US 4419734

I'll search for this specific patent number as instructed.

Let me run a couple more targeted searches to check for litigation and to confirm bibliographic details.

Let me try to retrieve the complete claim set to identify all independent claims.

Search scope and sources consulted

I ran targeted searches for the literal identifier 4419734 / US 4,419,734 against Google Patents, the USPTO-linked PDF at patentimages.storage.googleapis.com, RPX Insight, and general web/legal-docket sources, and I also searched for any 2026 CAFC activity involving this number or its assignee. Below I summarize what the sources show, and I flag the points where I could not obtain authoritative text.

---

1. Bibliographic summary — US 4,419,734

Prior art cited on the face of the patent: U.S. Pat. No. 3,605,089 (Terteling, "Physical inventory scanning and recording system"), U.S. Pat. No. 3,863,724, and in the background discussion U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,180,204 and 4,034,339.

---

2. Abstract (verbatim from the patent)

"An inventory control system for a plurality of storage areas is provided wherein each storage area comprises at least one platform adapted to support a plurality of identical articles, and platform-supporting means including transducer means for providing a first electrical signal which varies in accordance with changes in the load carried by the platform-supporting means. The system also includes signal processing means for processing the first signals and producing in response to each first signal a second signal which is representative of the number of articles supported by the corresponding platform, scanning means for causing each of said first signals to be selectively coupled to said signal processing means, and means for providing an inventory record in response to said second signals."

---

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The patent has 26 claims. Based on the retrieved claim text and the RPX claim-tree view, the independent claims are claim 1 and claim 10 in the first group, claim 17 in the second group, and claim 26 at the end. I have the full text of claims 1, 17 and 26; I could only partially retrieve claim 10 and claim 20 (see "Uncertainties" below).

Claim 1 — the core system claim. A physical-inventory scanning and recording system made up of:

• several storage stations, each with at least one platform (a shelf) for carrying articles, and a support structure that holds the platform at multiple spaced-apart points;
• that support structure containing a transducer that emits an analog "gross weight" signal which changes as the load (platform + articles) changes;
• a voltage-to-frequency converter that converts the analog gross-weight signals into digital output signals tracking those weights;
• a computer that stores the digital signals and generates signals representing how many articles sit on each platform, based on the load values; and
• scanning means that reads the digital outputs and feeds them into the computer.

Claim 10 — a second independent system claim (preamble: "A physical inventory scanning and recording system comprising:"). The retrieved source (RPX) shows claim 10 as independent with dependent claims 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. I could not retrieve the full text of claim 10 itself, but the dependent claims establish the subject matter of this group: claim 14 and claim 16 address two parallel support beams with strain gages whose outputs are coupled in a bridge circuit; the text immediately preceding claim 16 (end of claim 15) refers to preventing a reading until a count of n successive readings is obtained "where n is an integer of predetermined value." I therefore describe claim 10 only in general terms.

Claim 17 — selective-addressing system claim. A physical-inventory scanning and recording system with:

• several storage stations, each with at least one platform supported at multiple spaced locations;
• a specific address for each storage station;
• each support structure having a transducer producing an analog gross-weight signal;
• means that convert those gross-weight signals into output signals representing the number of articles;
• output-signal processing means; and
• scanning means that selectively couples the output signals to the processing means, including means for selectively addressing each storage station and for coupling a particular station's transducer output to the processing means whenever that station is correctly addressed.

Claim 26 — the final independent claim. A system with a plurality of storage stations, each having a platform for carrying articles and support means holding the platform at spaced locations; the support means has transducers producing analog gross-weight signals that vary with the supported load; voltage-to-frequency converter means produce digital output signals varying with those gross-weight signals; and computer means store the digital output signals for later processing to determine the number of articles on the platforms.

Claim 20 (probable independent or a late dependent claim). The retrieved fragment describes support means comprising two parallel members attached to the shelf that change stress as the load varies, with strain gages on each member arranged to go into compression and tension, a bridge coupling those gages to produce the analog gross-weight signal, plus means responsive to the gross-weight signal for producing the article-count output signals. Because the preamble of this claim was truncated in the source, I cannot confirm authoritatively whether claim 20 is independent or depends from an earlier claim.

---

4. Litigation / CAFC 2026 docket check

No CAFC 2026 docket or appeal involving US 4,419,734 was found in my searches. This is consistent with the bibliographic record: the patent's anticipated expiration was January 9, 2001, and its status is "Expired – Fee Related." A patent that expired in 2001 would not normally be the subject of a 2026 Federal Circuit appeal.

Important non-match note (per the instruction not to conflate similar numbers): Several search hits discuss a "'734 patent" in a Delaware patent case caption (involving an IPR and a '734 patent with a claim 5 limitation about remote vehicle lock/horn control) and a separate '734 patent in an MIT-related IPR/stay dispute. Those are different patents that merely share the trailing digits "734" — they are unrelated in subject matter (vehicle telematics / MIT technology) to US 4,419,734's shelf-weighing inventory system. I have not treated them as the same patent, and I flag them only so the distinction is explicit.

---

5. Uncertainties and caveats

1. Full text of claims 10–25. The authoritative sources I retrieved gave the full text of claims 1, 17, 26 and a fragment of claim 20, plus a machine-generated listing indicating claim 10 is independent with dependents 11–16 and that claims 21–25 are dependent. I could not retrieve the complete text of claims 10–15, 18–25, so my descriptions of those claims are incomplete and should be verified against the official patent PDF before being relied on.
2. Claim 20's dependency is unverified (preamble truncated).
3. Assignee identity. Google Patents lists the current assignee as "INDATA Corp A MA CORP" / "Indata Corp" of W. Concord, MA. A modern "inData Corporation" appears in a Bloomberg company profile as an e-discovery/trial-preparation software vendor; I have no evidence linking that entity to the 1981–1983 Indata Corporation that owned this patent, and I do not treat them as the same company.
4. Autotrieve assignment. The filing-page record shows an assignment to Autotrieve Associates on 1981-01-09 followed by assignment to Indata Corporation, A MA CORP on 1983-11-07. The chronologically unusual "assign to Autotrieve at filing" entry is what the source shows; I am reporting it as recorded rather than interpreting it.

If you want, I can attempt to retrieve the complete verbatim text of claims 10–25 from the patent PDF so the dependent-claim analysis can be finished.

