US 5417684

I'll verify what I can and attempt to retrieve claim text, since the authoritative text provided to me stops before the claims section.

Let me pull the full claim set and check for any litigation/docket activity.

Let me pin down the independent claim preambles precisely.

US 5,417,684 — Verification Summary

Sourcing note: The authoritative full text you supplied is truncated immediately after "DETAILED DESCRIPTION … As defined in this application," so the claims section is not in the authoritative text. Claim language below comes from secondary sources (FreePatentsOnline, Justia, uspto.report, and the OCR'd grant PDF at patentimages.storage.googleapis.com). Bibliography comes from the authoritative text plus Google Patents. I flag every item I could not verify verbatim.

Bibliographic data

Note: one aggregator (Unified Patents portal) lists the priority date as 1993-03-10, while Google Patents and the patent's own continuation sentence say Mar. 11, 1993. I have not resolved that one-day discrepancy.

Abstract (verbatim from the authoritative text)

"A medical grasper device (10) that is useful for holding and manipulating a body organ is described. Grasper device (10) is inserted into a body cavity through a cannula port and in the form of a flexible strap (26) preferably made of a plastic material having traction formations, in the form of openings (34, 34D), ridges (34C) or scalloped edges (34B) provided along the length of a holding section and serving to prevent the strap from releasing from a position encircling the organ. The strap is housed within a tube (12) that is provided with a handle (68). During the laparoscopic procedure, the strap is moved by hand or by suitable manipulation mechanism out through the opposite, distal end (20) of the tube to define a loop (28) of adjustable size. The loop is thus useful for holding and manipulating body organs and body tissue."

Plain-language overview

A laparoscopic organ-grasper built around a flat plastic strap (preferably acetal) that doubles back on itself out the distal end of a tube to form an adjustable loop that is slipped over an organ and cinched down. Four features carry the disclosure:

1. Atraumatic gripping formations on the loop's inner face — through-openings, beveled openings, scalloped/serrated edges, ridges, or recessed pockets. Openings are preferred: moisture escapes and tissue bulges into them, so the tightened loop resists slipping off without cutting or crushing.
2. A strap guide at the tube's distal end that channels the strap so the loop is flexible in the plane of loop adjustment but semi-rigid normal to that plane, and that prevents the strap from rotating about its own axis — letting the surgeon steer the loop by rotating the handle.
3. A seal inside the tube (e.g., a slit elastomeric disc or O-ring) sealing directly against the strap or drive rod so pneumoperitoneum CO₂ and body fluids cannot escape out the proximal end, while still permitting strap/rod travel.
4. A user-accessible lock (locking screw with thumbwheel, cam lever, ratchet, slide lock, or threaded collet/collar) to freeze the loop at a chosen size.

Two architecture families are described: a "single-throw" device (one strap end fixed to the guide, the other end hand-manipulated) and a "double-throw" device (both strap ends overlapped and bolted to a drive rod/collar, so half the handle travel produces the same loop-size change). Several parts are singled out as disposable (the strap, the guide, the seal, and in FIGS. 45–50 a preformed memory-shaped loop).

Independent claims (plain language)

The patent has at least 64 claims. Based on retrieved claim text, the independent claims appear to be claims 1, 41, 47, 57, 60 (method), and 64.

• Claim 1 — Medical device (broadest device claim). A device insertable into a body cavity to hold/manipulate an organ from outside, comprising: (a) an elongated conduit (tube) with an inside passage and proximal/distal open ends, the proximal portion serving as a handle; (b) a flexible strap, wider than it is thick, doubled back on itself to define a loop with at least one recessed formation extending at least part way through the strap thickness, both strap sections extending back into the tube so the strap slides within it, with a manipulator to change loop size (flexible in the loop plane, relatively rigid perpendicular to it); and (c) manipulative means operable from the remote location to open the loop, place it around the organ, and tighten it. Key functional limitation: the recessed formation faces inward so moist tissue trapped under the strap pushes up into it, preventing the tightened loop from releasing while the organ is manipulated. (Retrieved verbatim: subparagraphs (b) and (c). Subparagraph (a) verbatim not captured — flagged as uncertain.)
• Claim 41 — Medical device, sealing-and-guide variant. Same conduit/strap/loop/recessed-formation core, plus (c) a guide means on the conduit that directs strap movement and prevents strap rotation about its longitudinal axis, and (d) a sealing means inside the conduit that seals directly around the width and thickness of the strap to block body-cavity fluids from reaching the proximal open end while allowing strap travel. (Retrieved verbatim except the preamble; the (a)–(d) lettering above is drawn from the retrieved text, but I could not confirm whether this particular (a)–(d) block belongs to claim 41 or claim 57 — the two independent claims are worded near-identically. Flagged as uncertain.)
• Claim 47 — Medical device, collapse-in-tube variant (the FIG. 45–50 "disposable loop" embodiment). The manipulator draws opposed strap portions into the conduit so they bear against opposed surfaces on the conduit to close the loop; pushing the strap back out through the distal open end releases it and re-expands the loop. Recessed formation faces inward for the wet-tissue grip. (Retrieved verbatim.)
• Claim 57 — Disposable device/kit claim. A "disposable" claim covering the conduit, strap with recessed formation, guide means, and sealing means. Label inconsistency to flag: dependent claim 58 calls it "the disposable medical device of claim 57" while dependent claim 59 calls it "the disposable kit of claim 57," so I cannot state with confidence whether claim 57 is drafted as a device or a kit.
• Claim 60 — Method. A method of holding and manipulating an organ inside a body cavity from outside, comprising: (a) providing the device (conduit + handle, strap whose thickness runs between a continuous inner surface and an outer surface with at least one recessed formation formed into the thickness from the inner surface, doubled back to form the loop, plus a manipulator); (b) inserting the device with the distal portion adjacent the organ while the proximal portion and manipulator stay outside; (c) manipulating the manipulator to define the loop; (d) manipulating the handle to position the opened loop around the organ; and (e) further steps (the retrieved text truncates mid-step (e)). (Retrieved verbatim through step (d); step (e) and any closing limitation not captured.)
• Claim 64 — Medical device, scalloped-edge variant. A device whose gripping formations are notches formed along the spaced-apart edges of the strap to give a scallop-like shape; the notches are recessed into the edges so the continuous inner surface of the tightened loop resists releasing from the organ. (Retrieved verbatim for subparagraphs (b) and (c); preamble partially captured.)

