US 4630895

I'll verify the patent record and check for any litigation or CAFC activity involving this number.

Let me check specifically for any court docket activity.

US Patent 4,630,895 — "LCD lightguide"

Verification note: My searches for this number returned no court dockets, no CAFC 2026 activity, and no infringement litigation. Searches for "4,630,895" / "4630895" + litigation terms produced only patent-examination and foreign-search-report citations (e.g., the Russian search report for RU2477873C2 cites "US 4630895 A, 23.12.1986"; GB2246231A lists "US 4630895 A" under documents cited). The one 2026 docket that surfaced (Nearby Systems LLC v. Sephora USA, 2:26-cv-00076, E.D. Tex.) is unrelated to this patent number. I could not query USPTO Patent Center or PACER/CAFC dockets directly, so I cannot rule out a filing with absolute certainty — but there is no evidence of any, and the patent's own record explains why one would be unlikely.

Bibliographic data

Legal status

The patent is long expired and unenforceable. Per the prosecution/legal-events record in the authoritative text:

• Maintenance fee for year 4 paid 1990-10-23 (with late surcharge); year 8 paid 1994-01-07.
• Maintenance fee reminder mailed 1998-07-14; "Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees" 1998-12-20; "Lapsed due to failure to pay maintenance fee," effective 1998-12-23.
• Record labels: "Expired - Fee Related" and (2018-01-31 entry) "PATENT EXPIRED DUE TO NONPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEES UNDER 37 CFR 1.362"; anticipated expiration 2005-06-06.

Abstract (verbatim)

"A backlighted display system includes a liquid crystal display, a flat light guide behind the display, and light emitting diodes (LED's). The light guide is a molded slab of clear polycarbonate material with two planes depressed into its rear surface. Four segmented bordering surfaces are approximately arcuate in shape. The depressed planes, the segmented bordering surfaces, and the rear surface are coated with a reflective white paint. LED holders are integrally molded with the light guide. A central portion of the front surface is optionally textured. The display system provides thin construction with even light distribution across the width of the display, low power consumption, and good outdoor visibility at dusk or dawn."

The problem it addresses

The Background frames the invention against a prior-art guide (FIGS. 1–2) that is a plastic slab with a V-shaped wedge and reflective coatings. Two failures are quantified: (a) the prior art cannot be made thinner than about 0.070 inches at its thickest point for a 1.8-inch-long guide without unacceptable intensity variation; and (b) FIG. 7's curve 60 shows a 70% dip at center and "hot spots" (peaks 68, 70) near the lamps. Incandescent lamps were needed to compensate for inefficiency, costing battery drain. A third problem is spectral: at dusk/dawn the ambient solar spectrum shifts red, so a source with output at a shorter wavelength (green) is advantageous — and filtering an incandescent lamp only removes light rather than increasing intensity at the desired wavelength.

Independent claims in plain language

Claim 1 — the base system (arcurate-edge light guide).
A display system combining (a) a liquid crystal display; (b) a light guide behind it made of a transparent slab of substantially uniform thickness; (c) the slab has a front surface facing the display, a rear surface, and six bordering surfaces perpendicular to those, completing the enclosure — an unusual feature, since the prior art used four; (d) two of the six bordering surfaces are mutually parallel at opposite ends, and the remaining four are substantially arcuate in shape; (e) the rear surface has two centrally located, substantially rectangular planes depressed into it, with one edge of each plane intersecting the rear surface and the opposite edges meeting at a centerline that lies midway between the parallel surfaces and between the front and rear surfaces; (f) the arcuate bordering surfaces, the rear surface, and the depressed planes all have a light-reflecting means; and (g) a light source sits adjacent to each of the two parallel bordering surfaces. The inventive core is that light is bent around the periphery by the four arcuate edges into the image area rather than relying on a thick wedge, allowing a thin slab.

Claim 11 — the polycarbonate / textured / LED variant.
Same overall architecture as claim 1, with these differences: the slab is specifically transparent polycarbonate of substantially uniform thickness; the front surface is centrally textured; the four remaining bordering surfaces are each segmented into a plurality of substantially straight concatenated segments yet are approximately arcuate in shape; and the light sources are specifically light emitting diodes. Reflective means are again on the segmented bordering surfaces, rear surface, and depressed planes.

Claim 18 — the fully specified commercial embodiment.
The narrowest independent claim, reciting specific numbers: a transparent polycarbonate slab with substantially uniform thickness of less than 0.050 inches; six bordering surfaces; the four non-parallel surfaces each segmented into first, second, third and fourth substantially straight concatenated segments; the segments forming inside angles of substantially 130° with the adjacent parallel surface, 150° with the adjacent first segment, 170° with the adjacent second segment, and 165° with the adjacent third segment; green LEDs and LED holders at each parallel surface; the front surface having a textured area, untextured areas adjacent each parallel surface, and parabolic boundary lines between them; the rear surface having two centrally depressed rectangular planes meeting at a centerline; the angle between the two planes being substantially 172°; and the segmented surfaces, rear surface, and depressed planes carrying a coating of reflective paint.

Dependent-claim coverage (for completeness)

• Claims 2–10 depend from claim 1: segmented arcuate surfaces (2) and their 130°/150°/170°/165° angles (3); light-source holding means at each parallel surface (4); LEDs (5); green LEDs (6); reflecting means that also scatters light (7); white paint (8); centrally textured front surface with untextured areas near the parallel surfaces (9); and parabolic boundaries (10).
• Claims 12–17 depend from claim 11: the four-segment 130°/150°/170°/165° geometry (12); LED holders (13); green LEDs (14); scattering reflector (15); white paint (16); and parabolic textured/untextured boundary lines (17).

Literal-reading observations and uncertainties

1. Apparent typo in the specification's dimensions. The description says "the thickness of the light guide at its thickest point, not including the lamp holders 164 and 166, is 0.45 inches," while in the same sentence stating the width along centerline 150 is also 0.45 inches and the centerline thickness is 0.015 inches. Claim 18 requires "less than 0.050 inches." Reading these literally is internally contradictory; the "0.45 inches" thickest-point figure is almost certainly intended as 0.045 inches. I am flagging this rather than silently correcting it.
2. Surface-naming inconsistency. Claims and the Detailed Description call element 102 the "front surface," but the specification's ray-analysis text refers at one point to "the transparent upper surface 302" and to "reflective area 152 of upper surface 102," mixing the numbered and positional nomenclature.
3. Typos in claim text as published. Claims 3, 12 and 18 contain "concaterrated" (claim 18) / "respectfively concatenated" (claim 12) and claim 11 has "concaterrated segments"; claim 18 says "boundary lines between said textured areas" where context indicates textured and untextured areas. These are reproduced as-is in the record.
4. Assignee. Google Patents lists "Motorola Solutions Inc" as current assignee while the original assignee is "Motorola, Inc., A CORP OF DE." Google explicitly disclaims accuracy for this field, and I found no recorded reassignment in the legal-events list (only the 1985-06-06 assignment to Motorola, Inc.). Treat the current-assignee attribution as not authoritative. Its practical effect is nil given expiration in 1998.
5. No litigation found. Because the patent lapsed for nonpayment of maintenance fees effective 1998-12-23, any 2026 invalidity/infringement challenge would be moot. The continued heavy citation of this patent into the 2020s (Sharp, Samsung, Cree, Rambus, Invuity) reflects its prior-art significance for edge-lit plate light guides, not enforceability.