I'll research litigation involving US 4419734. Let me run several targeted searches.

Initial searches returned no litigation. Let me query litigation-specific sources.

Bottom line

I found no litigation involving US 4,419,734. No district court complaints, no CAFC appeals, no ITC investigations, and no PTAB proceedings referencing this patent appeared in any of my searches. I cannot identify a plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome because I found no case to report.

I want to be explicit: this is absence of evidence, not verified evidence of absence — see the coverage caveats below, which matter a great deal for a patent of this vintage.

---

What I searched and what surfaced

The only hits containing the literal string "4419734" were:

1. Google Patents — the patent itself, plus citing documents (e.g., US4563739, US6061039) that list it as a prior-art citation in their specifications, not as asserted subject matter.
2. A WO search report (WO2005041080A1) listing "X US 4 419 734 A (GRONDSTRA JAN W ET AL) 6 December 1983 — abstract." This is a PCT International Search Report citation (category "X"), i.e., the examiner treated it as prior art. That is prosecution, not litigation.
3. A "NONE" entry ("US 4419734 A 06-12-1983 NONE") — this is a patent-family indicator format, not a litigation record.

None of these are litigation.

---

Why this is plausible (and why it might still be wrong)

Factors supporting genuinely zero litigation:

• The patent's legal status per Google Patents is "Expired – Fee Related," with an anticipated expiration of 2001-01-09 (20 years from the 1981-01-09 priority/filing date). A patent cannot be asserted after expiry, so any enforcement window closed a quarter-century ago.
• The record shows a turbulent ownership history: filed 1981-01-09 by Indata Corp; assigned to Autotrieve Associates on 1981-01-09 (per the reassignment entry, assignors Wolfson, Grondstra, Jarva); then assigned back to INDATA CORPORATION, a MA corp, on 1983-11-07. Small, defunct-or-absorbed 1980s companies rarely leave a large litigation trail, and corporate-name changes complicate name-based searching.
• The inventors (William Wolfson, Jan W. Grondstra, Curt Jarva; Google Patents also renders the first inventor as "William Wolfson" and elsewhere the Radaris index gives "William Wolfson") were individual inventors at a small Massachusetts company, not a large operating corporation with a standing enforcement program.

Coverage caveats you must weigh:

• Docket coverage. PACER's digitized coverage is generally reliable from the mid-1990s forward; pre-1990s district court dockets are frequently paper-only, closed, and not retrievable through modern full-text search. A 1983–1990 assertion would likely be invisible to the searches I ran.
• Unified Patents' portal is the wrong tool for this era. Unified's caselist is a PTAB/AIA-trial database. The PTAB did not exist until 2012, and a patent that expired in 2001 could not meaningfully be the subject of an IPR. So the portal returning nothing is expected and does not corroborate anything about district court litigation.
• CAFC coverage. The Federal Circuit's opinion archive is searchable, but a 1980s–90s appeal would only surface if it produced a published or archived opinion, and I did not retrieve any.
• No litigation reported ≠ no license demands/settlements. The 1980s inventory-weight-sensing field had active players; it is entirely possible non-public licensing activity occurred with no filed case.

---

What "no litigation found" does and does not support

For your purposes, you can accurately state: "A search of publicly available litigation databases and patent records identified no reported litigation involving US 4,419,734." You should not state as fact that the patent was never asserted, and you should not infer that it was never licensed, enforced via demand letters, or litigated in an undigitized pre-1990s forum.

---

Suggested next steps to close the gap

If you need a defensible "no litigation" or a complete litigation history, the following are more likely to be conclusive than the tools above:

1. PACER Case Locator (national index) searched by party name — specifically Indata Corporation, Autotrieve Associates, and each inventor — rather than by patent number, since old dockets often omit patent numbers in the searchable fields.
2. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — request a records search of the pre-digital docket (the CAFC's clerk's office maintains historical case records not fully online).
3. Westlaw/LexisNexis Dockets and Docket Navigator, which have retrospective coverage beyond free sources.
4. Derwent LitAlert / LexisNexis Patent Litigation records for 1970s–1990s patent suits, which were compiled before PACER existed.
5. District court records for D. Mass. (the natural venue for a W. Concord, MA patentee), including the Boston courthouse's paper archives.

If you'd like, I can run additional targeted searches on the party names or on the D. Mass. venue — but based on the authoritative record in the patent text itself, US 4,419,734 expired in 2001 and I found no litigation involving it.

PTAB / AIA Trial Landscape — US 4,419,734 ("Inventory control system")

Prepared 2026-09-30. Source of record for the proceedings list: the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal), which returns no AIA trial proceedings. Web searches were run to catch anything ODP has not indexed. Findings below.

---

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0. Breakdown: 0 active, 0 with claims invalidated, 0 with claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials — there is nothing to break down, and the reason is structural rather than accidental: US 4,419,734 issued 1983-12-06, expired more than a decade before the first IPR was ever filed (AIA trials became available 2012-09-16), and the ODP/Google legal-status record lists an anticipated expiration of 2001-01-09. The bottom-line defensive posture is therefore not "hardened" or "invalidated" — it is moot: any demand letter asserting this patent against present-day conduct is asserting an expired patent, and no IPR-based defense (or any validity defense) needs to be mounted at all.

For each proceeding — there are none. Rather than fabricate entries, the section below records what was searched and what the absence means.

No proceedings to enumerate

• Type: n/a
• Filed: n/a
• Status: The structured ODP block is empty (no IPR, PGR, or CBM entries for US 4,419,734). Web searches for US4419734 PTAB, "4,419,734" IPR, "US4419734" CBM, and inventor/assignee-based queries (Indata Corp; Wolfson, Grondstra, Jarva) surfaced only the patent's own Google Patents record and third-party inventor-index pages — no petition, no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, no termination, no appeal.
• Judge panel: none (no panels ever assigned).
• Petition grounds: none.
• Institution decision: none.
• Final Written Decision: none.
• Settlement / termination: none.
• Appeal: none found. Searches of the Federal Circuit's public docket and CourtListener returned no appeal captioned to this patent number. (Caveat below regarding confidence.)
• Defensive value: A defendant should not budget for PTAB work here. The correct triage step is to confirm the assertion is real and to check the patent number literally — I have not auto-corrected the number anywhere in this memo, and a mis-transcribed digit in a demand letter is a live possibility given how stale this patent is. If the number is genuinely US 4,419,734, the defense is expiration, not invalidity.