USPTO litigation / CAFC docket check for 5,417,684

I searched for Federal Circuit and district-court activity on this specific number and found no 2026 CAFC docket, and no litigation at any date, naming U.S. 5,417,684. Limitations on this finding:

• I do not have direct PACER/CM-ECF or CAFC docket-system access; this is based on open-web searching only. An absence of results is not proof of absence.
• The apparent reason no 2026 case exists is structural: the patent's term ran from the 1993-03-11 priority date and Google Patents records it as expired as of 2013-03-11 ("Anticipated expiration"). It would have been ~33 years past priority in 2026.
• The Greatbatch v. AVX litigation I did surface (D. Del. No. 1:13-cv-00723-LPS; Fed. Cir. Nos. 2019-2314 and 2020-1225, nonprecedential Rule 36 affirmance, July 14, 2020) and the related IPR2014-00697 appeal concern different patents — U.S. 6,905,627, 5,905,627, and the '095/'553/'779 family (feedthrough filter capacitors). Those are not 5,417,684, and I did not find 5,417,684 asserted anywhere in that record.
• The only unrelated "5,417,684" hit is an FDA MAUDE report key (MDR Report Key 5417684, Iris International iChem Velocity) — a coincidental identifier, not this patent.

Known prior art cited on the face of the patent (from the authoritative text)

U.S. 5,163,942 (Rydell) — adjustable belt/cord loop with thumb-slide handle, serrated grip surface, no tube seal; U.S. 4,592,355 (Antebi) — strap-and-pawl tissue ligator; U.S. 3,828,790 (Curtiss et al.); and U.S. 480,870; 668,647; 1,461,864; 1,470,914; 2,054,149; 3,181,533; 5,084,054. Non-patent literature: Ponsky & Mellinger, Surgical Endoscopy (1991) 5:57–58; Henning & Seuberth, Endoscopy 20 (1988) 70–72.

Items I could not confirm

• Verbatim preamble of claim 1 and the exact lettering/preamble of claims 41 and 57 (the retrieved (a)–(d) block may attach to either).
• Total claim count and the full text of the last method step(s) of claim 60.
• Whether claim 57 is a device claim or a kit claim (the dependent claims contradict each other).
• The 1993-03-10 vs. 1993-03-11 priority-date discrepancy.
• Any post-2013 ownership or litigation events beyond the recorded security-interest reassignments listed by Google Patents (Fleet National Bank, Minrad Inc., Manufacturers and Traders Trust, KeyBank, First Niagara Bank, Laminar Direct Capital, Bank of America, Piramal Critical Care).

One OCR artifact worth noting without correcting: the grant PDF's extracted title reads "LAPAROSCOPIC SURGICAL GRASPER WITH A LAW OF THE GRIPPING FORMATIONS LAMP WITH GRIPPING FORMATIONS," which is scanner noise; the title of record per Google Patents and the specification is "Laparoscopic surgical grasper with a loop with gripping formations."

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 5417684 specifically.

Initial searches returned only patent citations, not litigation. Let me search targeted litigation databases.

Let me try a few more targeted database searches before concluding.

Answer: No litigation found involving US Patent 5,417,684

After searching for the specific number 5417684 across general web sources, patent databases, and litigation-oriented sources (including material indexed from Unified Patents' portal, CourtListener/RECAP, PACER-derived dockets, and CAFC opinion repositories), I found no evidence of any litigation — district court, ITC, PTAB, CAFC, or UPC — in which US Patent 5,417,684 was asserted, challenged, or otherwise at issue.

What the searches actually returned

Every hit for "5417684" was one of the following, none of which is litigation:

1. The patent itself and its family — US 5,417,684 A ("Laparoscopic surgical grasper with a loop with gripping formations"), inventors Robert C. Jackson, Jack A. Belstadt, and Paul D. Putt, Jr.; original assignee Wilson Greatbatch Ltd.; filed Aug. 12, 1994 as a continuation of Ser. No. 08/029,445 (filed Mar. 11, 1993); issued May 23, 1995. Foreign counterparts appear as AU 6405994, EP 0688184 A1, and WO 9420029.
2. Prior-art citations — the patent is cited as a reference in later patents (e.g., US 9,592,038; US 10,251,650; US 11,547,428; US 11,844,525; US D811,593) and in foreign search reports (e.g., WO 2017019653 A1; RU 2445025 C2). Being cited as prior art is not litigation.
3. Assignment/reassignment records — the chain of title (Fleet National Bank, Minrad Inc., Manufacturers & Traders Trust, KeyBank, First Niagara Bank, Laminar Direct Capital, Piramal Critical Care, Wilson Greatbatch Ltd.) reported on the Google Patents page. Assignments are not lawsuits.
4. False positives on the digit string — e.g., a Brazilian court docket number "5417684-69.2019.4.03.9999" (a social-security appeal, TRF-3), an FDA MAUDE report key "5417684," a Lithuanian registry notice number, and a USPTO PTAB petition artifact ID ending in 5417684. These are unrelated to the patent and should not be mistaken for patent litigation.

Why litigation is unlikely (context, not confirmation)

• The patent expired on March 11, 2013 (20 years from the March 11, 1993 priority date), per the legal-status data on the Google Patents record. Any infringement action would have had to be filed and adjudicated before that date.
• The patent is a fairly narrow surgical-instrument patent from the mid-1990s with substantial design-around history (the specification itself distinguishes Rydell US 5,163,942 and Antebi US 4,592,355), which is consistent with a low-assertion asset.

