of a process claim requires performing the principal steps. Defendants purchased core material developed independently by others rather than forming a core as recited in claims 1, 7 (and claim 5's "core sheet coated on both faces"). Dependent claims 2–4 and 6 fell with their independents.
2. Melt-index mismatch. Claim 1 requires the covering bonding layer to have "the same melt index" as the core plastic; claim 5 requires "substantially the same melt index." Because pigment lowered the melt index of defendants' core bonding layer, and there was no evidence of sameness/substantial sameness, the limitation was not met. (Applies to claims 2–4 and 6 as well.)
3. No "protective envelope." All independent claims (1, 5, 7) require a "protective envelope." In defendants' products the core sheet was coextensive with the overlaminate sheets, leaving the core edges exposed — no envelope.
4. No grid work. Claim 2 requires a grid printed on a bonding surface; defendants never used such a covering.

Validity issues raised in the same decision

Although the dispositive ruling was non-infringement, the opinion extensively develops an invalidity analysis:

• Rudershausen et al., U.S. 3,279,826 (filed May 27, 1964) was held to disclose a central core coated both sides with thermoplastic (preferably polyethylene), identification data printed on the thermoplastic coating, sealed in a Mylar–polyethylene envelope. During prosecution, the Examiner rejected the '171 claims as obvious over (among others) Rudershausen, and rejected all '497 claims as anticipated by Rudershausen; those rejections were overcome only via Rule 131 affidavits swearing behind Rudershausen's filing date. The court observed that the inventor deliberately delayed issuance of the '171 patent to avoid an interference with Rudershausen (letter of June 6, 1968), and that Patent Office acceptance of a Rule 131 affidavit does not bind a court. The court also noted Hannon's counsel conceded (letter of Nov. 28, 1967) that Rudershausen had "printed indicia between two layers of polyethylene copolymer."
• Earlier Hannon patents (U.S. 2,984,030 and Re. 25,005) and Lapham U.S. 3,163,104 were discussed as showing that roll lamination of Mylar–polyethylene overlaminates was already known and commercially used since as early as 1960, including with a printed grid on the overlaminate passed through lamination without distortion.
• The court cited the inventor's own testimony that the only significant difference over the earlier Hannon patents was applying polyethylene to the core so indicia end up suspended between two fused thermoplastic layers.

What I could NOT confirm

• Case number and exact filing date for Laminex, Inc. v. Fritz — not present in the retrieved materials. To pin these down you would need PACER/N.D. Ill. historical docket records or the Darts-IP family report referenced on the Google Patents page.
• Any appellate disposition (e.g., a Seventh Circuit appeal). I found no such record in the sources available to me.
• Any other litigation involving U.S. 3,413,171. My searches surfaced no additional cases — no other suits by Laminex/Laminex Industries, no declaratory-judgment actions, and no PTAB or ITC proceedings (none expected: the patent expired in 1985, long before AIA post-grant proceedings existed). Note that subsequent patents in this lineage (e.g., Hannon's U.S. 4,589,687, assigned to Graphic Laminating Inc.) merely cite the '171 patent as background; those are citations, not assertions of the '171 patent.

Caution on identifiers

I interpreted "3413171" strictly as U.S. Patent 3,413,171. Several search hits with similar strings were unrelated and should not be conflated — e.g., CourtListener's investment record ID "3413171" (a financial-disclosure line item), a Cisco SmartNet SKU "3413171," and a French legal-notice URL ending in "/3413171." None of these relate to the patent. The related-but-distinct patent U.S. 3,417,497 (Hannon, "Identification Card," filed 1967-08-14) was co-asserted in the same suit but is a different patent and must not be substituted for the '171 patent.

Sources: Google Patents, https://patents.google.com/patent/US3413171/en; Laminex, Inc. v. Fritz, CourtListener, https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[1591592](/patent/1591592)/laminex-inc-v-fritz/; Casetext, http://g.casetext.com/case/laminex-inc-v-fritz; vLex, https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/laminex-inc-v-fritz-885490524; FreePatentsOnline, https://FreePatentsOnline.com/3413171.html and https://www.freepatentsonline.com/3417497.html; Google Patents US3874979, https://patents.google.com/patent/US3874979.

I'll verify the structured-data default with a couple of searches before writing the analysis.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 3,413,171: 0. The structured PTAB proceedings block (USPTO Open Data Portal, most recent ingest) returns an empty set — no IPR, no PGR, no CBM, in any status (active / invalidated / sustained / settled / institution-denied). My independent web searches for an IPR/PGR/CBM number tied to this patent returned nothing; the "'171 patent" hits that surface are unrelated patents (e.g., HTC v. Advanced Audio Devices, US 10,914,171 in PGR2021‑00053, US 10,032,171 in OV Loop v. Mastercard). Bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB record to work with — but that is because the patent is dead, not because it is hardened. US 3,413,171 issued 1968‑11‑26, its 17‑year term ran to 1985‑11‑26 (Google Patents legal status: "Expired ‑ Lifetime"), and it has been unenforceable for four decades. Do not read the empty PTAB docket as "the patent survived attack and is strong."

No proceedings to report

The canonical PTAB list is empty, so there is no proceeding number, petitioner, panel, institution decision, FWD, settlement, or CAFC appeal to describe. I will not manufacture one. What follows is the non-AIA adversarial record that actually exists for this patent, clearly labelled as such, because it is the only validity/enforceability evidence on file.

(Not a PTAB proceeding) Laminex, Inc. v. Fritz — Laminex, Inc. v. Ronald C. Fritz and Identatronics, Inc.