Why no AIA trial was ever possible in practice:

---

Strategic summary

Claim status. All 26 claims of US 4,419,734 are UNTESTED — not because they survived a challenge, but because none was ever mounted. There are no canceled claims, no confirmed claims, and no surviving-claim list to work from. The claim set is intact on paper and includes claim 1 (a scanning/recording system reciting storage stations, load-responsive transducer support means, voltage-to-frequency converter means producing digital output signals, a computer, and scanning means) and dependent claims such as claim 2 (fluidic support units with pressure transducers) and claim 5 (microcomputers with unique platform addresses, bidirectional bus, tare compensation, and unit-weight division). Note the drafting-era artifacts a modern defendant would exploit if the patent were somehow live: means-plus-function phrasing, a "computer" recited without structural definition, and prior art of the patent's own vintage (the specification disparages U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,605,089 and 3,863,724, and the claims would be measured against a 1981 level of ordinary skill — an extremely favorable obviousness posture for a challenger). None of this needs to be litigated, because the patent is expired.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel and there cannot be: estoppel attaches to a petitioner who obtains a Final Written Decision, and no petition was ever filed. No party — including the patent's owners of record, Indata Corp. (and the earlier assignee Autotrieve Associates) — is barred from any ground. Symmetrically, a defendant gains nothing from the absence of proceedings either; an empty docket is not a validity finding.

Pattern signals. No repeat petitioner, no serial IPR filer, no patent-owner PTAB appeal practice, and no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) anywhere in the chain. The absence of PTAB activity is not the usual "well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs" signal; the governing signal here is the age and expiry of the patent. The real expiry date is worth pinning down precisely because Google/ODP list 2001-01-09 (20 years from filing), whereas a patent granted 1983-12-06 under pre-URAA law carried a 17-year term running from grant, i.e., to 2000-12-06. Either way, the term ended a quarter-century ago. I flag the discrepancy rather than resolve it, since the distinction is immaterial today.

On the "previously-generated sections." Consistent with the body-of-the-patent analysis already produced, everything in the specification and claims — the strain-gauge/dual-gauge bridge arrangements of FIGS. 1–4 and 7, the torsional support of FIGS. 5–6, the piston/pressure-transducer supports of FIGS. 8–9, the dual-cantilever beams of FIG. 10, and the central-computer/microcomputer architectures of FIGS. 11–17 — is relevant to claim construction and § 102/§ 103 exposure, not to PTAB history. No PTAB proceeding ever construed a single one of these terms.

---

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant and have received a demand citing US 4,419,734: the disposition you should quote is not a Final Written Decision — there isn't one — but the statutory term. ODP/Google list anticipated expiration 2001-01-09; a pre-URAA patent granted 1983-12-06 would have run 17 years from grant to 2000-12-06. Confirm the operative expiry with the USPTO Patent Center record for application 06/223,749 (Patent Center; patent record) and then assert expiration outright under 35 U.S.C. § 271: expired patents cannot be infringed prospectively, and the damages window closed before the smartphone era. There is no claim to cancel and no IPR to file.
2. If the demand letter's patent number may be mis-transcribed, verify it literally before doing anything else. Do not assume the sender meant a live patent with a similar number; a good-faith mis-numbered demand should be met with a written request to identify the asserted patent precisely.
3. If you are evaluating this patent as prior art (its most likely modern relevance — a 1983 weight-based automated inventory-scanning disclosure), note that citations to it are prior-art citations, not validity litigation, and that the full specification and figures are available at the link above.
4. Verify independently. The absence of PTAB records is a confident conclusion (structured ODP data plus corroborating web searches), but my check for ex parte reexamination or pre-AIA district court validity litigation was not exhaustive — those are not AIA trials and are outside the ODP proceedings block. If a reexamination certificate or an old judgment matters to you, pull the full file history from Patent Center rather than relying on this memo. Suggested public searches: PTAB E2E / PTAB Decisions and CourtListener full-text search.

---

Confidence and sourcing notes

• High confidence: zero AIA trial proceedings (IPR/PGR/CBM) on US 4,419,734. Grounded in the structured ODP block (empty) and confirmed by four independent web searches.
• High confidence: the patent is expired (expiry no later than 2001-01-09; possibly 2000-12-06 under the 17-year-from-grant rule).
• Moderate confidence: no Federal Circuit appeal exists. No appeal surfaced in the searches, but pre-AIA appeals would have run through the CCPA/Federal Circuit docket decades before CourtListener's coverage is complete, so a null result there is weaker evidence than the null PTAB result.
• No fabrication: no proceeding number, panel, FWD, or appeal is stated anywhere in this memo, because none exists. Where a date conflicts between sources (2000-12-06 vs. 2001-01-09), both are given rather than silently reconciled.

I'll research the assignment history for US 4419734, starting with the authoritative patent text I've been given and then probing for the recorded assignment records and entity backgrounds.

Good — I have the inventor names and both Google Patents legal events. Now let me verify the assignment details and entity backgrounds.

Let me try to pin down reel/frame numbers and any litigation or NPE activity.

Assignment Record Reconstruction — US 4,419,734

Data-integrity note up front: I could retrieve the two recorded assignment events (from Google Patents legal-events data, which mirrors USPTO Assignment Center), but I could not retrieve the reel/frame numbers or the correspondent of record for either recording. Neither field appears in the source I could reach, and I will not invent them. The USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) must be queried directly by patent number to surface the reel/frame and the filing attorney/agent; a live lookup there is the only reliable way to fill those two columns. Treat the reel/frame "N/A" entries below as a documented gap, not an absence of records.

Source of record for events below: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4419734/en (Legal Events) and the issued patent front page (US4419734 PDF).

---

Inventors

Pattern note: All three inventors executed an assignment to Autotrieve Associates on the filing date itself (1981-01-09) — a same-day, all-inventors assignment. That is the signature of a founder/startup group assigning to the venture entity, not of a large-company inventor team. There is no evidence of any inventor departing an employer within 12 months of filing, because no third-party employer is identified on the record. I cannot determine formal employment relationships from the patent documents alone; that is an "unclear," not a "finding."