Sources consulted: authoritative full text at https://patents.google.com/patent/US4630895/en; https://uspto.report/patent/grant/4630895; https://patents.searchlight.law/doc/US4630895; citing-art documents at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5046829](/patent/US5046829) (which describes US 4,630,895 as "assigned to the assignee of the present invention" and as showing "how a multi-surfaced lightguide may reduce 'hot spots'"), https://patents.google.com/patent/EP0945673A1, https://patents.google.com/patent/KR20070108498A, and the RU2477873C2 / GB2246231A citation lists.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 4630895 across patent litigation databases.

The initial results were noise (a different "089" patent in an ITC investigation). Let me search more targeted sources.

Let me run additional targeted checks on the litigation-specific databases.

Answer: No litigation found involving U.S. Patent 4,630,895

I searched patent-litigation sources (Unified Patents litigation/PTAB portals, CourtListener/RECAP PACER-derived dockets, ITC/CAFC-related materials, and general docket text) for the literal identifier 4,630,895 / US4630895. I found no district court case, ITC Section 337 investigation, PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR/CBM), or CAFC appeal in which U.S. Patent 4,630,895 is identified as an asserted patent.

Requested fields

What the searches did surface (and why it is not this patent)

1. Knowles Electronics "089 patent" — a different patent, false positive. An ITC determination document discussing a Knowles '089 patent disputes the "volume" claim limitation in MEMS microphone packages, referencing MemsTech and Analog Devices and Inv. No. 337‑TA‑629. That is a Knowles patent (a 7,xxx,xxx-series '089 patent), not US 4,630,895. Per your instruction not to auto-correct identifiers and to keep numbers distinct, I am flagging this explicitly rather than treating it as a match to 4,630,895.

2. Unrelated Motorola-offensive and Motorola-defensive cases (e.g., Motorola Mobility v. Microsoft, Motorola v. Microsoft (Xbox/Kinect), Gesture Technology Partners v. Motorola Mobility, CAS v. Motorola over 5G patents). None of these plead US 4,630,895.

3. Patents citing 4,630,895 as prior art, not as an asserted patent. The number appears mainly as a cited reference — e.g., Motorola's own U.S. 4,926,895's sibling U.S. 5,046,829 (Worp, "Liquid crystal display backlighting apparatus having combined optical diffuser and shock dampening properties") states: "Another previously known and more complex LCD lightguide disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,630,895, assigned to the assignee of the present invention, illustrates how a multi-surfaced lightguide may reduce 'hot spots'." (See everypatent.com entry for US5046829 and uspto.report/patent/grant/5046829.) Being cited as prior art is not litigation.

4. Google Patents' "Cited By" list (75 entries, e.g., US4909604 Hitachi; US4915478 U.S. Navy; US4929062 Motorola "Light guide for LCD") reflects patent citations, not infringement suits.

Context from the patent's own record (relevant to litigation likelihood)

Per the authoritative full text and Google Patents legal-events record for US4630895A:

• Patent: "LCD lightguide"; inventors Julio Abdala, Jr. and Bernard V. Gasparaitis; original assignee Motorola, Inc. (a Delaware corp.); current assignee listed as Motorola Solutions Inc.
• Priority/filing date: 1985‑06‑06; granted/publication: 1986‑12‑23.
• Maintenance fees: reminders in 1990 and 1998; "Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees" 1998‑12‑20; "Lapsed due to failure to pay maintenance fee," effective 1998‑12‑23; status "Expired – Fee Related."
• Family: Canadian counterpart CA1257964A (filed 1986‑04‑10 as CA000506358A; published 1989‑08‑01).

The patent therefore lapsed for non‑payment of maintenance fees in December 1998, roughly 12 years after issuance, and as of the 2018 USPTO status entry is recorded as expired due to nonpayment of maintenance fees under 37 CFR 1.362. An expired patent cannot support prospective infringement litigation, and the lapsed 1998 date substantially narrows any window in which an infringement suit on this patent could have been brought.

Confidence / caveat

• I have moderate-to-high confidence that no well-indexed U.S. litigation exists on 4,630,895: it lapsed in 1998 (pre-dating broad online docket coverage), was a Motorola internal lightguide component patent never cited as an assertion vehicle in the sources I located, and its role in later patents is purely as prior art.
• However, absence of results is not proof of absence. Unified Patents' portal coverage is oriented toward NPE assertions (typically post‑2010); PACER/RECAP coverage of 1980s–1990s Motorola-era case files is incomplete; and any pre‑1999 suit might exist only in paper archives or FJC IDB summaries, which I could not query here. I did not verify the FJC Integrated Database directly, and I was unable to complete a direct keyword query against the Unified Patents and CourtListener portals before my search budget was exhausted.
• To close the gap, the highest-value remaining checks would be: (a) Unified Patents litigation caselist filtered to patents=4630895; (b) CourtListener/RECAP full-text search for "4,630,895"; (c) FJC IDB and Derwent/LexMachina litigation modules; and (d) direct PACER docket search in districts where Motorola historically sued (N.D. Ill., E.D. Tex., D. Del.). If you provide access to any of these, I can run them.

Bottom line: No litigation involving U.S. Patent 4,630,895 is known based on the searches performed; the patent lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees effective 1998‑12‑23, and the "089" litigation hits found relate to an unrelated Knowles patent.

I'll verify the structured PTAB record against live sources before writing the analysis.

Let me pin down whether any AIA trial ever targeted this patent, and identify the proceedings where it appears as prior art rather than as the challenged patent.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings have ever been filed on US 4,630,895 — the USPTO ODP-derived "PTAB proceedings on file" block returns no AIA trials, and my independent searches of PTAB petition records, PTAB E2E-indexed documents, and Federal Circuit material found no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming this patent as the challenged patent. Breakdown: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0. The defensive posture this gives a defendant is not the usual "hardened versus narrowed" question at all — the patent lapsed for nonpayment of maintenance fees effective 1998-12-23 and is unenforceable, so a demand letter citing US 4,630,895 is meritless on its face and needs no PTAB record to defeat it. The absence of an IPR here is a function of mootness (and, for PGR/CBM, statutory unavailability), not of the patent having survived attack.

---

Proceedings on US 4,630,895

None. There is nothing to report at proceeding level: no petitioner, no panel, no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, no settlement, no § 315(e) estoppel, no CAFC appeal.

Two independent reasons this is the expected and correct answer rather than a gap in the record:

1. Statutory unavailability of most vehicles. This patent has an effective filing date of 1985-06-06. Post-Grant Review is limited to patents with an effective filing date on or after 2013-03-16 and must be petitioned within nine months of grant, so PGR was never available. The CBM transitional program was limited to "covered business method" patents and was, in any event, sunset for petitions filed after 2020-09-16. That leaves IPR as the only theoretically available vehicle.
2. Mootness of even IPR. Per the legal-events record in the authoritative text: maintenance fee reminder mailed 1998-07-14; "Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees" 1998-12-20; "Lapsed due to failure to pay maintenance fee" effective 1998-12-23; and a 2018-01-31 entry stating "PATENT EXPIRED DUE TO NONPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEES UNDER 37 CFR 1.362." No rational petitioner pays PTAB fees to invalidate an expired, unassertable patent — and an expired patent's claims cannot be amended in an IPR, which removes the principal reason a patent owner would contest one.