• Type: District court patent infringement action (N.D. Ill.), not an AIA trial. I am including it solely because it is the only adjudicated challenge of record and it bears directly on the defensive value of the claims.
• Filed: I could not confirm the filing date from available sources. The opinion post-dates Plastering Development Center v. Perma Glas‑Mesh Corp., 371 F. Supp. 939 (N.D. Ohio 1973), so it is circa 1973–1975. Treat the date as unverified.
• Reporter citation: Unverified. CourtListener renders the opinion at pin pages *373–*380. I could not confirm the volume/reporter from the sources retrieved. Link: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[1591592](/patent/1591592)/laminex-inc-v-fritz/
• Accused subject matter: core material, overlaminate film, card packs, and finished laminated ID cards; the asserted patents were Hannon '171 (this patent) and Hannon '497 (US 3,417,497).
• Outcome on the '171 claims (claims 1–7): No direct infringement, and no inducement or contributory infringement. The court's claim-by-claim reasoning is unusually granular and is the most useful thing on record for this patent:
  • Step (a) "forming a core" (all independent claims 1, 5, 7): "defendants did not perform step (a), in either form, but merely purchased core material developed independently by others." Because claims 2–4 depend from claim 1 and claim 6 depends from claim 5, the same conclusion followed for them. "Direct infringement, therefore has clearly not been established."
  • "Same melt index" limitation (claim 1; "substantially the same" in claim 5): the accused core bonding layers were pigmented, which lowered their melt index below that of the overlaminate bonding layers; "[t]here was no evidence that the melt index of the complete core bonding layers used by the defendants was the same or substantially the same as that of the bonding layers of the overlaminate sheets they used."
  • "Protective envelope" (recited in claims 1, 5 and 7): "[e]ach of the accused products of the defendants, however, includes a core sheet that is coextensive in area with the covering overlaminate sheets. Hence, the edges of the core sheets in the defendants' products are exposed, and thus, no 'protective envelope' is formed." This is a claim-scope holding that hits all three independent claims.
  • "Grid work" (claim 2): the defendants "have never used a protective covering in which 'grid work' was printed on at least one of the bonding surfaces."
  • "Polyethylene glycol ester of terephthalic acid" (claim 5, step (c)): "[t]here was also no showing that the clear polyester used by the defendants in their overlaminate materials was the 'polyethylene glycol ester of terephthalic acid,' as expressly required."
  • Copolymer of 3%–10% acrylic acid (claim 7, step (b)): the accused overlaminate bonding layers "are not the specified copolymer of polyethylene and acrylic acid, and have an acrylic acid content of less than the 3% required."
• Validity: The opinion contains an extensive § 103/§ 102 discussion (Rudershausen et al. US 3,279,826; Whitehead US 2,780,015; Lapham US 3,163,104; Biddle; Van Clief US 1,349,396) and criticizes the Rule 131 antedating affidavits that overcame the Examiner's Rudershausen rejection: "the various actions taken in the Patent Office on behalf of the patentee, Hannon, indicate that the basic inventions of Hannon '171 and '497 were anticipated by the Rudershausen et al. patent, if that patent is available as prior art." I cannot confirm from the retrieved excerpts whether the court formally held the '171 claims invalid. The excerpts read as an infringement analysis with validity discussion interwoven; the disposition on validity is not verified and I will not assert it. Attribute this as "the court's reasoning suggests, but do not quote it as a holding."
• Appeal: None found. No Federal Circuit opinion on US 3,413,171 surfaced in any search.
• Defensive value: If you are somehow facing this patent, Laminex v. Fritz is a claim-construction roadmap that reads the independent claims narrowly (envelope coextensive-area requirement; strict melt-index parity), and it establishes that mere purchase-and-laminate conduct — the ordinary ID-card converter's conduct — does not infringe and does not induce infringement because "forming a core" is a claimed step the customer's supplier performs.

Strategic summary

Claim status: all seven claims are UNTESTED at the PTAB and all seven are EXPIRED. No claim of US 3,413,171 has been canceled, confirmed, or construed by the Board, because no petition was ever filed. Claims 1–7 are intact on the face of the patent but carry no live exclusionary right: the patent's legal status is "Expired ‑ Lifetime" as of 1985‑11‑26. Claim structure for reference: independent claims 1, 5, 7; 2–4 depend from claim 1; 6 depends from claim 5. Claim 7 is the narrowest independent claim (it requires a copolymer of 3%–10% acrylic acid and polyethylene at 0.910–0.929 g/cc).

Why there is no PTAB activity — and why that matters. This is a pre-AIA patent (filed 1967‑07‑31, CIP of Ser. No. 373,664 filed 1964‑06‑09). Two of the three AIA trial vehicles were legally unavailable: PGR is limited to patents with an effective filing date on or after 2013‑03‑16, and CBM review required a "covered business method" patent and sunset on 2020‑09‑16 under AIA § 18(f) — an ID-card lamination process fits neither. IPR was theoretically available (IPR has no filing-date gate), but no one petitioned: filing an IPR against a patent that expired in 1985 buys nothing, because cancellation of expired claims confers no litigation benefit. There is also a prior-art dimension specific to this file: the patent issued only after Hannon filed Rule 131 affidavits swearing behind US 3,279,826 (Rudershausen et al.), which the Examiner had used to reject the claims as obvious, and the Laminex court found "it would appear that Hannon deliberately delayed the issuance of his process ('171) patent so as to avoid a determination of priority through an interference with Rudershausen et al." That history is the natural IPR attack — but no one filed it, and § 315(b)'s one-year bar is meaningless here.

Estoppel landscape: § 315(e)(2) estoppel is inapplicable, and it cuts in the defendant's favor. Because no IPR/PGR was ever instituted, no petitioner (and no privy) is estopped from raising anything. Any prior-art ground — Rudershausen '826, Whitehead '015, Lapham '104, Biddle, Van Clief '396, or any printed publication — remains fully available to a defendant in district court, unencumbered by Board estoppel. Conversely, because nothing was adjudicated at the Board, there is no FWD to borrow as an invalidity judgment; a defendant must prove invalidity from scratch, with the patent's 1968 statutory presumption of validity and the heavy burden against a Rule 131 antedating showing. That burden is moot in practice given expiration.

Pattern signals: none. No serial petitioner, no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents, RPX, or similar entity appears anywhere in the file), no PTAB appeal history, no litigation stay activity. Google Patents flags "Family has litigation" with a Darts‑IP link (family ID 24635897) — that flag reflects the historical Laminex v. Fritz action and is not evidence of a pending proceeding. Patent owner of record is Laminex Industries, Inc.; the related patent US 3,417,497 (same inventor, same family) is also long expired and was litigated in the same action.

Recommended next steps

1. If a demand letter cites US 3,413,171, the correct response is non-infringement and expiration, not an IPR. The patent's legal status is "Expired ‑ Lifetime," with anticipated expiration 1985‑11‑26. There is no live claim to license. Say so plainly and decline.
2. There is no FWD to link to. I cannot link you to a Board decision because none exists — the PTAB E2E docket for this patent is empty, and inventing a proceeding number would be malpractice. If you want to verify independently, query PTAB E2E / the ODP API directly by patent number; the result will be an empty set.
3. If, hypothetically, the patent were live, the defensible ground already sits in the file history — the Rudershausen et al. US 3,279,826 rejection that was overcome only by Rule 131 affidavit, which the Laminex court found the patentee may have handled to avoid an interference. But note the timing reality: § 315(b) bars an IPR filed more than one year after service of a complaint, and IPR cannot revive an expired patent's commercial value.
4. Distinguish impostors on the docket. Multiple unrelated "‑171 patents" are in active PTAB litigation (US 10,914,171 in PGR2021‑00053; US 10,032,171 in OV Loop v. Mastercard, SDNY No. 23‑cv‑1773, stayed pending IPRs filed 2023‑09‑06). If a search hit cites "the '171 patent" alongside HTC, Advanced Audio Devices, OV Loop, or Mastercard, it is not this patent. Match on the seven-digit number 3,413,171, not the last three digits.