---

Original assignee

Indata Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation, address of record W. Concord, MA (Concord, Massachusetts).

• On the face of the issued patent: Indata Corporation is the named assignee (issued 1983-12-06).
• Complication worth flagging: the inventors first assigned to Autotrieve Associates on 1981-01-09, and Autotrieve Associates then assigned to Indata Corporation on 1983-11-07 — roughly one month before issuance. So the "original assignee on the patent" (Indata) is actually the second holder in the chain. Google Patents also lists "Indata Corp" as the current assignee, consistent with nothing changing after 1983.
• Primary line of business: Indata appears to have been an automated-storage / inventory-management vendor — consistent with the "Autotrieve" name (automated retrieval) and the "Indata" (inventory data) name. The patent's own claims are directed to shelf-mounted load transducers feeding a scanning/computer inventory system, i.e., a product line, not a patent-holding vehicle.
• Products embodying the claims: Unclear / not established. The specification describes physical shelves, strain-gage beams, piston/fluidic supports, microcomputers, buses and a central computer — describing hardware a vendor would sell. But I found no catalog, SEC filing, or other primary evidence confirming a shipped commercial product.
• Current status: Not established. I could not confirm whether Indata Corp was later acquired, dissolved, or went through bankruptcy. The patent record itself shows no post-issuance transfer, which is at least consistent with Indata holding the patent until it lapsed.

---

Assignment timeline

Two recorded assignments exist. Reel/frame and correspondent could not be retrieved (see data-integrity note).

• 1981-01-09 (executed) / recorded 1981-01-09 — Reel N/A / N/A (not retrievable from accessible sources; confirm via Assignment Center)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (Assignment)
  • Assignor: Jan W. Grondstra; Curt Jarva; William Wolfson (all three named inventors)
  • Assignee: Autotrieve Associates
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable — flag as a gap. No recurrence can be assessed without it.
  • Context: Founder/startup formation assignment — inventors conveying their rights to the venture entity on the filing date.

• 1983-11-07 (executed) / recorded 1983-11-07 — Reel N/A / N/A (not retrievable; confirm via Assignment Center)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (Assignment)
  • Assignor: Autotrieve Associates
  • Assignee: Indata Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation (W. Concord, MA)
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable — flag as a gap.
  • Context: Internal reorganization / entity consolidation — Autotrieve Associates folding into the Indata Corporation name roughly one month before issuance, so the issuing patent names Indata. This is a classic "clean up title before the patent prints" move, not an arm's-length sale.

No further assignments are recorded. After 1983-11-07 the chain is silent: issuance 1983-12-06, then anticipated expiration 2001-01-09, legal status "Expired – Fee Related." Indata Corporation was the owner of record for the entire ~17-year life of the patent.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 4419734
    1981 : Filed by Wolfson Grondstra Jarva
         : Assigned to Autotrieve Associates
    1983 : Assigned to Indata Corporation
         : Patent issued December 6
    2001 : Patent expires

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. No transfer to any licensing-only vehicle. The only recorded moves are inventors → Autotrieve Associates (1981-01-09) and Autotrieve Associates → Indata Corporation (1983-11-07). Both transferees read as operating entities tied to the "automated retrieval / inventory data" business, and there is no license-only LLC with an "IP / Holdings / Ventures" suffix anywhere in the chain.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Neither Autotrieve Associates nor Indata Corporation appears among the named NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). Important caveat: I could not run live queries against the Unified Patents / RPX asserter directories within this session, so this is "no evidence found," not an exhaustive negative.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / cannot assess. The correspondent of record for both recordings is not retrievable from the sources I could reach. With only two recordings total, a single recurring attorney would be weakly probative anyway; the signal only becomes meaningful across a longer chain. Gap to close with a manual Assignment Center lookup.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Two assignments total, separated by ~34 months (1981-01-09 → 1983-11-07). That is far outside the "<24 months through chained LLCs" pattern, and there is no shared-address or common-principal LLC stack.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. No infringement suit naming US 4,419,734 surfaced in my searches, and the patent expired in 2001. There is no pre-suit assignment to key a venue/standing record.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding involving Indata or Autotrieve is evidenced in the record or surfaced in search. Absence of a post-issuance assignment also weighs against a bankruptcy portfolio sale.

7. Privateering — Not present. No operating-company-to-NPE transfer, and no SEC/Patent Progress/EFF coverage linking either entity to assertion against competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain terminates at Indata Corporation, not at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. The patent simply lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees rather than being neutralized by a defensive buyer.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data.

The record contains only the original assignment chain — inventors → Autotrieve Associates (1981-01-09) → Indata Corporation (1983-11-07) — with no post-issuance assignments recorded before the patent lapsed on 2001-01-09. There is no transfer to a licensing entity, no recorded security interest, no litigation, and no defensive-aggregator terminal. On the available evidence this is a normal operating-company ownership history rather than NPE activity, but I am withholding an affirmative "operating-company" call because (a) I could not confirm Indata shipped products embodying the claims, and (b) the reel/frame numbers and correspondent of record were not retrievable, so two fields central to a full chain-of-title finding remain open.

Verify / close the gaps at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 4419734 to obtain both reel/frame entries and the recording correspondent) — and cross-check the Google Patents legal-events page at https://patents.google.com/patent/US4419734/en.

I'll research the prior art citations for US 4,419,734. Let me run several targeted searches against USPTO and patent databases.

Let me search for the remaining cited references.

Let me retrieve the front-page "References Cited" list for US 4,419,734 itself.

Scope note before the analysis

Two caveats you need up front, because they bound everything below:

1. The authoritative text I was given for US 4,419,734 does not include the front-page "(56) References Cited" list. The Google Patents rendering supplied to me contains the specification, claims (truncated at claim 7), and bibliographic data — but not the examiner-cited reference table. So I cannot enumerate every citation of record for '734 (there may be additional U.S. patents and foreign documents in the (56) list that I have no visibility into). What I can do — and do below — is analyze the references that US 4,419,734 itself cites in its specification, which are the references the patentee treated as the pertinent prior art. My follow-up searches for a raw USPTO (56) list were cut off before returning results.
2. The claim text supplied is truncated. I have claims 1–7 only; claims 8–26 are not in my copy. Claim mapping below is therefore limited to claims 1–7. Treat the § 102 analysis as partial for that reason.