---

Where US 4,630,895 actually appears in PTAB records — as prior art, not as the challenged patent

This is the only PTAB-relevant footprint I could verify, and it matters for a different reason than the task template assumes. The patent is used against other people's light-guide patents.

IPR2015-01114 — Mercedes Benz USA LLC v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC

(Third-party case-summary mirror of the petition; verify against the official PTAB record before relying on it. Proceeding number as indexed: IPR2015-01114.)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2015 (exact date not verified in this session)
• Status: not verified — I could not confirm institution, denial, or an FWD in this session. Do not treat any outcome as established.
• Subject patent: the "’816 patent" (per the case summary, directed to "light emitting panel assemblies that use a transparent panel member") — not US 4,630,895.
• Ground 1: Obviousness (§ 103) over Guzik (US 4,929,062) in view of Abdala (US 4,630,895) — claims 1, 3, and 4.
• Ground 2: Obviousness over Guzik, Abdala, and Tsunoda (JP 06-51130) — claims 1, 3, 4.
• How '895 was used: Guzik (a Motorola "Light guide for LCD" patent, filed 1988-11-02, which expressly incorporates US 4,630,895 by reference) supplied the structural framework; Abdala supplied the remaining claim-1 limitations — the panel with light input edge, light emitting surface, pattern of light-extracting deformities, end and side edge reflectors, greater width than height, refractive input surface, and the centrally textured area with parabolic boundary lines (the very subject matter of claims 9–10 and 17 of '895). Petitioner's motivation-to-combine argument leaned expressly on Guzik's incorporation of Abdala.
• Defensive value: if you are accused of infringing someone else's edge-lit light-guide patent with parabolic extraction boundaries or a textured central zone, US 4,630,895 is a strong § 102/§ 103 reference, and IPR petitioners have already built the claim charts for you. Its prior-art value is high even though its enforceability is zero.

Additional verified footprint: PTAB's own petition-document system returns petition exhibits (indexed under PTAB petition nos. 1459470 and 1461340) in which "Abdala"/"4,630,895" appears in the claim charts and prior-art lists. I could not confirm from these snippets which proceeding numbers they belong to beyond the IDT family, so I am not assigning them proceeding numbers.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status. No claim of US 4,630,895 has ever been canceled or sustained in an AIA trial — the buckets are empty because no trial occurred. All 18 claims (independents 1, 11, 18 and their dependents) are untested and untestable: the patent expired 1998-12-23 for failure to pay maintenance fees. "Untested" here does not mean "presumed valid and dangerous"; it means the patent is a piece of prior art and nothing more. Anyone asserting it today would be asserting an unenforceable right, and any infringement theory premised on it is not merely weak — as the earlier section of this analysis notes, no litigation has ever been filed on it either.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel against anyone, because there was never a petitioner. Every prior-art ground remains nominally available in a hypothetical district-court validity fight — the references cited on the face of the patent (10 U.S. references back to US 2,131,471), Guzik (US 4,929,062), and the ~75–175 later publications citing it. This is academic given expiration and the closing of the § 286 six-year damages lookback long ago, but it is worth stating plainly so nobody budgets for a PTAB defense that has no application.

Pattern signals. No repeat petitioner, no serial IPRs, no patent-owner PTAB appeals, no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents or similar filing identified), and no CAFC activity. The most telling signal is the inverse of the usual one: this is a heavily cited foundational reference in the edge-lit plate light-guide field (cited into the 2020s by Sharp, Samsung, Cree, Rambus, Invuity) that was never asserted even during its enforceable life, and whose own assignee, Motorola, treated it as internal prior art — filing the Guzik '062 follow-on that expressly incorporates '895 by reference. Patents that are never asserted after heavy citation are usually never asserted because the commercial value ran out, not because they are unusually strong.

---

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant and a demand letter cites US 4,630,895:

1. Do not file an IPR. There is nothing to invalidate. Respond that the patent expired due to nonpayment of maintenance fees under 37 CFR 1.362, effective 1998-12-23, as reflected in the patent's own legal-events record: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4630895/en (see the "Legal Events" table: 1998-12-20 "Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees"; 1998-12-23 "Lapsed due to failure to pay maintenance fee"; 2018-01-31 "PATENT EXPIRED DUE TO NONPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEES UNDER 37 CFR 1.362"). Confirm at USPTO Patent Center and PTAB E2E before sending.
2. Cite the FWD-free record as the point itself. Unlike a case where you would link the FWD and quote the disposition, here the correct citation is the absence of any trial plus the lapse entry — the patent cannot be enforced by anyone, and there is no claim number to quote because nothing was ever canceled.

If your actual need is to invalidate someone else's light-guide patent:

1. Pull the IPR2015-01114 petition and exhibits from PTAB E2E (PTAB document system: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/) and reuse the Abdala claim charts — particularly the parabolic-boundary and central-texture mappings to '895's claims 9–10, 17 and spec at 4:7–11 and 5:42–45.
2. Pair '895 with Guzik (US 4,929,062), which incorporates it by reference — that incorporation makes the motivation-to-combine showing unusually clean, as petitioner argued in IPR2015-01114.

Caveats on this record: institution status, panel composition, and any FWD in IPR2015-01114 were not verified in this session, and the case-summary source I used is a third-party mirror rather than an official PTAB document. If you intend to rely on it, retrieve the papers from PTAB E2E directly. No proceeding numbers on US 4,630,895 have been invented or inferred here.

I'll verify the assignment record via the Assignment Center and cross-check the legal-events data already in the patent text.

Let me try to pull the recorded assignment data directly and check for any post-1985 recordings.

Inventors

• Neither inventor's residence/city is recoverable from the sources I could reach (the Google Patents rendering of this document omits the inventor address block, and I could not open the front-page image or Patent Center).
• Pattern check: No unusual pattern. Both inventors assigned to their employer before issuance as part of the ordinary duty-to-assign flow, and there is no inventor-side assignment, no release, and no quitclaim by either inventor anywhere else in the record. There is therefore no evidence of a 12-month inventor departure preceding a portfolio fire-sale — and because the entire post-issuance chain is empty (see below), the premise of that pattern fails for this patent.
• I have no verified data on either inventor's subsequent employment. Do not read the absence of a second assignment as evidence they stayed at Motorola; it only means nothing was recorded against this patent.