Important caveats

• I was not able to directly query the Unified Patents litigation caselist portal, PACER, Docket Navigator, or Lex Machina for this proceeding. My conclusion is based on web-searchable sources, which do not index every federal docket — particularly pre-2000 cases and cases that settled early without published opinions.
• An absence of search hits is not affirmative proof of no litigation. It is possible (though I found no indication) that a suit was filed and resolved without a discoverable opinion or docket entry.
• I found no PTAB/IPR/PGR proceeding and no CAFC appeal referencing this patent.
• Regarding the family members EP 0688184 and WO 9420029: I also found no evidence of national or UPC litigation on the European counterpart, but I could not exhaustively verify European national dockets.

Recommended verification steps

If you need a defensible "no litigation" representation, I would verify directly against:

1. Docket Navigator or Lex Machina (search by patent number 5,417,684) — these are the most reliable for complete assertion histories.
2. PACER / CourtListener RECAP "Nature of Suit 830" (Patent) dockets listing the '684 patent.
3. Unified Patents Portal — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist (and the PTAB caselist at https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/caselist).
4. USPTO PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) and USPTO Assignment records for any post-issuance proceedings.

Bottom line: On the available evidence, no litigation is known involving US Patent 5,417,684, and given the patent's March 11, 2013 expiration, any assertion would necessarily predate that date. Please treat this as "no litigation found" rather than a certified negative, and confirm with a docket-specific database before relying on it.

I'll verify the ODP-provided baseline against public sources before rendering the analysis.

Let me run a few more targeted checks before concluding.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file for US 5,417,684. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings, and my independent searches of public PTAB/PTABTS materials surfaced no petition, institution decision, or final written decision naming this patent. Breakdown by status: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials — a null set, not a clean sweep. The correct defensive posture is therefore not "the patent is hardened by surviving IPRs," but rather "no one ever bothered to challenge these claims at the Board, and the patent is expired — do not let a demand letter's silence on that point mislead you."

For the record, the structured data's canonical fields for the patent itself (from the USPTO/Google Patents record) are:

No proceedings to report

There is no IPR20XX-XXXXX, PGR20XX-XXXXX, or CBM20XX-XXXXX number I can give you for this patent, and per your instruction I will not invent one. Everything below is the explanation of why the null set exists and what it means, rather than a fabricated docket.

Strategic summary

Which claims are CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. Because no AIA trial ever reached a final written decision, the answer is stark: no claim of US 5,417,684 has ever been canceled, confirmed, or even adjudicated by the PTAB. Every claim is UNTESTED at the Board. Anyone characterizing the patent's claims as "upheld" or "invalidated" in PTAB proceedings is misrepresenting the record. One important verification point: the claim sets I retrieved from public databases are internally inconsistent in numbering — one index shows claim 1 with dependents 2–10 (the "recessed formation … moist tissue push up into the recessed formation" family, e.g. claims directed to the strap's gripping formations, the drive-rod/collar manipulative means, and the guide means that prevents strap rotation), while another public copy of the grant displays claims numbered at least into the 40s. I cannot reconcile that from the sources I searched, so verify the exact claim count and independent-claim structure against the official printed patent or PatentCenter before relying on it; I will not guess.

Estoppel landscape. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel is a non-issue here: estoppel attaches only to a petitioner that obtained a final written decision, and there are none. No petitioner, privy, or real party in interest is estopped from anything with respect to this patent. Conversely, a defendant gains no estoppel benefit from the Board's work — because there is no Board work. Any invalidity case would have to be built from scratch in district court.

Pattern signals. There is no pattern to read. No serial petitioner, no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents IPR appears in the chain of custody), and no patent-owner appellate activity. The patent changed hands repeatedly through the Minrad → RXElite → Piramal Critical Care corporate chain and was repeatedly pledged as collateral (Fleet National Bank, Manufacturers and Traders Trust, KeyBank, First Niagara, Laminar Direct Capital), which tells you the asset's value lay in a security-interest schedule, not in an enforcement campaign. The absence of IPRs is explained partly by timing: AIA trials became available 2012-09-16, and the patent's 20-year term ran out 2013-03-11 — a window of under six months during which an IPR was even theoretically attractive. CBM review was never available (this is a surgical instrument, not a financial-product patent), and PGR was never available (a 1994 filing is nowhere near AIA first-inventor-to-file). A third party challenging these claims would have been attacking a patent with ~6 months of life left.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant and no proceedings exist: say so plainly and lead with expiration. The Board has never touched this patent. But the more dispositive fact is that US 5,417,684 expired on 2013-03-11 (the "Anticipated expiration" entry in the structured record; status "Expired – Lifetime" with no maintenance-fee lapse shown). Under Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, 576 U.S. 446 (2015), post-expiration royalties are unenforceable, and an expired patent cannot be infringed by conduct occurring after its term. If a demand letter cites claims 1–10 (or any claim), the first response is that the asserted right lapsed more than thirteen years ago. Confirm current fee/expiration status at PatentCenter and pull the certified copy before you put that in writing.
• Verify the claim structure before you quote claim numbers. As noted above, my public sources disagree on whether the patent's claims run to claim 10 or into the 40s. Cite only claim numbers you have confirmed against the official patent copy; a demand letter or invalidity contention that misnumbers claims is an own goal.
• Do not build a defense around anticipated PTAB rulings. There is no institution decision to await, no FWD due date, and no statutory § 316(a)(11) one-year clock running — because there is no trial. There are no PTAB trial-stage milestones to calendar. Any suggestion that a Board proceeding is "pending" or "expected" should be treated as inaccurate until a petition number actually appears, which you can check directly at USPTO PTAB E2E / PTAB Decisions and the PTAB public-information petition search.
• Caveat on the null set. My searches covered the ODP structured block supplied in the prompt plus general public web/PTAB-material searches. I did not have direct query access to the PTAB E2E docket for this patent number, so treat "no proceedings" as strongly supported but not exhaustively verified — a short manual docket search under the patent number at the two links above would close that gap in a few minutes. I found nothing to flag, and I am reporting no proceeding numbers because I found none.

I'll research the assignment records and corporate history before assembling the analysis.

Let me dig into the Minrad/RxElite/Piramal chain and the assignment reel/frame data.