I am flagging both explicitly rather than filling gaps by inference, per the instruction to say so when I don't know something with high confidence.

---

The prior-art references cited in US 4,419,734

The '734 specification names four U.S. patents and one non-patent publication:

The first three lines of the specification's Background recite: "U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,605,089, 4,180,204 and 4,034,339 illustrate different approaches to inventory control." US 3,863,724 is then treated separately as the system that "suffers because of the need for one weight sensor for each article to be counted."

Dates I verified: US 3,605,089 (filed 1969‑07‑14; issued 1971‑09‑14) and US 3,863,724 (filed 1973‑09‑20; issued 1975‑02‑04) were confirmed in search results. US 4,034,339 and US 4,180,204 dates were not confirmed in any source I retrieved, and I will not guess them.

---

Reference-by-reference analysis

1. US 3,605,089 — Gray, "Physical inventory scanning and recording system"

Assignee J.A. Terteling & Sons; inventor George W. Gray. Filed 1969‑07‑14; issued 1971‑09‑14.
URLs: https://patents.google.com/patent/US3605089

Description. Weight-detecting transducers (a compressible conductive-particle matrix mat) support "generic increments of stock." A scanner sequentially addresses transducer outputs; an analog-to-digital converter 14 digitizes them; an optional encoder imparts an identifying code; the data is written to memory and is retrievable by a computer via "addressing means adapted to function in response to an interrogating signal from the computer system." Claim 12 describes a process of generating analog weight signals, scanning them in predetermined sequence, converting to digital, storing, and comparing to determine unit counts.

§ 102 mapping. This is the closest reference in the field and maps strongly onto the architecture of '734 claim 1:

• plurality of storage increments each with a weight-responsive transducer → '734 "plurality of storage stations each comprising … a transducer";
• scanning means sequentially accessing transducer outputs → '734 "scanning means for reading said digital output signals";
• A/D conversion and digital storage → '734 "computer adapted to store said digital signals";
• interrogation by a computer → '734 "applying said output signals to said computer."

Where it falls short as a § 102 anticipation of claim 1 — two limitations are not disclosed:

• Claim 1 requires "voltage-to-frequency converter means." Gray discloses a generic analog-to-digital converter — a genus. A genus disclosure does not anticipate a claim to a specific species. This is the single most important gap, and it cuts across every claim in '734 (all recite the V/F converter).
• Claim 1 requires a "platform … support means supporting said platform at a plurality of mutually spaced locations." Gray's transducers are mats resting under stock increments, not a rigid platform carried at spaced points by a transducer-bearing support structure.

So: US 3,605,089 is the most pertinent art and is strong § 103 material against claim 1, but it does not, on my reading, disclose every element of claim 1 as required for § 102 anticipation. It would squarely anticipate a hypothetical claim reciting "analog-to-digital converter means" instead of "voltage-to-frequency converter means."

---

2. US 3,863,724 — Dalia, Jr., "Inventory control system"

Inventor Nichola Dalia, Jr. Filed 1973‑09‑20; issued 1975‑02‑04.
URLs: https://patents.google.com/patent/US3863724 ; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[3863724](/patent/3863724).html

Description. A container (bottle) rests on a housing whose support surface is at least partially flexible; a deflecting member and a strain-gauge resistor bridge transducer convert weight to an electrical signal; amplifying means and an analogue-to-digital converter feed a central computer. The system samples weight at first and second times and computes the differential to determine material dispensed. Claim 9 claims a system of a plurality of bottle-support means each with a transducer, communicating with a conversion means (central computer).

§ 102 mapping. Relevant to:

• Claim 1 — discloses a transducer producing an analog weight signal, A/D conversion, and a computer. It does not disclose "scanning means," a "voltage-to-frequency converter," or platform support at spaced locations. Not an anticipation of claim 1.
• Claim 3 — relates to a computer "determining the number of articles on each platform" and to "a specific address for each of said storage stations." Dalia's computer determines dispensed quantity from weight differentials but does not disclose per-station addressing or unit-count determination; the '734 patentee expressly criticized this reference for requiring "one weight sensor for each article to be counted." So claim 3 is not anticipated.
• Claims reciting strain-gauge transducers/amplifiers generally (if any in claims 8–26, which I cannot see) would be anticipated by Dalia's strain-gauge bridge + amplifier + A/D combination.

Important direction-of-citation note: Dalia's US 3,863,724 was itself later-cited in a PCT search report (WO 2008/007349) alongside weight-based inventory systems — that is unrelated to '734. Not to be confused with the WIPO search report on WO 2005/041080A1 that cited '734 itself as category "X," which is the reverse direction (that document used '734 as prior art against another application, not vice versa).

---

3. US 4,034,339 — "System for coordination and documentation of material handling"

Filed/publication dates not verified in my searches.
URLs: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4034339

Description. A master/slave data-communication and documentation system for coordinating material flow between sites — master unit, slave units, confirm/non-confirm signalling, code identification including where the article may be found, "need-to-know" distribution of portions of a transaction message, printers at master and slave units. There is no weight sensing whatsoever; it is an addressing/messaging and record-keeping system.

§ 102 mapping. This reference is cited by the '734 patentee only as an example of "different approaches to inventory control." It is potentially relevant to:

• Claim 3 (per-station "specific address" and selective addressing of storage stations) and claim 5 ("bidirectional means connecting said microcomputers to said computer," "means for establishing unique addresses," and selective transmission of address-identifying signals to remote units).

But because '734's claims are all weight-sensing claims, US 4,034,339 cannot anticipate claim 1 (or claims 2, 6, 7) — it discloses none of the platform/transducer/V-F converter/computer-quantity elements. Its realistic role is as § 103 background for the addressing and master/slave communication features of the dependent claims, not as a § 102 anticipation.

---

4. US 4,180,204 — "Automatic inventorying system"

Filed/publication dates not verified in my searches.
URLs: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4180204

Description. A hand-held scan wand with a Xenon flash used to read UPC-style bar codes on a photosensitive-dye label; a portable wand-scanner data terminal with solid-state memory; decoded bar-code data transmitted to a minicomputer for creating a shipment bill of lading, with validation of the reading. Purely an item-identification and data-capture system — no weighing, no load transducers.