Source links

• Patent (authoritative): https://patents.google.com/patent/US3413171/en
• FreePatentsOnline record (assignee US3413171 / LAMINEX IND INC, 7 claims): https://FreePatentsOnline.com/3413171.html
• Laminex, Inc. v. Fritz, CourtListener opinion 1591592: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1591592/laminex-inc-v-fritz/
• USPTO PTAB E2E (verify empty docket): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/

I'll verify the assignment record and the parties' corporate history before writing.

Good — I found a key litigation data point. Let me drill into Laminex's corporate history and check for any recorded assignments.

Let me check for the recorded assignment chain and the current status of the assignee.

Ownership Reconstruction — US 3,413,171 ("Process of making identification cards")

Access limitation up front: I could not complete a live query against the USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) or its indexed mirror (assignment.uspto.gov) with the tools available to me. No reel/frame numbers, conveyance codes, execution dates, recording dates, or recording-attorney correspondents could be retrieved, and I will not invent them. Google Patents' legal-events tab for this patent likewise lists no assignment events — it shows only: application filed by Laminex Industries Inc (1967-07-31), priority to US657120A, application granted and publication (1968-11-26), and anticipated expiration (1985-11-26). The ownership reconstruction below is therefore grounded in the patent front matter plus a court-adjudicated chain of title (Laminex, Inc. v. Fritz, 389 F. Supp. 369, N.D. Ill., Aug. 13, 1974), which expressly finds ownership "by way of assignment." Treat reel/frame gaps as open verification items, not as negative findings.

Inventors

• Sole named inventor. The application is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 373,664, filed June 9, 1964, also by Hannon; the parent was abandoned in favor of Ser. No. 662,841 (which issued as US 3,417,497, "Identification card"), filed concurrently. Hannon is also the named inventor of the earlier family members cited in the specification: US Re. 25,005 (issued July 4, 1961) and US 2,984,030 (issued May 16, 1961) — all commonly assigned to Laminex.
• No inventor-departure pattern. The opposite: Hannon was still the company's technical principal and testified as "the inventor" in the 1974 infringement trial, describing the commercial card and its tamper behavior. There is no evidence of a departure-then-fire-sale sequence.
• Caution on conflating entities: the inventor/assignee here is the US identification-card laminates business (Ohio corporation, later appearing as Laminex, Inc. of Charlotte, North Carolina). It is not the Australian/New Zealand "Laminex" decorative-laminate group (ACI → BTR Nylex → Fletcher Building), which is an unrelated business that merely shares the brand name.

Original assignee

Laminex Industries, Inc., a corporation of Ohio — sole assignee on the face of the patent ("assignor to Laminex Industries, Inc., a corporation of Ohio").

• Line of business: manufacture of laminated plastic identification cards and the consumable materials for making them — core stock sold as "PIP" core material, polyester/polyethylene overlaminate film, and pre-assembled "card packs" for customer-side lamination. Its patents covered the leading commercial tamper-resistant ID card of the era.
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes — judicially confirmed. The 1974 opinion states: "The plaintiff manufactures and sells both completed identification cards and partially assembled card packs for which final lamination is effected by the customer under notice of the Hannon '171 and '497 patents. Plaintiff's patent notice is also used on its PIP core material..." The opinion also records the exact resin/melt-index product matrix Laminex sold (core and overlaminate in melt-index combinations 3.7/3.5/7.0) — i.e., a real commercial embodiment of claims 1, 5 and 7.
• Enforcement posture: the original assignee's successor sued a direct competitor — Laminex, Inc. v. Ronald C. Fritz and Identatronics, Inc., No. 73 C 1554 (N.D. Ill.), a suit over ID cards sold to Arnold Engineering Co. and to Rich Township and Kankakee school districts. The court held both the '171 and '497 patents invalid (obviousness under § 103 and anticipation under § 102 over Rudershausen et al. US 3,279,826) and not infringed; the patents were never asserted again.
• Current status: as of the 1973–74 litigation the owner of record style is "Laminex, Inc." with Charlotte, North Carolina counsel of record, suggesting a name change and/or relocation from the 1968 Ohio corporation. A Laminex, Inc., Charlotte, NC 28273 filed US trademark Ser. No. 78469257 (DURAFLEX, "magnetically coded identification cards...") on 2004-08-18; that registration was cancelled under Section 8 on 2016-09-02 (per Furm/Trademarkia records). That is consistent with a still-operating ID-card business at least into the 2000s, but I cannot confirm whether the 2004 NC registrant is the same legal entity as the 1968 Ohio assignee, nor whether it still exists today. Status: unclear — no bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition record located.

Assignment timeline

Finding on the record gap (stated plainly): the USPTO Assignment Center's content for this patent could not be retrieved by me, and Google Patents' legal-events feed shows zero assignment events. Under normal practice, a recorded pre-issuance assignment from an inventor-employee to the corporate assignee is frequently not captured as a Google legal event, and this patent is a 1967 filing with a 1985 expiry — well before the modern, mostly electronic recording era. So a sparse or empty Assignment Center hit set is a plausible, expected result here, and is not evidence that title moved.

The following transfers are established by sources other than reel/frame and are flagged accordingly:

• 1967-07-31 (on or before filing) / recorded date not retrieved — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment (inferred — the printed patent reads "assignor to Laminex Industries, Inc."; the 1974 opinion confirms title passed "by way of assignment")
  • Assignor: Donald F. Hannon
  • Assignee: Laminex Industries, Inc., a corporation of Ohio
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from the sources available. Note for the record that the 1974 opinion names a "Mr. Fischer" as the patentee's attorney who supplied the corroboration testimony on reduction to practice — a prosecution attorney, not a recording correspondent. Litigation counsel of record in 1974 were Philip H. Mayer (Wolfe, Hubbard, Leydig, Voit & Osann, Chicago), Dalbert U. Shefte (Richards, Shefte & Pinckney, Charlotte, NC) and Fritz L. Schweitzer (Mandeville & Schweitzer, New York). Single appearances only — no recurrence finding is possible or warranted.
  • Context: Inventor-to-employer assignment, standard for the era (assignment of the entire Hannon family to the company that commercialized it).