Original assignee

• Motorola, Inc., a corporation of Delaware, Schaumburg, Illinois (per the recorded assignment and the face of the patent; the assignment was recorded 1985-06-06 at Reel 004436/Frame 0748).
• Primary line of business (1985–86): two-way land mobile radio, radio paging, and semiconductors, with a large consumer/portable electronics side. The Background of this very patent names Motorola's own product categories as the target market — "portable calculators, watches, portable radios, and pocket pagers."
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Almost certainly yes, and on the record's own terms: this light guide is described as a molded, one-piece, white-paint-reflector backlight for a transmissive LCD of the kind used in Motorola's paging and portable-radio lines, and the assignee's later patent US 5,046,829 (Worp, Motorola) describes US 4,630,895 as "assigned to the assignee of the present invention" and explains that it "illustrates how a multi-surfaced lightguide may reduce 'hot spots'." That is a same-assignee technical admission of internal use, not a licensing artifact. I could not independently identify a specific model number, so treat "shipped a product" as strongly supported but not model-verified.
• Current status: The Delaware entity did not die — it changed its legal name. On 2011-01-04/05, Motorola, Inc. was renamed Motorola Solutions, Inc. in the separation of Motorola Mobility (a Sunbiz name-history record lists "NAME CHANGE AMENDMENT 01/05/2011 — OLD NAME WAS: MOTOROLA, INC."). Motorola Solutions, Inc. (NYSE: MSI) is an operating public company today. Its corporate history is a spin-off, not a bankruptcy: Networks assets were sold to Nokia Siemens Networks (announced July 2010, closed 2011). Motorola Solutions has never been a licensing-only shell.

Assignment timeline

Important scope limitation, stated plainly: I could not get the Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ , mirror https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html ) to return a rendered record for this patent number in my searches. The reel/frame below is taken from the legal-events/assignment data embedded in the authoritative full text supplied for this patent. I am reporting the record as it exists; I am not filling gaps by inference.

Recorded assignments on this patent: one.

• 1985-06-03 (executed) / recorded 1985-06-06 — Reel 004436 / 0748
  • Conveyance: Assignment (the record's brief reads "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST"; the legal-events entry is coded AS and cites REEL/FRAME:004436/0748, effective date 19850603)
  • Assignor: Abdala, Julio, Jr.; Gasparaitis, Bernard V.
  • Assignee: Motorola, Inc., Schaumburg, Illinois, a corporation of Delaware
  • Correspondent: Not shown in the record available to me. The legal-events rendering of this entry does not carry the correspondent/attorney field, and I could not reach the Assignment Center abstract of title that would display it. I therefore cannot name the attorney or agent of record, and I explicitly decline to guess one.
  • Context: Pre-issuance inventor-to-employer assignment — the ordinary duty-to-assign filing, not an acquisition, reorg, or securitization.

Nothing after that. No change of name, merger, security agreement, license, or release is recorded against US 4,630,895 in the available record. Two consequences follow, and both matter:

1. The Motorola, Inc. → Motorola Solutions, Inc. name change (effective 2011-01-04) is not reflected in this patent's legal-events list. That is a recordation omission, not a transfer: a name change under 37 CFR 3.21 does not convey title, and thousands of legacy Motorola patents were renamed administratively at the portfolio level. I found no reel/frame for this specific patent, so I cannot date or cite one.
2. Google Patents' "Current Assignee: Motorola Solutions Inc" is a derived field that Google itself disclaims ("may be inaccurate"; "no legal analysis"). It is consistent with the 2011 rename and with the absence of any divestiture, but it is not an assignment record and should not be cited as one.

Cross-checks performed: Google Patents legal events (the one AS entry above; the 1990/1994 maintenance-fee payments; the 1998 lapse entries); the CA 1257964 A counterpart (filed 1986-04-10, published 1989-08-01 — no separate ownership data surfaced); SEC filings describing the Motorola separation; and prior-art/citation traffic. One incidental string hit — "4630895" appears in a document set attached to PTAB/P-TACTS petition 1461340 at ptacts.uspto.gov alongside a long list of other patent numbers, which is the signature of a prior-art exhibit list rather than an ownership document. I could not confirm its role, so I raise it only to record that I looked.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 4630895
    1985 : Inventors assign to Motorola Inc
         : Executed 3 June 1985
         : Recorded 6 June 1985 at Reel 004436 Frame 0748
         : Application filed 6 June 1985
    1986 : Patent granted 23 December 1986
    1990 : Year 4 maintenance fee paid 23 October
    1994 : Year 8 maintenance fee paid 7 January
    1998 : Lapse for nonpayment 20 December
         : Patent lapsed effective 23 December
    2005 : Anticipated expiration 6 June
    2011 : Motorola Inc renamed Motorola Solutions Inc

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The only recorded link is inventor → Motorola, Inc. (Reel 004436/Frame 0748, 1985-06-06). No "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" assignee appears anywhere in the record for this patent.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither Motorola, Inc. nor Motorola Solutions, Inc. appears on the asserter rosters named in the brief (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, DGC, Spangenberg entities). Note a trap to avoid: Motorola Mobility's patent estate did pass to Google (2012) and then Lenovo (2014), and the Motorola→Freescale→Tang Sung Capital→Intellectual Ventures flow of image-sensor patents is documented in Korean NPE research — but none of those chains involve this patent number or this assignee, and I found no record transferring the legacy LCD/display patents out of Motorola Solutions. Do not map the Mobility/IV stories onto 4,630,895.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear, and untestable. With one recorded entry and no correspondent field available to me, there is no basis for a recurrence finding. I am not going to name an attorney I did not see on a recordation.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Zero consecutive assignments post-issuance, so there is no <24-month LLC chain to evaluate.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. Consistent with the earlier finding in this analysis that no infringement litigation names this patent, and with the total absence of post-issuance assignments.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Motorola never filed Chapter 7/11. The 2011 event was a tax-free spin-off and rename, with a side divestiture of the Networks business to Nokia Siemens Networks; no patent-sale proceeding involving this patent is recorded.
7. Privateering — not present. No operating-company→NPE transfer exists in the record. The patent's assertion-relevant life ended in 1998, roughly a decade before the modern mass-assertion wave, so there was no residual term to privateer.
8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. (The heavy cited-by traffic from Rambus/Solid State Opto, Invuity, Sharp, Samsung, and Cree is prior-art significance for edge-lit plate light guides, not evidence of a defensive-aggregation purchase.)

Verdict

Insufficient data — only the original assignment is recorded.

The entire recorded chain is a single entry: inventors Abdala and Gasparaitis to Motorola, Inc., executed 1985-06-03 and recorded 1985-06-06 at Reel 004436/Frame 0748. There is no post-issuance assignment of any kind on this patent, so no shell-entity transfer, no asserter, no repeat correspondent, and no cascading LLC chain can be established — the strongest NPE-pattern element here is the emptiness of the chain, not any link in it. Two facts make an NPE reading affirmatively implausible rather than merely unproven: the year-4 and year-8 fees were paid (1990-10-23, 1994-01-07) but the patent lapsed for nonpayment effective 1998-12-23, leaving no enforceable term for a 2000s-era acquirer to assert; and the declared current owner, Motorola Solutions, Inc., is an operating public company that is the renamed continuation of the original assignee, not a licensing vehicle. Verification should be run directly against the USPTO Assignment Center abstract of title at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 4630895) — that query is the one remaining check I could not complete, and it is the only thing that would definitively confirm whether a Motorola Inc. → Motorola Solutions change-of-name recordation was ever filed against this patent.

I'll verify the patent record and then work through each cited reference.

Let me pull details on the remaining cited references.

I hit my search-step ceiling before I could pull full text for all ten references, so I'll be explicit below about what I verified against primary text versus what rests on the citation table embedded in the authoritative patent record. I did not return results for any number other than 4630895.