§ 102 mapping. Like US 4,034,339, this is cited for the general concept of automated inventory data capture and transfer to a computer. It cannot anticipate any of '734 claims 1–7, because none of its disclosure touches load-responsive transducers, gross/net weight signals, or unit-count derivation. Its only plausible relevance is § 103 background on the "inventory record maintained by a computer from automatically captured item data" concept.

---

5. Non-patent literature — Norton, Handbook of Transducers for Electronic Measuring Systems (1969)

Cited at pp. 255‑292, 415‑508, 557‑576. The specification invokes it for the proposition that strain gages and pressure/force transducers are well known, and it is cited in connection with the alternative of replacing each piston unit/pressure transducer 25 with a force transducer. As a § 102 matter, a general transducer handbook would not anticipate claim 1's system architecture; its relevance is to the claim 2 fluidic-support/pressure-transducer subject matter and to obviousness of the transducer selection in claims 1, 4, 6 and 7. I did not retrieve the pages themselves, so I can only characterize it from how '734 cites it.

---

Bottom line on § 102

• No single cited reference discloses every element of '734 claim 1. Each misses at least one limitation — most decisively the "voltage-to-frequency converter means," which none of the four U.S. patents shows (US 3,605,089 and US 3,863,724 show generic analog-to-digital converters, a genus that does not anticipate the V/F species), and the "platform supported at a plurality of mutually spaced locations" structural limitation, which US 3,605,089 and US 3,863,724 also lack.
• Closest § 102 candidate: US 3,605,089 — and even it is better characterized as the lead § 103 reference than as a clean § 102 anticipation of claim 1.
• Claim 2 (fluidic support units + pressure transducers) is not anticipated by any cited reference; all cited weight-sensing art uses strain gauges or resistive mats.
• Claims 3 and 5's addressing/communication features find only partial support in US 4,034,339 and US 4,180,204, neither of which discloses weight sensing.
• US 3,863,724 is the reference the patentee most clearly distinguished, criticizing it for one sensor per article.

Caveats and possible contradictions to flag

1. Missing (56) list. Because the supplied '734 text omits the front-page references table, the set above is not certified as the complete citation record. Additional examiner-cited U.S. or foreign patents may exist that I could not see.
2. Unverified dates for US 4,034,339 and US 4,180,204. I did not confirm their filing or issue dates and have deliberately not supplied numbers I could not verify.
3. Truncated claims. My § 102 mapping covers claims 1–7 only. Claims 8–26 were not in my copy and could contain limitations anticipated by these references.
4. No contradiction with the previously generated litigation section: it found no litigation and correctly noted that a WIPO search report cited '734 as prior art. I have preserved that same direction-of-citation distinction above.

Primary sources used: the authoritative full text of US 4,419,734 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US4419734/en); https://patents.google.com/patent/US3605089 ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US3863724 and https://www.freepatentsonline.com/3863724.html ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US4034339 ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US4180204 .

I'll ground the prior-art references before building the § 103 analysis. Let me pull the cited art.

Let me pull the remaining cited references and the citing art.

Obviousness Analysis — US 4,419,734 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Builds on the previously generated Patent summary, Litigation summary, and PTAB sections. Those sections established the claim set (26 claims; independents at 1, 10, 17, 26 per the prior claim-tree retrieval), the 1981-01-09 filing, and the expired status. This section assumes that framework and does not restate it.

---

1. Analytical frame

Effective filing date: 1981-01-09 (no earlier priority claim of record). Pre-AIA § 102/§ 103 govern. Art qualifies under § 102(b) if published/patented before 1980-01-09, and under § 102(a)/(e) if before the invention date.

Level of ordinary skill (PHOSITA, ~1981). A bachelor's degree in electrical or mechanical engineering (or equivalent), plus roughly 2–3 years' experience in load-cell/weighing instrumentation and digital data acquisition; alternatively, a skilled technician with more experience. Such a person would be familiar with: foil and semiconductor strain gages and Wheatstone-bridge signal conditioning; hydraulic/pneumatic load cells; voltage-to-frequency (V/F) conversion as a standard A/D technique; 8-bit microprocessors and addressable multi-drop buses; and the published literature on transducers. The patent itself supplies two admissions confirming that this skill level existed: it cites H. N. Norton, Handbook of Transducers for Electronic Measuring Systems (Prentice-Hall, 1969), pp. 255–292, 415–508, 557–576, as a general reference for strain gages and pressure/force transducers, and it names a commercial V/F converter, Analog Devices AD537, as an off-the-shelf part. Both are evidence the field was mature and predictable.

Claim construction. Claim 1 and the apparatus claims are drafted in classic 1980-era means-plus-function style ("support means," "scanning means," "voltage-to-frequency converter means," "computer"). Under § 112 ¶ 6 as it then applied, these limitations are limited to the corresponding structures disclosed (microprocessor 66, memory 68, decoder 72, comparator 70, AND gate 74, buffer 76, counters 34, V/F converters 32, system bus 53) and equivalents. This matters: it narrows the "computer" limitation to programmed general-purpose processing plus bus/peripheral hardware — all of which was commodity technology by 1981 — and it removes any argument that the patent owns the abstract idea of counting by weight.

Text availability caveat (carried forward). The authoritative text I have covers claims 1–7 in full; claims 8–26 are known only through the earlier retrieval (independents 10, 17, 26; dependents 11–16, 21–25; claim 20's preamble truncated). The analysis below is therefore complete for claims 1–7, and framed at the level of claimed subject matter for 8–26, with the specific gaps flagged in § 7. No claim text is invented.

---

2. Prior-art universe (verified vs. flagged)

Important exclusion — do not combine. US 4,563,739 (Impulse Computer Systems) discloses exactly the combination your query would otherwise reach for: a weigh cell → voltage-to-frequency converter 34 → counter, feeding a microprocessor that maintains product records. But it was filed 1983-07-18 and issued 1986-01-07, i.e., it post-dates the '734 filing by more than two years. It is therefore not prior art to US 4,419,734 under any subsection of pre-AIA § 102, and it cannot appear in a § 103 combination against these claims. It is relevant only in the reverse direction (it cites '734 as prior art, which corroborates '734's disclosure content but says nothing about '734's validity). The same goes for US 6,061,039 and for the WO 2005/041080 A1 search report that lists "US 4 419 734 A" as an "X" citation: all post-date the '734 filing and are evidence of '734's prior-art value to later applicants, not of anticipation or obviousness against '734.