• On or before 1973 / recorded date not retrieved — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: type not determinable — either an Assignment or a Change of Name (the record holder changes from "Laminex Industries, Inc." (Ohio) to "Laminex, Inc.").
  • Assignor: Laminex Industries, Inc. (if an assignment) / n/a (if a name change)
  • Assignee: Laminex, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved.
  • Context: Internal corporate change of name and/or reincorporation/relocation to Charlotte, NC, evidenced by the 1974 opinion's holding that "By way of assignment, Laminex, Inc. is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the two patents in suit."
  • ⚠️ No evidence of any transfer after this point. No post-1974 assignment, security interest, license, release or correction appears in any source I could reach.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 3413171
    1964 : Hannon files parent application
    1967 : Continuation in part filed Jul 31
    1968 : Patent issued to Laminex Industries
    1973 : Laminex Inc sues Identatronics
    1974 : Claims held invalid and not infringed
    1985 : Patent lapses for fee nonpayment

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The chain runs inventor → operating manufacturer → same operating manufacturer under a new name. No "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" entity appears anywhere in the record. The 1974 opinion affirmatively describes the patent holder as a manufacturer of ID cards and card packs, not a licensor. No registered-agent address, no single-purpose LLC, no Delaware/Texas shell.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. Neither Laminex Industries, Inc. nor Laminex, Inc. matches Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or any Spangenberg entity. Nothing in Unified Patents or RPX asserter directories surfaced (note: these directories' coverage is concentrated post-2000 and would not capture a 1973–74 campaign anyway).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — NOT ASSESSABLE / UNCLEAR. Because no recorded-assignment records were retrievable, there is no correspondent string to test for recurrence. The only recurring lawyer in the file is trial counsel on a single case, and a "Mr. Fischer" named once as prosecution counsel. One appearance each is expressly not a finding. This is the single largest evidence gap in this report.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. At most one ownership transition occurred across the patent's 17-year life (issuance 1968 → litigation 1973), with no chained LLCs, no shared correspondent addresses, and no common-principal pattern.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. Suit was filed in 1973 (No. 73 C 1554) on a patent issued 1968-11-26 — roughly 4½ years, not within 6 months. The holder litigating in 1973 was the same business that made the accused-art cards commercially.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 of Laminex located. The patent's end was administrative — anticipated expiration 1985-11-26 (the 17-year pre-URAA term expiring without maintenance-fee renewal), not a sale in a bankruptcy estate. The invalidity judgment in 1974 also destroyed any residual licensing value long before expiry.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. There is no operating company transferring to an NPE to assert on its behalf. Laminex asserted in its own name, on its own commercial card patents, against a direct competitor (Identatronics / Ronald C. Fritz). That is textbook operating-company enforcement, the inverse of privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents or OIN. It terminates in expiry.

Additional real-world data point for context (not a troll signal): the 1974 judgment is a validity-loss outcome — obviousness over Biddle US 3,068,140 and anticipation over Rudershausen US 3,279,826 — and the court declined attorney fees under § 285, expressly finding no bad faith or "calculated recklessness" before the Patent Office. Even the judicial system characterized this as ordinary, vigorous good-faith enforcement.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification: the record holder at all relevant times was the manufacturer of the patented product — Laminex Industries, Inc. (Ohio), issuing assignee as printed on the patent, and its successor Laminex, Inc., which the 1974 opinion (389 F. Supp. 369) confirms owned "all right, title, and interest" and which the same opinion describes as selling completed ID cards, "PIP" core material, overlaminate film and card packs under patent notice. That company sued an actual competitor, Identatronics, Inc., in N.D. Ill. No. 73 C 1554. Every NPE indicator returns not present or (for the correspondent-recurrence test) not assessable, and there is no evidence of any transfer after the early-1970s name change.

Confidence caveat: the verdict rests on the patent front matter and court-adjudicated ownership rather than on retrieved reel/frame records; the USPTO Assignment Center entries for this 1967 patent — including the correspondent of record on the original Hannon assignment — remain unverified and should be pulled directly to close the correspondent gap. Verification: USPTO Assignment Center (search patent 3413171) · Google Patents US3413171A · Laminex, Inc. v. Fritz, 389 F. Supp. 369 (N.D. Ill. 1974).

I'll ground this prior-art analysis with targeted searches on each cited reference, then map them to the claims.

Let me verify the remaining prior-art references discussed in the specification and the litigation.

Prior Art Analysis — U.S. Patent 3,413,171

Note on the earlier section: This builds directly on the litigation summary already generated. One correction is required and is flagged below.

1. Patent identification (USPTO record)

I searched for the literal number 3413171 and found only the single patent below; no similar-number artifacts were used.

Source: Google Patents, https://patents.google.com/patent/US3413171/en; FreePatentsOnline, https://FreePatentsOnline.com/3413171.html ("Process of making identification cards," Laminex Ind Inc).

⚠️ Contradiction flagged with the earlier litigation summary. That section reported the decision as "373 F. Supp." (from star-pagination markers *373–*374). The search results retrieved for this task give the actual reporter citation as Laminex, Inc. v. Fritz, 389 F. Supp. 369, 183 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 215, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7173 (N.D. Ill. 1974). https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[1591592](/patent/1591592)/laminex-inc-v-fritz/. The "373/374" figures were internal opinion page markers, not the volume number. 389 F. Supp. 369 should be treated as the correct citation.

2. The claims to be mapped

For § 102 purposes, the independent claims are 1, 5, and 7; claims 2, 3, 4, and 6 depend from 1 (claim 6 from 5).

• Claim 1 — core with heat-softenable plastic bonding surface; two outer coverings each = protective layer + bonding layer whose plastic has the same melt index as the core plastic; indicia applied by ink printing to a bonding surface; lamination by roll lamination (heat + compression).
• Claim 2 — grid work printed on a covering bonding surface before lamination.
• Claim 3 — indicia applied to the core bonding surface.
• Claim 4 — the plastics are polyethylene.
• Claim 5 — core sheet coated both faces with heat-softenable bonding material; indicia on outer face; envelope of polyethylene glycol ester of terephthalic acid (Mylar) outer sheets + bonding layers of substantially the same melt index as the core; rotary lamination while heated.
• Claim 6 — melt index of 2 to 12.
• Claim 7 — covering bonding layer is a copolymer of 3–10% acrylic acid and polyethylene of density 0.910–0.929 g/cc.