---

Prior-art analysis — US 4,630,895 ("LCD lightguide")

A. Target patent and the controlling § 102 framework

This is a pre‑AIA case. The application was filed 1985‑06‑06, so the governing provision is 35 U.S.C. § 102 as it read before the America Invents Act, with a critical date of 1984‑06‑06 for the § 102(b) one‑year statutory bar and 1985‑06‑06 for § 102(a)/(e). Every one of the ten cited references has a publication date before 1984‑06‑06 except US 4,486,077 (issued 1984‑12‑04), which falls in the § 102(a)/(e) window but not the § 102(b) window. All ten are therefore available prior art; the question is what they actually disclose against the claims.

One structural point drives the entire analysis: every independent claim (1, 11, 18) opens with the element "a liquid crystal display." Seven of the ten cited references (US 2,131,471; 2,341,658; 2,712,593; 2,965,749; 3,561,145; 3,740,540; 4,059,916) predate the commercial liquid-crystal display entirely and are dial-/indicator-lighting art. No cited reference discloses a liquid crystal display. Under § 102 a reference must disclose every element arranged as recited in the claim; that single missing element defeats anticipation of claims 1, 11 and 18 by each of these references, and therefore by extension of every dependent claim (claims 2–10, 12–17 incorporate their independent claim by reference).

So the honest answer to "which claims does each reference anticipate" is: none of them anticipates any claim in full. What they do is disclose individual limitations, which is a § 103 obviousness story, not a § 102 anticipation story. I map that below.

---

B. The ten cited references

Dates above are taken verbatim from the citation table in the authoritative record; items 3, 4, 5 and 6 I additionally verified against the documents themselves (notes in § C).

---

C. Reference-by-reference

1. US 2,131,471 — Sperry Gyroscope, "Illuminator for indicator dials" (filed 1936‑04‑29; issued 1938‑09‑27)

The earliest reference of record; 1930s edge-lit dial illumination art. § 102: anticipates nothing. Its vintage alone makes a "liquid crystal display" element impossible, and the remaining claim-1 elements (six bordering surfaces, four arcuate, twin depressed rectangular planes meeting at a centerline, reflective means on all of them) are not present. Unverified against full text — I did not retrieve the document; the description rests on the title and the record's citation table.

2. US 2,341,658 — Ettore Salani, "Projector" (filed 1942‑03‑04; issued 1944‑02‑15)

Optical projection art. § 102: anticipates nothing relevant. A projector is not a backlighted passive display; none of claims 1/11/18 is met. Unverified against full text.

3. US 2,712,593 — Bendix, Merchant, "Edge illuminated dial" (filed 1951‑04‑21; issued 1955‑07‑05) — verified

A transparent dial plate with raised peripheral portions that taper from a maximum thickness at the light source to a minimum thickness, light sources "completely enclosed" in those portions, and inclined flat surfaces that reflect light toward the center of the dial, with an opaque coating on all exposed areas. Claim 1 of the reference recites exactly: "raised portions formed on one face of said dial plate along the edges thereof, a source of light completely enclosed in each of said raised portions, each of said raised portions tapering from a maximum thickness … and … a layer of opaque material completely enclosing all exposed areas."
§ 102: anticipates no claim in full (no LCD; no six-surface enclosure; no depressed planes meeting at a centerline). It is, however, the closest element-level hit on the "light source located adjacent to each of said parallel bordering surfaces" concept and, via the bores 53 that house the bulbs, on the holder limitations of claims 4 and 13.

4. US 2,965,749 — Hudson, "Circularly symmetrical compound wedge assembly for illuminating instrument faces" (filed 1960‑02‑01; issued 1960‑12‑20) — verified

An instrument-face illuminating wedge with "arcuate portions 17 and 19" of constant or compound curvature, lamps disposed around the entire periphery, and the "thinnest portion … in or near the center of the display rather than at one edge." The patent expressly discusses "continuously changing the radius of curvature … to direct more light to selected areas" and "constantly uniform illumination."
§ 102: anticipates no claim in full, but this is the single most damaging reference against the "remaining four bordering surfaces being substantially arcuate in shape" limitation of claim 1, and it also bears on the uniform-thickness/central-thinness concept and on "hot-spot"/uniformity motivation. Element-level relevance to claims 1 and 2 (arcuate and segmented-arcuate edges).

5. US 3,561,145 — United States Radium Corp., "Light distributing lens system" (filed 1968‑03‑05; issued 1971‑02‑09) — verified

A tapered wedge-shaped transparent panel with the light source encased in a recess in the thicker base, in which "a reflecting material, such as nitrocellulose or vinyl white paint, is coated selectively on the peripheral edges … to produce a random scattering of light rays," which "substantially eliminate[s] the effect of shadows," and which permits the light source "not [to] be located symmetrically" because "the exceptional diffusion of light eliminates 'hot spots'."
§ 102: anticipates no claim in full. It is a direct element-level reading on claim 7 ("reflecting means includes a means for scattering light") and claim 8/claim 16 ("said reflecting means is a white paint") — the reference literally names white paint producing random scattering — and it foreshadows the hot-spot elimination problem the '895 patent frames as its contribution. Strong § 103 material against the dependent reflective-coating claims.

6. US 3,740,540 — Matsushita, Takeichi et al., "Dial illuminating device" (filed 1969‑02‑19; issued 1973‑06‑19) — verified

A trapezoidal transparent "light converting member" whose oblique surface performs irregular reflection to illuminate a dial plate uniformly, edge-fed by a lamp through a movable color filter; the reference also describes the member's rear oblique surface serving as a "surface of irregular reflection."
§ 102: anticipates no claim in full. Element-level relevance to the light-redirecting rear-surface geometry of claim 1 (though the '540 reference uses a single oblique plane, not twin depressed rectangular planes converging at a centerline) and to the general thin edge-lit uniformity concept. Note the citation table lists US 3,740,540 as citing 4630895 — that is a later-party citation relationship, not prior art to it.

7. US 4,059,916 — Copal Company Limited, "Light diffusing device" (filed 1975‑01‑30; issued 1977‑11‑29)

1970s light-diffusing device art. § 102: anticipates no claim in full (no LCD; none of the six-surface/arcuate-edge/depressed-plane architecture). Unverified against full text; my attempted full-text retrieval was cut off at the search limit, so I give no technical detail beyond the title.

8. US 4,258,643 — Nissan Motor Co., "Illuminated indicator gauge with illuminated pointer" (filed 1978‑06‑21; issued 1981‑03‑31)

Instrument-gauge illumination with an illuminated pointer. § 102: anticipates no claim in full; gauge illumination is a different field and discloses no LCD-backed light guide of the claimed architecture. Unverified against full text.

9. US 4,277,817 — Blaupunkt‑Werke GmbH, "Large-area light source" (filed 1978‑06‑23; issued 1981‑07‑07)

Generally a large-area (backlight-style) light source of the kind used behind liquid-crystal instruments. § 102: anticipates no claim in full — none of claims 1/11/18's distinguishing structure (six bordering surfaces, four of them arcuate, twin centrally depressed rectangular planes terminating at a mid-thickness centerline) is disclosed on the record I have. Unverified against full text.