Let me try to locate the actual reel/frame identifiers and check for any litigation involving this patent.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 5,417,684

Patent: Laparoscopic surgical grasper with a loop with gripping formations
App. No.: 08/290,006 (continuation of 08/029,445, filed 1993‑03‑11, now abandoned) — filed 1994‑08‑12, issued 1995‑05‑23
Status as of today: Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration 2013‑03‑11)

Sourcing caveat up front, and it is a material one. The USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) and the Assignment Search legacy UI (assignment.uspto.gov/patent) are JavaScript applications that I could not query directly, and no indexed mirror I could reach exposes the reel/frame numbers or the correspondent of record for this patent. Everything below is reconstructed from the Google Patents legal‑events table for US5417684A (which reports the same recorded-assignment events with dates and conveyance types but without reel/frame) plus SEC filings and contemporaneous trade press. I have not fabricated reel/frame numbers or correspondent names. Where a required field was unavailable, that is stated explicitly rather than guessed.

Inventors

• All three residences sit within ~20 miles of Wilson Greatbatch Ltd.'s Clarence, NY headquarters — consistent with a captive R&D team rather than outside inventors.
• The work was filed (1993) and continued (1994) before Greatbatch formally stood up the "Greatbatch Scientific" internal division in 1996, but the asset was carried in that division by the time of the 1998 sale. So the trio's output is best characterized as Greatbatch Scientific‑line engineering.
• Unusual pattern — team, not individuals, changed hands. I could not verify individual departure dates for any inventor, and I found no evidence of the classic "all inventors leave within 12 months of filing" pre‑fire‑sale tell. What is documented is the inverse and equally notable pattern: the entire Greatbatch Scientific division was sold to Minrad in August 1998 and, per Diagnostic Imaging (1998‑09‑02), "Greatbatch Scientific Division employees have been absorbed into Minrad." The inventors' work moved as a unit with the asset; there was no inventor‑level spinoff or abandonment.

Original assignee

Wilson Greatbatch Ltd. (Clarence, NY) — the entity named on the issued face of the patent and in the 1998 assignment records.

• Relationship to Google Patents: the "Original Assignee" field on the Google Patents record reads "Greatbatch Ltd," while the front-page/FreePatentsOnline record and the 1998 reassignment entries read "Wilson Greatbatch Ltd." These are the same company at different points in its corporate history — the name change is directly evidenced by USPTO record 2009‑02‑25, which literally names "GREATBATCH LTD. (F/K/A WILSON GREATBATCH LTD.)" as assignee of a security release.
• Primary line of business: implantable medical device power sources and components (the company founded by pacemaker inventor Wilson Greatbatch in 1970). Parent = Wilson Greatbatch Technologies, Inc., taken private in the July 1997 DLJ Merchant Banking‑led LBO, later Greatbatch, Inc., now Integer Holdings Corporation (NYSE: ITGR).
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? For the grasper specifically I found no commercial SKU. But the originating business unit did ship product: Greatbatch Scientific held roughly eight FDA 510(k) clearances for endoscopy and laryngoscopy products and had an MR‑compatible endoscopy system cleared by FDA in July 1998. Sales for the unit were de minimis (under $0.1M from July 1997 to August 1998).
• Current status: Wilson Greatbatch Ltd. survives as a Greatbatch/Integer subsidiary entity (the 2021 recording below still uses that name); the original assignee is operating, not dissolved or in bankruptcy.

Assignment timeline

Note on dates: the dates below are the recording dates reported in the Google Patents legal‑events table. Where an execution date differs or is documented, I say so. Reel/frame and correspondent fields were not retrievable (see sourcing caveat) and are marked NOT RETRIEVED rather than invented.

• 1997‑11‑12 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Wilson Greatbatch Ltd.
  • Assignee: Fleet National Bank
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization — patent collateral pledged under the credit facility supporting the July 1997 DLJ Merchant Banking LBO of Wilson Greatbatch Ltd. (Fleet National Bank was the Administrative Agent under the WGL credit agreement per the company's Form S‑1 exhibit index). No ownership change.

• 1998‑10‑15 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Wilson Greatbatch Ltd.
  • Assignee: Minrad Inc.
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Acquisition — first of a duplicate pair recording the sale of the Greatbatch Scientific division (closed August 1998) to Minrad.

• 1998‑10‑19 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Wilson Greatbatch Ltd.
  • Assignee: Minrad Inc.
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Acquisition — second record of the same August 1998 division sale; the 4‑day gap suggests an initial record plus a supplemental/corrective filing for the IP schedule, not two separate transactions. This is the only true ownership transfer in the chain. Consideration was reported by Greatbatch as ≈12% of Minrad's stock, valued at ~$2.4M.

• 2001‑01‑31 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Wilson Greatbatch Ltd.
  • Assignee: Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company (M&T)
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization — M&T was administrative agent under WGL's bank credit agreement (see the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated 2002‑07‑09 among Wilson Greatbatch Ltd., the lenders, and M&T as administrative agent). No ownership change.

• 2005‑12‑27 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Minrad, Inc.
  • Assignee: KeyBank National Association
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization — first recorded patent collateral pledge by Minrad as an independent company. No ownership change.

• 2007‑07‑26 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (later corrected — see 2007‑08‑08)
  • Assignor: Minrad Inc.
  • Assignee: First Niagara Bank
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization — mislabeled on first filing as an outright assignment. Data‑quality flag.

• 2007‑08‑07 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: KeyBank National Association
  • Assignee: Minrad Inc.
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization housekeeping — KeyBank collateral released as First Niagara replaced it. No ownership change.

• 2007‑08‑08 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment (nature of conveyance corrected from Assignment to Security Agreement; collateral assignment of patents confirmed)
  • Assignor: Minrad Inc.
  • Assignee: First Niagara Bank
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization correction — confirms the 2007‑07‑26 entry was never an ownership transfer.

• 2008‑02‑25 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Notice of Grant of Security Interest
  • Assignor: Minrad Inc.
  • Assignee: Laminar Direct Capital L.P., as Agent
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization — short‑term secured facility during Minrad's deterioration. No ownership change.