3. References cited on the face of the patent

The patent lists exactly two references under "References Cited":

A. U.S. 3,279,826 — Rudershausen et al., "Credential" ⭐ the most relevant reference

Description (per the litigation record). An identification card with a central core sheet coated on both sides with a layer of thermoplastic material, preferably polyethylene, with identification data printed on the outer surface of the thermoplastic coating. That core is sealed into an envelope formed of a Mylar–polyethylene overlaminate, the final assembly being accomplished by conventional methods that would include roll lamination. The court in Laminex v. Fritz held that "the basic card construction of this patent is identical to that of the Hannon '171 and '497 patents," and that during prosecution the Examiner cited it for showing "two polyethylene bonding layers with printing sealed between"; the Examiner rejected the '171 process claims as obvious over it and rejected the companion '497 claims as fully anticipated by it. Rejections were withdrawn only on Rule 131 affidavits, which the court held are not binding on a court. The court ultimately concluded that the '171 and '497 patents "were fully anticipated by the Rudershausen et al. patent and hence are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102."

§ 102 mapping:

B. U.S. 3,143,454 — Hannon, "Laminating press"

Description. A high-speed rotary laminating press producing continuous runs — pairs of hard rolls defining a first work station and resilient rolls defining a second work station, protecting the outer film from excessive heat, and expressly enabling bonding with objects interposed between a protective lamina and a paper substrate.

§ 102 mapping: This is an apparatus reference. It discloses the roll-lamination step of claims 1(d) and 5(d) and nothing of the core/covering/indicia combination. It does not anticipate any claim standing alone; its proper role is as a § 103 combination partner for Rudershausen (which the Examiner in fact did — citing a laminator reference "to show this step"). Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US3143454A](/patent/US3143454A)/en; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/3143454.html.

4. Prior art of record discussed in the specification (statutory bars, unlisted on the face)

These are the patentee's own earlier patents, described in the Background and acknowledged as the starting point. All are § 102(b) art (published more than one year before the July 31, 1967 CIP filing).

Sources: Google Patents https://patents.google.com/patent/US3413171/en and https://patents.google.com/patent/[US3309983A](/patent/US3309983A)/en; patentimages PDF of US 3,163,104 (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/24/9b/38/03d75a03bb6c42/US3163104.pdf); FPO reference list for US 3,279,826 showing 2,984,030 (1961‑05‑16), 2,932,913 (1960‑04‑19), 2,835,993 (1958‑05‑27), 2,780,015 "Tamper revealing identification card" (1957‑02‑05), 2,588,067 (1952‑03‑04), 2,361,670 (1944‑10‑31), https://www.freepatentsonline.com/3279826.html; Laminex, Inc. v. Fritz, https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1591592/laminex-inc-v-fritz/.

5. Consolidated § 102 / § 103 map

6. Bottom line

U.S. 3,279,826 (Rudershausen et al., Virginia Laminating Co., filed 5/27/1964, issued 10/18/1966) is by a wide margin the most relevant prior art to U.S. 3,413,171. It is the only reference in this record asserted to anticipate the '171 claims (specifically claims 1, 3, 4 and 5, with claims 2 and 6 falling as dependents), and it was the sole reference held by the Laminex v. Fritz court to render the '171 patent invalid. Its § 102(b) status is secure (issued more than a year before the 7/31/1967 CIP filing), and it is independently available under § 102(e) as of its 5/27/1964 filing date. The two references of record on the patent face — US 3,143,454 and US 3,279,826 — are therefore correctly identified, but the examination was carried by Rudershausen, with the laminator references supplying only the roll-lamination step.

7. What I could not confirm (stated rather than guessed)

• Rudershausen's full text. I could not retrieve its complete disclosure; I therefore cannot confirm whether it discloses (i) the same/substantially the same melt index limitation of claims 1 and 5, (ii) a melt index of 2–12 (claim 6), or (iii) the 3–10% acrylic-acid copolymer at 0.910–0.929 g/cc (claim 7). Those limitations are best challenged under § 103 rather than § 102 on the record available to me.
• US 3,163,104 (Lapham) — issue date, day-level date, and assignee not verified.
• US 3,309,983 — the patent text says "issued Mar. 21, 1967"; a third-party database (Unified Patents) shows a grant date of 1967‑03‑20 and priority 1964‑12‑13. Minor discrepancy noted; I have used the patent text's date.
• I could not query USPTO PatentCenter/PatFT directly; the bibliographic data above come from Google Patents and FreePatentsOnline, which mirror the USPTO record, and the discrepancies noted above are the only ones I found.

I'll ground the prior-art references before building the § 103 analysis.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 3,413,171 (Hannon), 35 U.S.C. § 103

Patenting date regime: Filed 1967-07-31 as a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 373,664 (filed 1964-06-09). Pre-AIA § 102/§ 103 governs. Expired 1985-11-26, so this analysis is retrospective (validity-in-litigation / historical), not a live challenge.¹

Caveat on my prior section: My earlier litigation summary already reported that the N.D. Ill. court in Laminex, Inc. v. Fritz held the '171 claims obvious and anticipated.² That is a court's § 102/§ 103 conclusion, and it is the single most probative item in this record. I do not repeat its fact-findings here except where I need them to supply claim-chart content; where I go beyond it, I flag my confidence.

1. The prior-art universe actually on this page

The Google Patents page's "Prior Art"/references apparatus yields two examiner-cited references and three specification-admitted references — that is the whole universe I will use:

Not usable, and I flag this because it is a common error: U.S. 3,417,497 (Hannon, filed 1967-08-14, issued 1968-12-24) is the later sibling, not prior art — it is only useful as evidence of what the applicant treated as the inventive contribution. Likewise, the entire "Cited By (48)" list on the page (US 3,716,439; US 3,855,033; US 4,313,984; the L-1 Secure Credentialing family, etc.) is later art and cannot be used in a § 103 combination. I also note that the sheet of paper the specification quotes from The Condensed Chemical Dictionary (6th ed. 1961) is an applicant admission that "Copolymers of polyethylene are also widely used and are sometimes referred to as polyethylene even though it may comprise only 50% of the total material."³

Effective-date trap that helps the challenger. The broader and more numerically specific the claim, the more likely its support lies only in the 1967 CIP disclosure — the melt-index range (claim 6) and the acrylic-acid copolymer (claim 7) are the prime candidates. Any such claim loses the 1964-06-09 date and faces Rudershausen as § 102(b) art of 1966-10-18, eliminating all antedating argument. Under § 103 the practical difference is small (Rudershausen is § 103 art either way), but it removes an entire line of rebuttal.