---

3. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — Claims 1, 3, 17 and 26 over US 3,605,089 alone (§ 102(b); § 103 in the alternative)

This is the most dangerous reference and, on the claim text available, the strongest single-reference case.

• "a plurality of storage stations each comprising … at least one platform for carrying articles" → '089's increments of stock 26, 28, 30, resting on separate transducers 10.
• "support means … at a plurality of mutually spaced locations" → '089's stock sheet 32 and pegboard wall 34 support the transducers at spaced locations.
• "transducer … analog output gross weight signal varying in accordance with changes in the load" → '089 claim 1(a): "continuously variable, electrical output characteristic responsive to the combined weight of the items supported thereon." This is the claimed gross-weight analog signal, including tare of the support.
• "voltage-to-frequency converter means … producing digital output signals varying in accordance with said gross weight signals" → '089's analog-to-digital converter 14 and translating means. Claim 1 recites the function (analog weight → digital signal), not the V/F topology; '089's A/D converter performs that function. Under § 103, selecting a V/F-plus-counter species from the genus of known A/D converters is a routine design choice — the '734 specification itself treats V/F conversion as an off-the-shelf expedient.
• "a computer adapted to store said digital signals and to provide signals representative of the number of articles" → '089's memory unit 20 plus central processing unit 24, with claim 12(f) expressly determining "the number of units in any particular generic increment of stock."
• "scanning means for reading said digital output signals" → '089's scanner 12, master clock and index registers (claim 9).
• Claim 3's "specific address for each of said storage stations" and "computer-controlled means for selectively addressing each" → '089's encoding unit 16, identifying output codes (claims 4, 5, 7), and "addressing means … in response to an interrogating signal from the computer system" (claim 3). Claim 3 is essentially a re-draft of '089's own claim set.
• Claim 17's "scanning means … including means for selectively addressing each of said storage stations" → same disclosure; claim 17 adds nothing structural over '089's addressing/interrogation architecture.

Patentee's likely reply and its weakness. The '734 specification disparages '089 on two grounds: it "does not conveniently accommodate a change in the type of articles to be stored" and "does not appear to permit determination of the number of articles in each individual storage area with the accuracy required by currently acceptable accounting practices." That is an accuracy/ease-of-reconfiguration argument, not a missing element — and it is an admission that the problem was known and the '089 architecture worked in principle. Under KSR, "a need or problem known in the field … can provide a reason for combining elements in the manner claimed," and these criticisms supply that reason directly.

Ground 2 — Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10–16, 20 and 26 over US 3,605,089 in view of US 3,863,724 (and Foster US 2,936,163)

This ground closes the elements '089 discloses least well: the shelf/beam-based differential weighing arrangement, strain-gauge bridge signal conditioning, and the linearity/calibration limitations.

• '089 uses a resistive pressure mat (a compressible matrix with conductive particles) — characterized in the '734 specification as poorly suited to changing article types and to the required accuracy. '724 supplies the substitute: a rigid deflecting member carrying a strain-gauge resistor bridge, amplified and digitized, which the '734 specification and figures adopt almost wholesale (FIGS. 1–4, 7, 10 and the eight-gage bridge of FIG. 4).
• Foster US 2,936,163 (as described in '724's own background) supplies the platform-level weighing concept: a bottle shelf containing a weight scale that reads the total weight of all bottles on the shelf — i.e., one transducer system per platform rather than one sensor per article. This is the very distinction '734 drew against '724 ("the need for one weight sensor for each article to be counted").
• The remaining limitations of claims 7, 10–16 and 20 — two parallel members attached to the shelf that change stress with load, strain gages on each member alternately in tension and compression, coupled in a bridge to yield the gross-weight analog signal — are the standard cantilever-beam load-cell topology taught by '724 (deflecting member + bridge) and by the Norton handbook the applicant cited. Claim 7's "two parallel members attached to said shelf" is a mechanical configuration choice within the routine repertoire; the patent's own FIG. 10 shows the same dual-cantilever idea, framed there as an "alternative."

Motivation to combine (specific, from the references themselves): both '089 and '724 target the same problem — automatic, transaction-independent inventory determination from weight — and both expressly aim at computer interrogation. '724's stated purpose is to avoid "major remodeling of … existing shelf systems," i.e., to make weight-based counting retrofittable to shelving; '089 seeks a continuously updated inventory record retrievable by a computer. One of ordinary skill with '089's known accuracy shortfall and '724's more accurate, more easily re-configured bridge sensor had every reason to substitute one for the other. Under KSR, this is a substitution of one known element for another, yielding predictable results in a finite, identified solution space (resistive mat vs. strain-gauge bridge vs. hydraulic load cell).

Teaching-away check (honest flag): '724 criticizes the Foster-style whole-shelf scale as costly and requiring remodeling. That is a cost/convenience criticism, not a technical incompatibility, and it is directed at retrofitting an existing bar, not at a purpose-built shelving system of the kind '734 claims. It weakens but does not defeat the combination; a challenger should meet it head-on with '734's own admission that rearranging shelving is acceptable (the '734 system assumes purpose-built shelf support units).

Ground 3 — Claim 2 (fluidic supports + pressure transducers) over '089 in view of Norton and the admitted art

Claim 2 recites a plurality of fluidic support units (piston/cylinder) with pressure transducers sensing load-induced pressure change. No pre-1981 U.S. patent on hydraulic shelf supports was retrieved in this pass, so this ground rests on: (i) '089's express teaching of pressure-responsive transducers (the '089 specification describes "pressure-responsive transducers upon which items of stock rest"); and (ii) the applicant's own citation of Norton for pressure transducers, plus the universal pre-1981 use of hydraulic load cells, in which a load generates a fluid pressure read by a pressure transducer. Substituting a hydraulic load cell for a resistive mat to gain rigidity and linearity is a predictable use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way — the KSR formulation. Confidence note: this is the ground where I am least able to cite a specific pre-1981 patent, and I say so rather than manufacture one.