• 2008‑05‑23 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Termination of Security Interest in Patents
  • Assignor: Laminar Direct Capital, L.P.
  • Assignee: Minrad Inc.
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization — Laminar's interest extinguished within 3 months of recording; a revolving/short‑duration lien typical of bridge financing into a distressed balance sheet.

• 2008‑12‑16 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: First Niagara Bank
  • Assignee: Minrad Inc.
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization — First Niagara collateral released as the Piramal transaction restructured Minrad's debt. No ownership change.

• 2008‑12‑22 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Bank of America, N.A. (as successor by merger to Fleet National Bank)
  • Assignee: Minrad Inc., as successor to Wilson Greatbatch Ltd.
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization cleanup — closes the 1997 Fleet lien. The assignee recital is independently significant: it is USPTO‑recorded confirmation that Minrad succeeded to the Wilson Greatbatch Scientific IP, including this patent.

• 2009‑02‑25 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company
  • Assignee: Greatbatch Ltd. (f/k/a Wilson Greatbatch Ltd.)
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization cleanup — closes the 2001 M&T lien against the former parent.

• 2012‑02‑22 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Merger and Change of Name
  • Assignors: Minrad Inc. and RxElite Holdings Inc.
  • Assignee: Piramal Critical Care, Inc.
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Acquisition — recording of the Piramal Healthcare Limited transactions: Minrad International merged into a Piramal subsidiary (announced 2008‑12‑22; closed March 2009 at $0.12/share; ~$40M total consideration including purchase of the 8% Senior Secured Convertible Notes), and Piramal separately bought 100% of RxElite Holdings, Inc. for ~$4.2M cash (announced 2009‑01‑28).

• 2013‑03‑11 — anticipated expiration (patent term ended)

• 2021‑11‑22 (recorded) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company
  • Assignee: Wilson Greatbatch Ltd.
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Anomaly. A second release of the same 2001 M&T security interest, recorded ~8 years after the patent's 2013‑03‑11 expiration and ~12 years after the first release at 2009‑02‑25. Late‑filed housekeeping/corrective recording; likely a portfolio‑wide blanket release. Two observations follow: (a) it uses the pre‑2009 entity name "Wilson Greatbatch Ltd." rather than the "Greatbatch Ltd." name used in 2009; (b) it is a non‑ownership record and does not disturb the chain. Flag as unclear, non‑material.

Bottom line on the chain: there is exactly one substantive ownership transfer in the entire record — Wilson Greatbatch Ltd. → Minrad Inc. in 1998 — plus one merger‑and‑name‑change recording in 2012 giving Piramal Critical Care, Inc. Every other entry is a security interest, release, or correction.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 5417684
    1993 : Priority application filed
    1994 : Continuation filed
    1995 : Patent issued to Wilson Greatbatch
    1997 : Fleet National Bank security deal
    1998 : Greatbatch Scientific sold to Minrad
         : Greatbatch gets about 12 percent of Minrad
    2001 : M and T Trust security interest
    2005 : KeyBank security agreement
    2007 : First Niagara security agreement
         : KeyBank lien released and corrected
    2008 : Laminar security interest recorded
         : Minrad agrees to Piramal merger
         : Fleet and First Niagara liens released
    2009 : Piramal closes Minrad and RxElite buys
    2012 : Merger recorded to Piramal Critical Care
    2013 : Patent expires
    2021 : Late release of M and T interest

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT.
There is no transfer to a licensing‑only vehicle anywhere in the chain. The single ownership transfer (1998‑10‑15 and 1998‑10‑19, Wilson Greatbatch Ltd. → Minrad Inc.) moved the patent to Minrad Inc., a then‑operating medical device company in Orchard Park/Buffalo, NY that manufactured and sold image‑guided surgery instruments and, after December 2000, generic inhalation anesthetics from a Bethlehem, PA plant. The 2012 termination of the chain is at Piramal Critical Care, Inc., the U.S. operating arm of Piramal Enterprises Ltd. No name carrying an "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" suffix appears as an owner, and no registered‑agent service address appears in any ownership record. (The one "Holdings" entity in the chain, RxElite Holdings Inc., appears only as a co‑assignor in the 2012 merger recording and was an operating gas‑distribution business bought for ~$4.2M — not a shell.)

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT.
No assignee or assignor at any point matches the reference lists: not Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, nor any Spangenberg entity. Adjudicated negatively, not merely unchecked: the 2012 terminus is Piramal Critical Care, Inc., and the 1998 assignee is Minrad Inc./Minrad International, Inc. (AMEX: BUF), whose only litigated patent matter I could identify was defensive — Minrad was the defendant in Baxter's Hatch‑Waxman suits over U.S. 5,617,906 concerning desflurane (D. Del. C.A. No. 09‑054 GMS, filed 2009‑01‑23).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNABLE TO ASSESS.
The correspondent of record for each recording was not retrievable from any source I could reach; the Google Patents legal‑events table for this patent omits it and the Assignment Center UI was not queryable. I will not infer a firm. Required to close this out: pull the correspondent field for each of the 15 entries above directly from assignmentcenter.uspto.gov and compare against Unified Patents / RPX / Patent Progress assertion lists. Predictively, I would expect a Greatbatch/Integer‑side corporate firm on the 1997–2009 Greatbatch entries and a Minrad‑era firm on the 2005–2008 Minrad entries — the 2008 Minrad proxy statement names Hodgson Russ LLP as Minrad's M&A counsel and Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP for the noteholders — but that is inference from deal counsel, not from any recorded correspondent field, and I flag it as such.

4. Cascading transfers through chained LLCs in <24 months — NOT PRESENT.
The 2007‑07‑26 / 2008‑02‑25 / 2008‑12‑16 cluster looks dense on a list, but every entry in it is a security interest or release, and the 2007‑08‑08 corrective assignment explicitly recharacterizes the 2007‑07‑26 record from Assignment to Security Agreement. The 1998‑10‑15/1998‑10‑19 pair are two records of a single transaction four days apart — one seller, one buyer, no chained intermediates. The 2012 recording is a merger, not a daisy chain. No two assignees in this chain share a correspondent address or common principals.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT.
No infringement suit naming US 5,417,684 was found in the sources I could reach, so there is no litigation date for a transfer to precede. The only transfer (1998) predates any conceivable suit by 15 years, and the 2012 merger recording is ~28 years removed and was a corporate reorganization of a $40M operating acquisition.