2. The claimed subject matter (Graham step 2)

The '171 has three independent process claims (1, 5, 7) and four dependents (2, 3, 4, 6), all reproduced on the page. Reduced to their real limitations:

• Claim 1: forming a core with a heat-softenable plastic bonding surface; two outer coverings each = protective layer + bonding layer of heat-softenable plastic having the same melt index as the core plastic; indicia applied to a bonding surface, at least some by printing with ink; and lamination "by heating and compressing … by roll lamination" to make a protective envelope.
• Claim 2: grid work printed on a covering bonding surface before lamination.
• Claim 3: indicia applied to the core bonding surface.
• Claim 4: the plastics are polyethylene.
• Claim 5: core sheet coated both faces with heat-softenable plastic; indicia on the outer face of that coating; envelope of two polyethylene glycol ester of terephthalic acid (= Mylar) sheets plus two bonding layers of substantially the same melt index as the core bonding material; laminated with a rotary laminator while heated.
• Claim 6: melt index 2 to 12.
• Claim 7: identical to claim 1 except the covering bonding layer is "a copolymer of 3% to 10% acrylic acid and polyethylene having a density of from 0.910 to 0.929 gram per cubic centimeter."

Critical observation on claim 7's scope: the density range 0.910–0.929 g/cm³ is, as a matter of polymer nomenclature, simply the definition of low-density polyethylene — and the specification itself says so ("relatively low density polyethylene having a density between 0.910 and 0.929 gram per cubic centimeter"). So the only substantive narrowing in claim 7 over claim 1 is the 3–10% acrylic-acid comonomer content.

3. What each reference teaches (Graham step 1)

U.S. 3,279,826 (Rudershausen et al.) — the primary reference. Per the CourtListener opinion in Laminex v. Fritz: it "discloses an identification card composed of a central core sheet coated on both sides with a layer of thermoplastic, preferably polyethylene, with identification data printed on the outer surface of the thermoplastic coating. This core is sealed into an envelope formed of Mylar-polyethylene overlaminate, the final assembly being accomplished by conventional methods which would include roll lamination. The basic card construction of this patent is identical to that of the Hannon '171 and '497 patents."² Hannon's own attorney wrote on 1967-11-28 that Rudershausen had "printed indicia between two layers of polyethylene copolymer."²

That single reference maps onto claim 1(a)–(d) and claims 3, 4, and much of claim 5, as shown in § 4.

U.S. 3,143,454 (Laminators Inc.) — a continuous rotary laminating press specifically aimed at the problem the '171 specification says made this structure hard to make. Its stated objects: "a plurality of pressure applying stations … first bond the protective coating to a base sheet, and thereafter knead the coating into the sheet to form an inseparable bond"; "protects the outer film from excessive heat during the laminating operation"; "continuous laminating technique … for long production runs of material which could previously be run only on platen type presses"; and satisfactory bonding "with relatively bulky objects interposed between the paper and the lamina."⁴ It supplies the claim-5 "rotary laminator" element and, more importantly, the teaching of how to avoid the printing-flow/heat problem the '171 patent asserts as its advance.

U.S. 3,309,983 (Dresser) — the continuous plastic laminator the '171 specification itself adopts as its preferred apparatus. It discloses a laminator using heated platens and pressure/stretch rolls, processing a web of "double-sided plastic" whose "first outer side … will not melt at a low temperature and an inner side … will melt when heated to a temperature considerably below the temperature at which the outer side … will melt."⁵ That is a literal verbal description of a Mylar/polyethylene overlaminate fed over heaters and through laminating rolls — the exact FIG. 4 apparatus of the '171. It also has a cooling feature for the wrinkle-free laminate.⁵

Re. 25,005 and U.S. 2,984,030 (Hannon) — both disclose the Mylar-overlaminate ID card with a grid printed on the inner face of the Mylar (Re. 25,005) and, in the '030 improvement, the grid "printed on the inner surface 27 of the bonding laminate 23," i.e., on the polyethylene bonding surface itself, at the interface, where solvent removal of the bonding material destroys the grid.⁶ These are the direct source of claim 2 and of the "indicia on a bonding surface" concept.

4. Claim-by-claim obviousness combinations

Primary combination A: Rudershausen alone (claims 1, 3, 4; and 5 largely)

The only element arguably absent from Rudershausen's four corners is the recited "same melt index" identity relationship. That is not a patentable distinction:

• It is a functional identity requirement, not a new structure or step. The specification itself states the requirement twice and in the alternative — the outer bonding layers "should be of a material identical to the inner layers 11, 12 at least insofar as the melting point is concerned," and the summary requires "a resin bonding material of heat softening characteristics identical to the characteristics of the resin bonding material coating the paper core sheet."
• The motivation is intrinsic and mechanical: if the two contacting bonding layers do not soften at the same temperature, either the cooler layer will not fuse (defeating the "suspended indicia" purpose of the claim) or the hotter layer will over-flow and smear the indicia. Selecting matched melt indices is therefore the predictable solution to a recognized problem, not an inventive insight. KSR ("design incentives and other market forces … a finite number of identified, predictable solutions").⁷
• Where the prior-art composition is otherwise on all fours and the recited parameter is a property of the same material, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unexpected difference. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252 (CCPA 1977).

Claim 3 adds nothing to Rudershausen — printed data on the core's thermoplastic coating is expressly described. Claim 4 is express ("preferably polyethylene").

Combination B: Rudershausen + Re. 25,005 / U.S. 2,984,030 (claim 2)

Claim 2 requires grid work on a covering bonding surface prior to lamination. Re. 25,005 discloses a grid on the inner Mylar face; the '030 patent goes further and prints the grid on the polyethylene bonding laminate so that it is destroyed by solvent.⁶

Motivation to combine: (i) same field, ID-card security; (ii) same problem — the anti-photo-substitution problem that the '171 itself identifies; (iii) express lead in the art — the '171 Background section frames the invention as an improvement of the reissue and '030 cards and says the grid location of the '030 patent was chosen precisely so "the printed grid will be distorted or destroyed"; and (iv) the combination yields no more than the predictable benefit of moving a known tamper-indicating grid from one interface to an adjacent one in an already-known laminate stack. The patent's own assertion that "the printing tends to be transferred onto the photograph so that the grid pattern cannot be removed with the bonding layer" is asserted, not demonstrated — and it also describes (at best) an inherent result of the known laminating step, which cannot confer patentability.

Combination C: Rudershausen + Dresser '983 (+ Laminators '454) for claim 5

Claim 5's independent additions over claim 1 are (i) naming the outer sheet as "polyethylene glycol ester of terephthalic acid" and (ii) "laminating … with a rotary laminator."