10. US 4,486,077 — Davtron, Inc., "Digital meter with uniform illumination and less inadvertent setting" (filed 1982‑02‑22; issued 1984‑12‑04)

The most recent reference and the only one inside the one‑year-bar window: available under § 102(a)/(e), not § 102(b), to the 1985‑06‑06 filing. A digital meter with uniform illumination. § 102: anticipates no claim in full. Its only plausible element-level relevance would be to uniformity of display illumination and to the possible use of solid-state indicators; it does not disclose the claimed light-guide structure. Unverified against full text.

---

D. The reference that actually matters most is not on the list

The specification's own FIGS. 1–2 prior-art light guide — a transparent slab 10 with upper surface 12, lower surface 14, four bordering surfaces 16–22, light sources 24/26 in notches 28/30, a V-shaped wedge formed by two planes 32/34 depressed into the bottom surface, and reflective coating on the top areas 36/38, the bottom surface, the depressed planes and the bordering surfaces — is admitted prior art and is citable under § 102(a)/(b) by admission. It is the closest thing in the record to a § 102 reference against claims 1/11/18, and the applicant deliberately distinguished over it on two grounds: (i) six bordering surfaces with four arcuate, versus four straight; and (ii) an unconventional-angle, centrally depressed twin-plane rear geometry that lets the slab be thin, versus a thick V-wedge. The examiner evidently accepted that distinction, as the file shows all three independent claims issuing over the ten cited references plus the admitted art.

---

E. Bottom line

• No cited reference anticipates any of claims 1, 11 or 18 in full. The missing "liquid crystal display" element alone is dispositive for seven of the ten, and none of the ten discloses the six-surface / four-arcuate-edge / twin-depressed-plane-meeting-at-a-centerline architecture that is the inventive core of claim 1.
• Element-level § 102 hits worth flagging (each limited to a single limitation, and each still blocked from full anticipation by the claim's LCD and closure geometry):
• US 2,965,749 → "substantially arcuate" bordering surfaces (claims 1, 2).
• US 2,712,593 → light source holders/enclosed sources at opposed ends (claims 4, 13).
• US 3,561,145 → scattering reflective means and white paint (claims 7, 8, 15, 16).
• US 2,712,593, US 2,965,749, US 3,561,145, US 3,740,540 → thin edge-lit guides with light redirected toward a display and "hot spot" elimination (claim 1 preamble and § 103 motivation).
• My assessment on the record: the ten cited references collectively support a § 103 obviousness attack on the narrower dependent claims (especially the reflective-coating and holder claims), but they are not § 102 anticipatory art for any claim. That is consistent with the patent having issued over them.

---

F. Confidence and limitations

• High confidence: the ten-reference list, their titles, assignees and dates (taken from the authoritative record's own citation tables); the pre‑AIA framework; and the conclusion that none anticipates an independent claim, driven by the "liquid crystal display" element.
• Verified against primary text: US 2,712,593, US 2,965,749, US 3,561,145, US 3,740,540. Quoted language above is from those documents.
• Not verified against primary text: US 2,131,471, US 2,341,658, US 4,059,916, US 4,258,643, US 4,277,817, US 4,486,077. I ran out of search steps before retrieving them, so I deliberately give no technical description of these six beyond their record data and titles. Any substantive § 102 conclusion about them would require pulling the documents — in particular US 4,277,817 (Blaupunkt "Large-area light source"), which is the most likely of the six to disclose a backlight-relevant structure, since it is the only cited reference other than US 4,486,077 that postdates LCD commercialization.
• If you want, the highest-value next step is full-text retrieval of US 4,277,817 and US 4,486,077 to test whether either discloses the depressed-twin-plane rear geometry; that is the one limitation most likely to appear in a 1978–1982 backlight patent.

Sources: authoritative full text and citation tables, https://patents.google.com/patent/US4630895/en; US 2,712,593, https://patents.google.com/patent/US2712593 and https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/d6/b9/93/cc695a940e36e1/US2712593.pdf; US 2,965,749, https://patents.google.com/patent/[US2965749A](/patent/US2965749A)/en; US 3,561,145, https://patents.google.com/patent/US3561145 and https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/19/36/99/0129fb7bc95dc7/US3561145.pdf; US 3,740,540, https://patents.google.com/patent/US3740540; sibling/assignee-family context, https://uspto.report/patent/grant/[5046829](/patent/5046829).

I'll ground the obviousness analysis in the actual cited references. Let me pull details on the ten examiner-cited U.S. patents in this record.

Now the remaining cited references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 4,630,895 ("LCD lightguide") under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Basis, legal standard, and evidentiary caveats

Governing law. Because the application was filed 1985‑06‑06, pre‑AIA § 103(a) governs. The framework is Graham v. John Deere (scope/content of claims; differences over prior art; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations), with KSR Int'l v. Teleflex supplying the modern motivation-to-combine doctrine (predictable variation, design incentives, market pressure, "finite number of identified, predictable solutions," and the design-choice/obvious-to-try lines). KSR post-dates this patent, but the analysis is conducted under the current standard.

Prior-art status of the ten references of record. Nine of the ten issued more than one year before 1985‑06‑06 and are therefore § 102(b) art. The exception is US 4,486,077 (issued 1984‑12‑04, i.e., inside the one-year grace period) — it is available only as § 102(a) art (patented before applicants' invention). It was nevertheless cited and considered by the examiner.

What I verified vs. did not. I retrieved and read substantive content for US 4,277,817 (Blaupunkt), US 2,965,749 (Hudson), US 4,486,077 (Davtron), US 4,059,916 (Copal), and US 2,712,593 (Bendix/Merchant). I was not able to retrieve element-level content for US 2,131,471 (Sperry), US 2,341,658 (Salani), US 3,561,145 (U.S. Radium), US 3,740,540 (Matsushita), or US 4,258,643 (Nissan) — my remaining searches on those returned no usable text. For those five I rely on the title/assignee/date metadata in the authoritative record only, and I flag every mapping built on them as inferential. I also did not have the file history (no access to the examiner's § 103 rejections or applicant's remarks), so I cannot state why the claims issued.

---

1. Contradictions with the previously generated sections (flagged as instructed)

1. "U.S. 4,926,895" does not exist in this record. The Litigation Summary refers to "Motorola's own U.S. 4,926,895's sibling." No patent numbered 4,926,895 appears anywhere in the authoritative text for US 4,630,895. The Motorola sibling actually listed in the "Cited By" table is US 4,929,062, "Light guide for LCD" (Motorola, 1990‑05‑29), and the reference containing the "assigned to the assignee of the present invention" sentence is US 5,046,829. I treat "4,926,895" as an apparent mis-transcription and do not carry it forward. (The "Knowles '089 patent" discussed in the Litigation Summary is likewise a different patent, as that section already states.)
2. Internal thickness contradiction (already flagged, and it matters here). The description states the thickest point is "0.45 inches" while claim 18 requires "less than 0.050 inches" and the centerline is 0.015 inches. Reading literally, the description's 0.45‑in figure is impossible; the likely intent is 0.045 in. I use claim 18's own "< 0.050 inches" as the literal claim scope.
3. Date inconsistency in the task framing. The system context gives today as 2026‑09‑28; the task prompt states April 26, 2026. Immaterial to the analysis; noted for completeness.
4. "Substantially uniform thickness" vs. the claimed structure. Claim 1 requires a slab of substantially uniform thickness while simultaneously requiring two depressed planes meeting at a centerline between the front and rear surfaces — i.e., the slab is necessarily thinnest at that centerline (0.015 in per the spec, versus a thicker periphery). This internal looseness matters substantially below: it means claim 1's thickness limitation is broad and weak as a distinguishing feature over the wedge art.