Ground 4 — Claims 5 and 6 (distributed microcomputers, bidirectional bus, tare compensation, unit-weight division) over '089 + '724 + US 4,034,339

Claims 5–6 require (a) a plurality of microcomputers with means for establishing unique platform addresses, connected by a bidirectional link to the central computer; and (b) the central computer adjusting for platform weight, dividing by unit weight, maintaining and revising a record.

• (a) is a distributed-processing variation on '089's control unit 18 and encoding unit 16, and is squarely taught in architecture by US 4,034,339's master/slave data-collection network with links (executive links 9, 10) selectively coupling messages to individual addressed slave stations and returning "confirm/non-confirm" responses over the same channels. The motivation is expressly architectural and articulated in the references: reduce wiring, place data collection near the goods, and let one local processor answer queries for several platforms. The '734 specification itself gives this rationale ("reduces the amount of wiring involved, permits shelves to be added to or removed … with a minimum of difficulty"), which is an admission that the distributed arrangement solved an ordinary engineering problem rather than an unrecognized one.
• (b) is arithmetic on stored data — subtracting a stored tare and dividing by a stored unit weight. Both '089 (memory 20 storing most-recent outputs and identifying codes) and '724 (a computer facility converting weight signals) place this within the ordinary skill, and the operations themselves are the definition of routine programming. Under KSR and In re Venner/In re Yamamoto line of authority, implementing a known mathematical relationship on a stored-value computer is not patentable weight where no new structure or unexpected result is claimed.

Ground 5 — Claims 4 and 6 (nonlinearity correction) over Grounds 2/4 further in view of Norton and routine calibration practice

Claim 4/6's "computer adapted to correct said digital output signals for nonlinearity" is met by any calibration table or polynomial correction. '724's bridge-plus-amplifier-plus-ADC chain and Norton's transducer handbook both disclose or presuppose the need for calibration of transducer output. The '734 specification concedes the technique is conventional by disclosing a calibration look-up table at flow-chart step D1 without describing how it is built. Admission + known technique + predictable result = obvious. Flag: I did not retrieve a pre-1981 reference specifically directed to nonlinearity correction of a load-cell signal in an inventory system; this ground rests on the applicant's own treatment of it as routine.

---

4. Cross-cutting motivation-to-combine synthesis

For each ground, the articulated reason is drawn from the references and from the patent's own admissions, satisfying KSR's requirement that the motivation be more than hindsight:

1. Same field, same problem, same result. '089, '724 and Foster all concern automatically determining quantity from supported weight; combining them produces no change in the principle of operation of any reference.
2. Known problem in the art. The '734 specification identifies the exact deficiencies it set out to cure — accuracy, reconfigurability across article types, and one-sensor-per-article cost. These are the motivations a POSITA would have read out of the field itself.
3. Finite, identified solution space. Weight sensing per platform reduces to three known families: resistive/compliant mats ('089), strain-gauge flexures ('724, Norton), and hydraulic/pneumatic load cells (claim 2). Choosing among them for accuracy and rigidity is "obvious to try."
4. Predictable mechanical/electronic combination. V/F conversion + counter, bridge + amplifier, address decoder + comparator + gated buffer, and divide-by-unit-weight are each discrete, well-understood building blocks; the '734 FIGS. 11–17 are, in substance, a conventional data-acquisition architecture.
5. Design incentive in the same commercial direction. '089 itself notes use in evaluating short-period inventory (its stated purpose includes determining beginning and ending inventory over a period, and it mentions advertisement evaluation). '734's claimed anti-theft/time-window alarm is a straightforward extension of periodic scanning already taught in '089.

---

5. Rebuttal analysis (Graham factors)

• Teaching away: Weak. '724's criticism of Foster is cost/remodeling, not inoperability. '089 does not teach away from strain gauges; it simply uses a different transducer.
• Non-analogous art: Fails. '180204 (bar-code inventory) and '339 (material-handling coordination) are in the same field of endeavor — automated inventory/stock control data processing — and are reasonably pertinent to the addressing and record-keeping limitations of claims 3, 5 and 17.
• Unexpected results: None identified. The specification asserts improved accuracy and adaptability but offers no comparative data against '089 or '724.
• Secondary considerations: No evidence of record — and given the 2001 expiry, the commercial-success/nexus showing would be difficult to develop. Note the Litigation and PTAB sections: nothing was ever asserted, so there is no litigation-driven secondary-considerations record either.
• § 112 issues available to a challenger (not § 103 but relevant to overall vulnerability): "computer" and "scanning means" recited without structural definition; the "voltage-to-frequency converter means" limitation is arguably functional-only in claim 1.

---

6. Bottom line by claim

---

7. Caveats and open items

1. Incomplete claim text. Claims 8, 9, 11–16 and 18–25 could not be retrieved verbatim in this pass; the prior "Uncertainties" note still stands. Any conclusion about those claims is provisional. Claim 20's dependency remains unverified.
2. US 4,563,739 is excluded as post-filing art and must not be used in any combination; I flagged it because its content superficially invites misuse.
3. Witnesses/date discrepancies carried forward: the prior section flagged today's date as 2026-09-30 in one place and this task states April 26, 2026. This does not affect the § 103 analysis (the operative dates are 1981-01-09 and the 1980-01-09 § 102(b) bar).
4. Foster US 2,936,163 is relied on as described within US 3,863,724; the primary document was not independently pulled. US 4,034,339's exact issue date was not verified.
5. Practical relevance: because the patent expired (Google/ODP list 2001-01-09; a pre-URAA 17-year term from the 1983-12-06 grant would have run to 2000-12-06 — the discrepancy was flagged in the prior PTAB section and remains unresolved), this § 103 analysis has no live enforcement consequence. Its value is (a) understanding '734 as prior art against later filings (as the WO 2005/041080 examiner did), and (b) any historical validity question.

One-sentence conclusion: On the text available, claim 1 (and claims 3, 17 and 26) are at serious risk of anticipation by US 3,605,089 alone, and the balance of the claim set is renderable obvious by US 3,605,089 in view of US 3,863,724 (with Foster, Norton, and US 4,034,339 supplying the platform weighing, transducer, and distributed-addressing elements respectively) — with claim 2 being the only ground resting on admitted common knowledge rather than a specific pre-1981 patent identified in this pass.