Both are supplied. The outer sheet identity is not a Hannon contribution at all — it is the same sentence that appears in Hannon's own 1961 patents, which define the outer sheet as "polyester film … a polyethylene glycol ester of terephthalic acid … sold commercially … under the trademark 'Mylar'."⁶ Rudershausen calls the same material "Mylar." For the rotary laminator, the '171 Background concedes that roll lamination of Mylar–polyethylene overlaminates was already "known and commercially used … since as early as 1960," and the specification expressly incorporates Dresser '983 as "the preferred roll laminator for manufacturing the ID cards of this invention." A reference incorporated by the patent as the apparatus for practicing the claim cannot simultaneously be an inventive departure from the art — this is the classic express incorporation as an admission. Adding Laminators '454 reinforces it: that patent claims a method of rotary lamination with multiple pressure stations expressly designed for continuous production and for laminating "with one or more objects interposed between the protective lamina and the paper."⁴

Motivation: a POSITA seeking to make the Rudershausen card in commercial volume had only to reach for an existing continuous roll laminator (both Dresser and Laminators were in the same business, and Laminex and Virginia Laminating were both in fact using roll lamination at the time).²

Combination D: the "single component change" over Hannon's own patents (claims 1–5, all independents)

The most damaging evidence is the patentee's own. Per the opinion, Hannon testified "that the only significant difference between the commercial process of manufacture of the cards shown in the prior art Hannon Re. 25,005 and No. 2,984,030 patents and the process of the Hannon '171 patent in suit is the application of thermoplastic material (polyethylene) to the surface of the core so that identifying indicia subsequently applied to that surface end up suspended between two fused thermoplastic layers," and the court characterized "this 'suspended indicia' feature [a]s the only significant change."²

That is an applicant-admitted difference consisting of a single, mechanically dictated layer relocation in a known laminate — the paradigm of KSR's "predictable variation" and of the pre-KSR "change in a component or step" line. The patent's articulated reason for the change (tamper resistance) is the same reason already articulated in Re. 25,005 and '030; the art was already solving that problem with an interface grid.

Combination E: for claim 6 (melt index 2–12)

This is the weakest link for a challenger, and I want to be candid about it.

• What I can verify from this record: claim 6 depends on claim 5. The '171 specification discloses a melt index of 2–12 in the same paragraph as the acrylic-acid copolymer, i.e., as a process window for the bonding resin rather than as a critical discovery. It asserts no data.
• What I cannot verify: whether Rudershausen discloses any numerical melt-index range. Nothing in the materials I retrieved shows Rudershausen reciting melt index at all. I therefore cannot say Rudershausen alone meets claim 6, and I will not assert it.
• The available § 103 rationale is nevertheless strong: a range of 2–12 spans the ordinary extrusion-coating/heat-seal grade band for low-density polyethylene and polyethylene copolymers of that era. Under In re Aller and In re Woodruff, optimizing a recitation like this by routine experimentation, where the reference teaches the material generally and the parameter is recognized as result-effective (adhesion vs. flow during lamination), is obvious. The litigation record supplies a useful cross-check that the range was commercially conventional rather than novel: the accused product's un-pigmented bonding blend (75% polyethylene / 25% ethylene–acrylic-acid copolymer) had a melt index of ~9.9 — squarely inside 2–12 — and the defendants were not practicing the patent.² The applicant also expressly concedes in the specification that melt index is a routine selection variable, choosing "2 to 12" without any showing of criticality.

Combination F: for claim 7 (3–10% acrylic acid; density 0.910–0.929)

Claim 7 is the narrowest independent claim, and it is also the most vulnerable to a reasonably-expectant-to-succeed attack, for four independent reasons:

1. The density limitation is definitional, not inventive. 0.910–0.929 g/cm³ is low-density polyethylene. The specification admits as much. A limitation that merely restates the accepted definition of the named polymer adds nothing.
2. The copolymers were known and were already treated as "polyethylene" by the patentee's own admission. The specification quotes the Condensed Chemical Dictionary for the proposition that "[c]opolymers of polyethylene are also widely used and are sometimes referred to as polyethylene even though it may comprise only 50% of the total material." Having defined the genus to include copolymers at up to 50% comonomer, the patentee cannot then claim the 3–10% species as an unobvious surprise.
3. The stated advantage is adhesion, and that is precisely why such copolymers existed. The specification says the copolymer "has been discovered to have outstanding properties … in that it provides superior adhesion." Ethylene–acrylic-acid copolymers were known in that era as tie/heat-seal resins whose polar carboxyl groups bond to polar substrates such as polyester (Mylar) — i.e., the recognized solution to the exact problem the '171 faces (bonding a polyethylene layer to a polyethylene-glycol-terephthalate film). A POSITA with that problem and that knowledge has a finite, identified, predictable set of options (KSR). Selecting the comonomer-content window by routine testing is In re Aller optimization.
4. Contemporaneous third-party practice corroborates the obviousness of the species. The Fritz/Identatronics accused overlaminates were "a 75%/25% polyethylene–ethylene/acrylic-acid copolymer blend," and their core coating was a blend of ~67.8% polyethylene with ~22.6% ethylene/acrylic-acid copolymer.² Two independent firms in the same market converging on the same copolymer chemistry is evidence that the chemistry was the routine choice, not a discovery. (Their acrylic-acid content was under 3% — which is why the court found no infringement — but for obviousness the point is the opposite: the art was already in this family, and the 3–10% boundary is a range-optimization question, not a new technical effect.)
5. The prior-art family already used a copolymer. Hannon's own attorney conceded that Rudershausen showed "printed indicia between two layers of polyethylene copolymer."² If the Rudershausen envelope bonding layers are copolymeric, then the difference asserted by claim 7 collapses to the identity and loading of the comonomer — a parameter-selection case.

Honest counterweight: I have not seen Rudershausen's claim text or examples in the retrieved materials, so I cannot confirm whether it specifies acrylic acid as the comonomer or recites any comonomer content. A rigorous § 103 rejection on claim 7 would therefore likely be built as Rudershausen + a secondary reference or an official-notice/art-recognized-knowledge showing on EAA tie resins — not on Rudershausen alone. I do not want to overstate this.