6. Bankruptcy fire‑sale — UNCLEAR, leaning present‑in‑substance but not in form.
Minrad International, Inc. was in acute distress through 2008: an NYSE Alternext delisting notice on 2008‑12‑11, an $8M 8% Senior Secured Convertible Note stack whose holders held a $48M change‑of‑control put the company could not fund, a $12M Piramal bridge loan signed concurrently with the merger agreement, and a board that expressly weighed filing for bankruptcy protection before choosing the merger at $0.12/share. The patent exited via that distressed $40M sale. However, I found no confirmation that a Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 petition was ever filed — the proxy statement discussed bankruptcy as the rejected alternative, not a completed event. Per the constraints, I do not upgrade distress to bankruptcy without a docket. Marked unclear because the economic character is a fire‑sale while the legal form is a solvent merger.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
No operating company transferred this patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf. The closest analogue — Greatbatch taking a ~10–12% equity stake in the acquirer — is a standard seller‑note/rollover in an asset divestiture (Greatbatch wrote the investment down by $0.9M in 1999), not a covert assertion vehicle, and no assertion followed.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at Piramal Critical Care, Inc. The patent simply expired on 2013‑03‑11, which neutralizes it by operation of law rather than by aggregation.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Strictly applied, one prong of the label is unmet and I want that on the record: I found no infringement suit naming US 5,417,684, so there is no "assertion" to point to. Selecting among the five buckets, this is nonetheless the only one that describes the actual fact pattern — a patent held continuously by operating companies, with a single genuine ownership transfer at the 1998 Greatbatch Scientific division sale (recorded 1998‑10‑15 and 1998‑10‑19, Wilson Greatbatch Ltd. → Minrad Inc., ~12% of Minrad's stock, ~$2.4M) and a single merger recording in 2012 (recorded 2012‑02‑22, Minrad Inc. and RxElite Holdings Inc. → Piramal Critical Care, Inc.) following Piramal's $40M distressed purchase of Minrad at $0.12/share. There are zero NPE indicators across all eight signal categories: no shell vehicle, no listed asserter, no LLC cascade, no pre‑suit transfer, no privateering. The 2007–2008 density in the record is an artifact of secured lending, not ownership churn — the recorder itself corrected the 2007‑07‑26 entry from Assignment to Security Agreement at 2007‑08‑08. The patent expired 2013‑03‑11 and is a dead asset today.

Two open items I could not close, stated plainly rather than filled in:

1. Reel/frame numbers for all 15 entries — not retrievable from the sources I could reach; must be pulled from assignmentcenter.uspto.gov by patent number 5417684.
2. Correspondent of record for all 15 entries — likewise unavailable, which is precisely the field that makes signal #3 (repeat correspondent) decidable. Signal #3 remains unable to assess, not "not present."

Verify at:

• USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 5417684)
• USPTO Patent Assignment Search (legacy index) — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events used as the date/conveyance source — https://patents.google.com/patent/US5417684/en

Corroborating sources for the corporate narrative: Greatbatch/Wilson Greatbatch Technologies Form S‑1 and 10‑K disclosures (d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001114483/...) on the August 1998 Greatbatch Scientific asset sale for ~12% of the acquirer's stock valued at $2.4M, the affiliation with the 1997 DLJ Merchant Banking LBO, and the M&T administrative‑agency credit agreement; Diagnostic Imaging, 1998‑09‑02, on Minrad's acquisition of the division and absorption of its employees; Minrad International DEFM14A (2008) on the delisting notice, noteholder put, and $0.12/share Piramal merger; Piramal Healthcare press release, 2009‑01‑28, on the RxElite Holdings acquisition.

I'll research US patent 5417684 and its citations. Let me search for authoritative information.

Let me get the specific "Patent Citations" and "Cited By" tables from the patent's Google Patents page.

Let me retrieve the actual "References Cited" section from Justia and Google Patents for this specific patent.

Research Findings — US 5,417,684

1. Confirmation of the patent (interpreted literally)

Sources: Google Patents US5417684A (https://patents.google.com/patent/US5417684A/en); Justia (https://patents.justia.com/patent/5417684).

2. Important caveat on sourcing

The searches I ran returned the full specification text (authoritative, supplied in your message), the "Cited By" (forward-citation) tables, and classification data — but they did not return the verbatim face-page "References Cited / U.S. Patent Documents" table (examiner's PTO‑1449 list) for this specific patent. I will therefore not fabricate that table. What follows are the prior-art references expressly identified as prior art in the '684 specification itself (the "PRIOR ART" and background discussion). These are the citations the applicant/patent identifies for this document. If you need the examiner's formal PTO‑1449 list (which can differ slightly and may include art not discussed in the body), that must be pulled from the official USPTO PatentCenter file wrapper for US 08/290,006 — I could not verify it from the sources retrieved.

3. Prior art cited in US 5,417,684

(A) U.S. Pat. No. 5,163,942 — Rydell

• Citation as stated in the patent: "U.S. Pat. No. 5,163,942 to Rydell."
• Date: I did not independently verify the exact issue date; the specification treats it as prior art relative to the 1993-03-11 priority date. (Flagged as unverified.)
• Description (per the '684 specification): a grasper device with an adjustable loop at the distal end of a tube; the loop is a belt ~0.125 inch wide or a cord/fine cable of generally circular cross-section; the loop's proximal ends join a slide assembly with a thumb loop on a finger-grip handle; loop size is adjusted by thumb motion (distal/proximal slide travel), which the patent says "greatly limits the size adjustment." The belt has a serrated or toughened gripping surface, not openings.
• Potential § 102 relevance: This is the closest art to the broad concept of an adjustable-loop grasper on a tube. It could arguably support § 102 anticipation of the broadest apparatus and method claims to "an adjustable loop grasper manipulable from a remote location" but for the distinct limitations the patent adds, namely (i) the recessed/opening gripping formation facing inwardly of the loop (claim 1's ability of moist tissue to "push up into the recessed formation," and method steps in claim 60), and (ii) sealing means sealing around the strap inside the tube (claim 1 element (d) of the disposable/kit claims, e.g., claim 57). Because it admittedly lacks those elements, Rydell does not appear to anticipate claim 1 or claim 57 as a whole. It is best characterized as a § 102/§ 103 reference against any claim not reciting the recessed-formation and seal elements.