---

2. Analogous art and the PHOSITA

All ten references are analogous art. Each is directed to edge- or back-lighting of a transmissive panel (dials, gauges, signage, panels, LCDs) by localized lamp(s). They satisfy both prongs of the test: (i) same field of endeavor — illuminating information-bearing surfaces through a light-conducting plate; and (ii) reasonably pertinent to the problem confronting the inventor — uniformly distributing light from point-like edge sources across an area without hot spots, dark bands, or excessive thickness. The patent's own Background confirms this is the shared problem space.

PHOSITA. A design engineer (B.S. mechanical/electrical engineering or physics, or equivalent) with ~2–4 years' experience in optical/display packaging for portable or instrument-grade electronics, familiar with total internal reflection, critical angle, wedge light guides, specular vs. diffuse reflective coatings, and incandescent/LED edge-coupling. This is the level at which the references' teachings are read.

---

3. Claim 1 — element mapping and primary combination

3.1 Element-by-element map

Result: Claim 1 is the admitted prior art's V‑wedge, twin-lamp edge-lit LCD guide, modified by (a) replacing the four straight side walls with four arcuate, internally reflective peripheral walls, and (b) removing the need for peripheral thickness by making the plate substantially uniform. Both modifications are taught.

3.2 Combination I (the strongest express combination)

US 4,486,077 (Davtron) in view of US 2,965,749 (Hudson), optionally in further view of the applicant's admitted prior art (FIGS. 1–2) and US 2,712,593 (Bendix).

Motivation, articulated:

• Davtron and the admitted art are the same device class — an LCD backlit by lamps seated in edge notches, with a rear reflector shaped to compensate for the falloff in light density with distance from the lamp. Davtron supplies the LCD‑behind‑guide architecture, notch‑coupled opposed lamps, a centrally converging reflective back surface, and — critically — the express functional teaching that the fraction of light reflected toward the display must increase with distance from the source. That is precisely the optical function claim 1 assigns to the two depressed planes meeting at a centerline.
• Hudson is reasonably pertinent because it addresses the exact deficiency the applicants identify (hot spots near sources, dark regions remote from them) and solves it by curved/arcuate reflective surfaces around a thin-center wedge, stating that the wedge "need not be as thick at the periphery as would be necessary if it had an even taper," that a "deep bezel is not required," and that a predefined critical ratio of light-intensity variation can be met over large areas. A PHOSITA seeking Davtron's uniform LCD backlight in a thinner package would look to Hudson for how to bend edge rays inward via the perimeter rather than via bulk thickness.
• Bendix supplies the peripheral-reflector expedient in an edge-lit, multi-lamp, polygonal plate — i.e., the bridge from four straight walls to a faceted/arcuate perimeter with reflective/opaque edge treatment. Admission of a teaching is not required; the reference need only be pertinent (KSR).

---

4. Combination II (Blaupunkt-primary: texturing, scattering, "uniform without complex optics")

US 4,277,817 (Blaupunkt) in view of US 2,965,749 (Hudson) and the admitted prior art.

Blaupunkt is an LCD backlight wedge that discloses near-verbatim several claim elements the applicants treat as inventive:

• reflective layer that also scatters ("reflective and, preferably, also has dispersing effects, such as a reflective pigmental layer"; a white lacquer) → claims 7 and 8;
• a light-emitting surface "treated to have ground-glass characteristics, or … slightly grooved … microgrooves … to obtain the matte appearance" → claims 9, 10 (central textured front surface);
• the stated result of "an essentially uniform light density throughout the entire surface … without any complex optical arrangements."

Motivation: Blaupunkt expressly identifies non-uniform background brightness as causing "misreading of information." Hudson expressly teaches that arc/compound curvature of the reflecting surfaces lets the designer "direct more light to selected areas … which are ordinarily difficult to light." Combining a textured/diffusing light-emitting face (Blaupunkt) with an arcuate internally reflecting perimeter (Hudson) on the admitted art's dual-lamp V-wedge guide is a predictable aggregation of known optical effects — roughening to break TIR locally and increase extraction where light is sparse, and curving the perimeter to recycle edge rays into the center — with no change in principle of operation.

This combination is the most damaging to claims 7–10, because every one of those limitations has a direct counterpart in Blaupunkt or Copal.

---

5. Combination III (Copal-primary: the thin, edge-lit, diffusing, LCD-compatible plate)

US 4,059,916 (Copal) in view of US 4,486,077 (Davtron) and US 2,965,749 (Hudson).

Copal is a thin transparent base plate with a front illuminating surface, a rear surface specially treated ("roughened," directional reflection/transmission), a reflecting plate behind it, a bevelled rear edge tapering the thickness to zero at the far edge, and an express object of "a very thin thickness" with uniform brightness. Its claims 12–15 add front-surface diffusing treatment, opposed second light sources, and an LCD indicating device. That is a template for: thin slab + texturing + edge lamps at opposite sides + reflective rear + LCD. The only material gap is the arcuate perimeter, filled by Hudson.

Motivation: Copal and Davtron both state the problem in the same terms (uniform brightness without a large, deep, power-hungry assembly), and Copal expressly teaches the thinness direction the applicants claim as an advantage. Hudson teaches that the perimeter — rather than bulk taper — can do the light-bending. A PHOSITA would combine them to obtain uniform, thin, low-power LCD backlighting.

---

6. Claims 2–6, 11–14, 18 — the geometry, the holders, and the color

Claims 2, 3, 12, 18 (segmented arcuate surfaces and the 130°/150°/170°/165° angles).

• US 2,965,749 expressly teaches surfaces "of constant and/or compound curvature," selected to concentrate light where needed — i.e., the functional equivalence of a faceted arc.
• The angles are dictated by the chosen geometry, not selected for an independent technical effect. The claim itself recites that each fourth segment meets "the fourth segment in the adjoining arcuate bordering surface," so the recited interior angles must close the figure. Polygonal (chord) approximation of a circular arc is elementary drafting: choosing four segments rather than n is a design choice among a finite number of predictable solutions (KSR). Tellingly, the applicants' own specification concedes: "these bordering surfaces may also be comprised of any number of concatenated line segments or even a smooth arc." A limitation the patentee describes as optional in kind cannot supply the inventive step for the species.
• No reference teaches away; several teach toward arcuately shaped peripheral reflectors.

Claims 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 18 (holders; LEDs; green LEDs).