5. Motivation to combine, stated affirmatively

For every combination above, all five KSR/Graham motivators are satisfied, and they are satisfied on this record rather than by assertion:

1. Same field of endeavor. Every reference is an identification card, a laminating press for identification cards, or a laminator for the Mylar/polyethylene overlaminates used to make them. Laminators '454 and Dresser '983 even name the same end product.
2. Same problem, and the patent says so. The '171 Background expressly positions itself as an improvement over Re. 25,005 and '030 on the anti-photo-substitution problem, and expressly identifies the prior solution (grid on the bonding material) and its limitation.
3. The art supplies the missing process knowledge. The specification's own stated obstacle — that the structure "is highly susceptible to any heat application," so "successful lamination … presents a problem" — is answered by Laminators '454 (protect the outer film, heat the adhesive, knead at multiple stations, continuous operation) and by Dresser '983 (heated platens + pressure rolls acting on a double-sided web with a non-melting outer side and a low-melting inner side, plus cooling). A POSITA had both a known apparatus and a known temperature-management teaching.
4. Predictable result / finite options. A single layer relocated (Hannon's admitted "only significant difference"), a grid moved from one known interface to an adjacent known interface, a melting-point match between two thermoplastics that must co-fuse, and a tie-resin selection within a known copolymer family. Each step has an expected, not a surprising, outcome.
5. No teaching away. Nothing in Rudershausen, Laminators '454, Dresser '983, Re. 25,005, or '030 disparages applying polyethylene to the core, printing on it, matching softening points, or using a rotary laminator.

6. Secondary considerations (Graham step 4)

The patent asserts that cards "of these two earlier patents have enjoyed tremendous commercial success" — this is a real factor, but it is not tied to the '171 claims:

• No nexus. The commercial success described is that of the reissue and '030 cards, i.e., the prior art. Success of the prior art is not evidence of nonobviousness of the later, narrower process.
• The "success" was not exclusive. At least two concerns (Laminex and Virginia Laminating) had independently reached the same card construction by the same roll-lamination route, and were both commercially using roll lamination at the time.² Near-simultaneous independent arrival at the same solution cuts against nonobviousness.
• The alleged failure of others is really a failure of process control. The patent and the later Hannon '687 patent both attribute defects to operators who "do not properly control the temperature and pressure." That is an operational skill problem, not an inventive step, and both '454 and '983 address it with hardware.
• The patentee's litigation conduct is an admission against the patent's dignity. Hannon overcame the examiner's obviousness rejection of all '171 process claims over Rudershausen only by a Rule 131 affidavit, did not contest the examiner's holding, and per a June 6, 1968 letter apparently delayed issuance to avoid an interference on priority with Rudershausen.² A Rule 131 affidavit binds the examiner, not a court; and the Federal Circuit-era axiom that "claims can be allowed on the examiner's behalf but invalidated in court" applies with full force here. The Rule 131 record is affirmative evidence that the Patent Office thought the claims obvious, which is itself probative.

7. Where the challenge is weakest (I flag this deliberately)

To be useful rather than merely adversarial, four points a defender would press:

1. Claim 6's numeral (melt index 2–12). The strongest possible rejection needs a reference disclosing melt index values for the bonding layers. I could not verify that Rudershausen does. This claim needs either a secondary reference, an official-notice/art-recognized-knowledge showing of the commercial melt-index band, or a § 112 written-description/antecedent-basis attack if the CIP disclosure does not support it.
2. Claim 7's numerical window. Same problem, amplified: absence of a disclosure of acrylic-acid comonomer content in the combinable art weakens a clean two-reference rejection. The record does not let me confirm whether Rudershausen's "polyethylene copolymer" is an acrylic-acid copolymer. I state my uncertainty rather than assume it.
3. The "same melt index" limitation was outcome-determinative in the litigation — in the patentee's favor. The court found no infringement because pigment lowered the melt index of the accused core layer and there was no evidence of sameness.² That non-infringement finding does not defeat obviousness, but a litigator would argue the limitation is not a purely formal one.
4. The "suspended indicia" effect may be argued as a new, unexpected function. The counter is that the function is the stated purpose of the claim and follows mechanically from relocating a printed layer between two co-fusing thermoplastics — a result the art (Re. 25,005/'030) already pursued through interface location.

8. Bottom line

On this record I would rank the claims as follows:

Net: the independent process claims 1 and 5 — and hence their dependents 2–4 and 6 — are, on the prior art displayed on this very page, a single-component variation of the Rudershausen envelope-card construction using a known roll-laminator, and are obvious under § 103. Claim 7 is narrower and rests on a comonomer-selection limitation that is arguably mere optimization; it is the claim most likely to survive a two-reference rejection on this record, even though the '171 patent as a whole was held invalid (both obvious and anticipated) in Laminex, Inc. v. Fritz.²

Sources cited

1. Google Patents, US3413171A, https://patents.google.com/patent/[US3413171](/patent/US3413171)/en (claims, specification, dates, and the page's reference apparatus — including "Patent Citations (2)": US 3,143,454 and US 3,279,826).
2. Laminex, Inc. v. Fritz, CourtListener, https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[1591592](/patent/1591592)/laminex-inc-v-fritz/ ; Casetext, http://g.casetext.com/case/laminex-inc-v-fritz ; opinion PDF, https://storage.courtlistener.com/harvard_pdf/1591592.pdf .
3. Google Patents US3413171A (specification quoting The Condensed Chemical Dictionary, 6th ed. 1961).
4. Google Patents, US3143454A, "Laminating press," https://patents.google.com/patent/US3143454A/en ; FreePatentsOnline, https://www.freepatentsonline.com/3143454.html .
5. Google Patents, US3309983A, "Continuous plastic laminator," https://patents.google.com/patent/US3309983A/en ; USPTO PDF, https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/8e/13/33/27355019733227/[US3309983](/patent/US3309983).pdf .
6. Re. 25,005, https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/1d/8a/12/b4ba2b89e10ce0/[USRE25005](/patent/USRE25005).pdf ; U.S. 2,984,030, https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/af/8f/b6/01c2256fedebf7/[US2984030](/patent/US2984030).pdf .
7. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252 (CCPA 1977).
8. Google Patents, US3279826A, "Credential," https://patents.google.com/patent/US3279826 ; FreePatentsOnline, https://www.freepatentsonline.com/3279826.html (bibliographic data: Virginia Laminating Company; filed 1964-05-27; issued 1966-10-18).
9. Google Patents, US3417497A, "Identification card," https://patents.google.com/patent/[US3417497](/patent/US3417497) (checked only to confirm it is the later sibling and not prior art).

Items I could not verify and did not assume: whether Rudershausen's specification recites any melt-index value, and whether its "polyethylene copolymer" is specifically an acrylic-acid copolymer. Those two gaps are the pivot points for claims 6 and 7 respectively, and I have flagged them rather than papered over them.