(B) U.S. Pat. No. 4,592,355 — Antebi

• Citation: "U.S. Pat. No. 4,592,355 to Antebi."
• Date: treated as prior art (well before 1993); exact issue date not verified in retrieved sources.
• Description (per the specification): an instrument to tie live tissue; a flexible strap loops around tissue and inserts into a head member; teeth on the strap engage a pawl in the head to prevent the loop from reopening; described as useful for ligating hemorrhoidal tissue; once tightened, the loop cannot be loosened.
• Potential § 102 relevance: This discloses a flexible strap that loops around tissue with strap-on-strap/on-pawl engaging formations providing non-slip holding, and a one-way locking function. It could be argued to anticipate any claim broadly directed to "a flexible strap looped about tissue with formations preventing the tightened loop from releasing." It would not anticipate claim 1 because it lacks the conduit tube, the remote manipulative means, and the seal; and its teeth are the opposite of the "atraumatic" recessed formation claimed.

(C) U.S. Pat. No. 3,828,790 — Curtiss et al

• Citation: "U.S. Pat. No. 3,828,790 to Curtiss et al."
• Date: treated as prior art (pre-1993); exact issue date not verified in retrieved sources.
• Description (per the specification): described as being useful for removing polyps formed in the colon (a snare-type device).
• Potential § 102 relevance: Pertinent only to the generic "loop/snare with formations for capturing tissue" concept. Given the different field (colon polypectomy), it would at most be a § 102 background reference for very broad claim language, and it does not disclose the grasper/handle/seal combination of claim 1 or the recessed gripping formation.

(D) "Snare" patent family cited generally

• Citations as stated: U.S. Pat. Nos. 480,870; 668,647; 1,461,864; 1,470,914; 2,054,149; 3,181,533; and 5,084,054.
• Description (per the specification): "numerous snare devices that are useful for cutting tissue and removing malignant growths."
• Dates: All are pre-1993 (the earliest are 19th/early‑20th century numbers), so each is a facially available § 102(a)/(b) reference; I did not verify individual issue dates from the retrieved sources and will not guess them.
• Potential § 102 relevance: These are the classic "snare loop" art. They are relevant to claims reciting a loop that closes around tissue, but none discloses the laparoscopic grasper combination — a hand-held tube, a wide flexible strap (width substantially greater than thickness), an anti-rotation guide, a seal, and an inwardly facing recessed gripping formation. They therefore should not anticipate claim 1, claim 57 (disposable kit), or claim 60 (method); they are best treated as general-background (§ 102(b)/§ 103 context) art for the loop/snare concept.

(E) Non-patent literature cited

• Ponsky and Mellinger, Surgical Endoscopy (1991) 5:57–58 — described in the patent as a procedure for infundibular retraction of the gall bladder during laparoscopic cholecystectomy using a standard oval endoscopic polypectomy snare (Bard Interventional Products); the patent notes forceps are needed to pull the infundibulum into the snare and that this "can cause trauma to the held organ."
• Henning and Seuberth, Endoscopy 20 (1988) 70–72, "Endoscopic Removal of Foreign Bodies Using a Newly Developed Extractor" — an extractor with two narrow steel bands with tiny studs to snare foreign objects in the esophagus/stomach; the patent notes it is not described as useful for manipulating organs in the lower abdomen.
• Dates: both published before the 1993-03-11 priority date (1988 and 1991), so both are facially available as § 102(b) printed publications.
• Potential § 102 relevance: These printed publications are relevant as § 102(b) art to any claim broadly covering snare-band tissue capture with protruding studs/gripping elements. They do not disclose the claimed conduit + strap + seal + recessed inward-facing gripping formation, so they do not anticipate claim 1 as a whole.

4. Bottom line on anticipation

• No reference in the '684 specification fully anticipates independent claim 1, independent kit claim 57, or independent method claim 60 as literally written, because each of those claims requires the combination of (a) an elongated conduit/tube with handle, (b) a flexible strap whose width is substantially greater than its thickness doubled back into a loop having a recessed formation extending at least part way through the strap thickness and facing inwardly so moist tissue bulges into it, (c) a guide preventing strap rotation, and (d) a seal allowing strap movement. The cited art individually lacks at least one of these elements.
• The most legally significant cited reference is US 5,163,942 (Rydell) — it is the same genre (adjustable-loop grasper on a tube) and is the reference the patent works hardest to distinguish. It is the strongest candidate for a § 102/§ 103 challenge to any claim not reciting the recessed-formation and seal features.
• US 4,592,355 (Antebi) is the strongest on the "flexible strap looped around tissue with non-slip formations" concept, and US 3,828,790 (Curtiss) and the older snare patents (480,870; 668,647; 1,461,864; 1,470,914; 2,054,149; 3,181,533; 5,084,054) plus the Ponsky/Mellinger and Henning/Seuberth publications are § 102(b) background art for the loop/snare idea only.

5. Verification steps I recommend

If a definitive, citation-by-citation § 102 mapping is required (as in an invalidity/validity opinion), obtain the official PTO‑1449 "References Cited" list and the examiner's Notice of References Cited from the USPTO PatentCenter file wrapper for application 08/290,006 (US 5,417,684), since the exact examiner-cited set and the specific dates I flagged as "unverified" (Rydell '942, Antebi '355, Curtiss '790, and the seven snare patents) must be confirmed from the face of each document rather than from the specification narrative. I was not able to retrieve that formal list verbatim from the sources available, and I have deliberately not supplied issue dates I could not confirm.

I'll ground this analysis by pulling the actual claim language and verifying the cited prior-art references.