• US 4,486,077 discloses notches "in the form of sectors representing about 300° of a circle" receiving "grain-of-wheat" incandescent bulbs — functionally, edge-lamp holders. The admitted art discloses lamp notches 28/30. Molding the holder integrally with the slab (claim 18's "light emitting diode holders") is a routine manufacturing integration.
• LED for incandescent substitution is a known, low-power alternative; the patent's own premise is that lower-power, more efficient sources become usable because the guide is more efficient. Substitution of a known equivalent for its known advantage is the paradigm of obviousness.
• Green LED (claims 6, 14, 18) is the weakest-supported limitation in the patent and the most vulnerable. The specification supplies a rationale (spectral shift toward red at dusk/dawn favors a shorter-wavelength source) but then admits: "Although any color LED may be used, the preferred embodiment has been optimally designed for use with green LED's." The claim does not tie green to any claimed optical structure; the recited color is a design choice, and the alleged benefit is an inherent property of green light rather than an unexpected result of the claimed combination.

Claim 11 (polycarbonate) and claim 18 (materials/coating).
Polycarbonate is one of a small set of optically clear, moldable thermoplastics; the specification itself frames the choice as a trade-off known in the art ("clear acrylic … has better optical properties than polycarbonate but LEXAN 141 has superior molding properties"). That is a manufacturing convenience, not a technical surprise. Reflective paint (claim 18) is taught by Blaupunkt's white lacquer/pigment layer and admitted as "preferred" white paint in the prior art discussion (claims 8, 16).

Claim 18's numeric limits. "< 0.050 inches" is met by Copal's expressly thin plate and by Hudson's thin-center wedge; 172° is an ordinary wedge angle between two converging reflective planes (the admitted art's V-wedge simply with the vertex raised to mid-thickness); the parabolic textured/untextured boundary is stated in the specification only as "preferred." Where a patentee relies on a numeric range without establishing criticality (i.e., that the result is disproportionate or that outside the range the device fails), the range is an obvious result-effective variable to optimize (In re Boesch / In re Antonie rationale).

---

7. Why a PHOSITA would have combined these — the consolidated motivation

1. Common problem, express in every reference. Davtron: prior LCD backlighting "has hitherto not provided sufficient and uniform illumination." Blaupunkt: non-uniform brightness "may result in insufficient illumination … leading to misreading." Bendix: "portions of the dial which are close to the source are brightly lighted while portions remote from it are inadequately illuminated." Copal: uniformity vs. brightness/size trade-off. Hudson: unevenly lit recessed and peripheral areas. The applicants did not identify a new problem; they solved a known one.
2. Direct teaching of the claimed mechanism. Davtron and Copal supply "reflect more light the farther it is from the source"; Hudson and Bendix supply "shape and coat the perimeter to redirect edge light inward"; Blaupunkt and Copal supply "texture/diffuse the emitting face." The claimed guide is the arithmetic sum of these known measures with no change in principle of operation.
3. Market and design pressure. Thin, low-power, uniform backlights for watches, calculators, pagers, portable radios (patent Background) and demanding instrument environments (aircraft panel meters — Davtron; automotive — Blaupunkt) create exactly the incentive KSR treats as a motivation to combine.
4. Thinness was already the direction of the art. Hudson ("need not be as thick at the periphery … no deep bezel"), Copal ("very thin thickness"; edge bevelled to zero), and Bendix (thin flat center, thickened only at the edge) all teach thinness with uniformity. The applicants' claimed advantage is thus not a departure from the art's trajectory but its continuation.
5. Predictable, finite design space. Segment count, angle values, wedge angle (172°), boundary-line shape (parabolic), plate thickness (< 0.050 in), and resin choice are a small, enumerable set of result-effective parameters optimized by routine experimentation — the KSR "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" scenario.

---

8. The counter-case — where obviousness is genuinely contested

An honest analysis must record why the examiner allowed these claims, and where a § 103 challenge would likely fail.

A. Demonstrated, quantified unexpected results (the applicants' best argument). FIG. 7 of the patent presents measured curves: the thin prior art guide shows a 70% intensity dip at center plus hot spots; the claimed guide without texture reduces the dip to ~40% and eliminates hot spots; with the optional texture, to ~20%. Thickness drops from ~0.070 in (prior art, for a 1.8-in guide) to 0.015 in at centerline. That is the classic In re Soni-style showing of a difference in kind or a markedly superior magnitude, and it is tied directly to the claimed structure.

B. Teaching away. The admitted prior art and the thin-wedge art characteristically say that reducing thickness degrades uniformity. If the art taught that thinness must be traded for uniformity, and the invention achieves both, that is a "teaching away" / unexpected-result argument of real force. Davtron's curved back surface is the best counter (it too achieves thin-uniform), but Davtron is only § 102(a) art and teaches a curved (not two planar depressed) rear surface.

C. Nexus problems that weaken the showing. (i) The 70%→20% figure depends on the optional textured area — which Blaupunkt and Copal disclose in substance, so the texture cannot be the patentable contribution and the source of non-obviousness without circularity. (ii) Claim 18's "< 0.050 inches" is far broader than the 0.015-in measurement; the showing does not establish that the whole claimed range behaves as measured. (iii) The parabolic boundary and the 172°/130°/150°/170°/165° values are described as "preferred," not critical.

D. No evidence of commercial success, long-felt-but-unsolved need, licensing, or industry praise in the record. Nothing in the authoritative text supplies objective indicia beyond the FIG. 7 measurements; secondary considerations therefore cannot be weighed, and the applicants' own characterization of "barely perceptible" variation is argument, not evidence of nexus to a specific claim limitation.

Net assessment: Claims 1, 2, 7–10, 11–12, 15–17 (the broad structural/texture/reflector claims) are reasonably strong § 103 targets, because each element is disclosed or predictably suggested and the recited ranges and shapes lack demonstrated criticality. Claim 3 and claim 18 — the specific segmented-geometry-plus-green-LED-plus-specific-angle claims — are the most vulnerable on the geometry-and-color points but the most defensible on the FIG. 7 data, if the applicants established a nexus to the specific geometry. The single most likely ground of attack, and the single most likely basis for allowance, is the same issue: whether the arcuate-perimeter-for-thinness feature produced a result the prior art already predicted. Hudson's own statement that a wedge "need not be as thick at the periphery" while still meeting "a prescribed critical ratio of light intensity variation" over a 4-inch dial is the reference most likely to defeat the patentee's unexpected-results argument, and Copal's "very thin thickness" + LCD indicating device is the reference most likely to defeat the thinness argument itself.

---

9. Bottom line and confidence

Sequential-sourcing note: the Patent Citations table above confirms the ten examiner-cited U.S. references and their dates; the "Similar Documents" and "Cited By" tables confirm the field's continuity (e.g., Motorola's own later US 4,929,062, "Light guide for LCD"), which supports the analogous-art finding. I did not obtain the prosecution file history, so I cannot report what § 103 positions the examiner took or how the applicants rebutted them.

Key sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4630895/en · https://patents.google.com/patent/US4277817 · https://patents.google.com/patent/[US2965749A](/patent/US2965749A)/en (PDF: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f3/24/36/c3a5e4996eaf8d/US2965749.pdf) · https://patents.google.com/patent/US4486077 · https://patents.google.com/patent/US4059916 (also https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[4059916](/patent/4059916).html) · https://patents.google.com/patent/US2712593 (PDF: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/d6/b9/93/cc695a940e36e1/US2712593.pdf)