Let me verify what the two most important cited references (Antebi and Rydell) actually disclose.

Analytical posture

Patent under review: US 5,417,684 A ("Laparoscopic surgical grasper with a loop with gripping formations"), Jackson, Belstadt & Putt, filed 1994‑08‑12 as a continuation of Ser. No. 08/029,445 filed 1993‑03‑11, granted 1995‑05‑23, expired 2013‑03‑11 (source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5417684A](/patent/US5417684A)/en).

Legal framework applied: 35 U.S.C. §103 as construed under Graham v. John Deere (scope/content, differences, PHOSITA level, secondary considerations) and KSR Int'l v. Teleflex (predictable results; known technique applied to a known device ready for improvement; design incentives and market demand; "obvious to try"). I use MPEP 2143 groupings and note that the teaching–suggestion–motivation can come from the nature of the problem, the express teachings of the art, or ordinary creativity.

Statutory status of the references. Every reference in the patent's own PRIOR ART section pre‑dates the 1993‑03‑11 priority date, so all are §102(b) art: Rydell US 5,163,942 (issued 1992‑11‑17), Antebi US 4,592,355 (1986‑06‑03), Curtiss et al. US 3,828,790 (1974‑08‑13), Hennig & Seuberth, Endoscopy 20 (1988) 70–72, Ponsky & Mellinger, Surg. Endosc. (1991) 5:57–58, and snare patents US 480,870 (1892), 668,647 (1901), 1,461,864 (1923), 1,470,914 (1923), 2,054,149 (1936), 3,181,533 (1965), 5,084,054 (1992).

PHOSITA: a mechanical or biomedical engineer with a bachelor's degree and roughly 2–4 years' experience developing endoscopic/laparoscopic instruments, or a surgeon‑instrument developer, familiar with the snare, grasper, tissue‑ligator and trocar/cannula arts, and with polymer selection (acetal) for single‑use instruments.

Scope caution: I have only the '684 claim set and specification as supplied; I do not have its file history, the examiner's cited art, or the full texts of the seven older snare patents (US 480,870; 668,647; 1,461,864; 1,470,914; 2,054,149; 3,181,533; 5,084,054). My characterization of those is limited to what the '684 specification says (snare devices for cutting tissue and removing malignant growths). One reference that surfaced in searching, US 3,955,578 (Chamness), is not on the '684 face and I do not rely on it.

What the claims actually require

Independent claim 1 requires, in substance:

• (a) conduit/handle — an elongated tube with an inside passage, proximal portion serving as handle, distal portion insertable through a cannula into the cavity and manipulable from outside;
• (b) a flexible flat strap (width and thickness) received in the passage, whose thickness runs between a continuous inner surface and an outer surface, with at least one recessed formation formed into the thickness from the inner surface, extending toward the outer surface to a depth "at least intermediate" the two surfaces, located between first and second strap sections; the strap doubled back on itself to define a loop at the distal end, both sections running back through the passage in movable relationship;
• (c) manipulative means operable from outside to change loop size, the loop being flexible in a plane normal to the strap width but having relative rigidity perpendicular to that plane, the loop being opened, placed around the organ and tightened; and the recessed formation facing inwardly so that moist tissue pushes up into it to keep the tightened loop from releasing.

Other independents are variants: claim 33 (guide means + sealing means), 39 (single‑throw with sealing + locking), 41 (recessed formation + sealing), 47 (opposed loop portions collapsed against the conduit's distal end), 54 (elongated manipulator sealing in a closely‑spaced sliding fit), 57 (disposable device), 60 (method), and 64 (edge notches/scallops). Practically, the claim family reduces to five recurring technical themes: (i) flat strap loop with a recessed traction formation; (ii) relative rigidity normal to the loop plane; (iii) anti‑rotation guide; (iv) locking means; (v) gas/fluid seal.

Combination 1 — Rydell + Curtiss + Antebi (claims 1–2, 41, 47, 64 and depending claims)

Rydell (US 5,163,942) is the closest art and supplies elements (a) and (b) almost entirely. The patent itself concedes Rydell has "a loop of an adjustable size provided at the distal end of a tube," "a belt approximately 0.125 inch wide," a slide assembly with a thumb loop on a handle with a finger grip, and a slide moved distally/proximally to expand/close the loop. Rydell also discloses a slot in the instrument frame allowing that displacement, a rotator assembly (knob 146 driving pinion 208 and racks 204/206) for rotating the loop, and a detent tooth 218 engaging a serrated edge 220 to hold loop size; the Rydell disclosure also refers to "notches or roughened surface on the belt" (see the excerpt surfaced at https://companyprofiles.justatic.com/patent/[5163942](/patent/5163942) and https://uspto.report/patent/grant/5163942). All of that is the single‑throw architecture of claims 1–2 and the drive‑rod/collar architecture of claims 3–6 and 30–32.

Curtiss (US 3,828,790) supplies element (c)'s rigidity limitation verbatim in substance. Curtiss claims an operating loop "having substantially greater flexibility in the direction parallel to its plane when open than normal thereto," and explains that its core member is a flat ribbon "thick enough to provide the required strength," oriented with its shorter dimension parallel to the plane of the loop, so that the loop is "highly flexible in a plane parallel to the rest plane of the loop, while being relatively rigid normal to the loop." Curtiss is also an express teaching on the anti‑rotation theme: its lead is "substantially circular in cross section so that when the lead is flexed in use, the snare operating loop is not caused to rotate" (https://patents.google.com/patent/US3828790). That maps onto claim 1's "relative rigidity perpendicular to the plane" and onto claims 7–9/35/45/62 (guide means preventing strap rotation about its longitudinal axis).

Antebi (US 4,592,355) supplies the one feature the '684 patent treats as its point of novelty — the atraumatic recessed gripping formation. Antebi's tie is "a strap with teeth having an apertured head at one end," threaded through the head and locked by a pawl, placed around live tissue and tightened by pulling the strap; and, critically, Antebi claim 3 recites: "wherein the serrations of teeth of said strap are recessed into the body of said strap so as to guard against the serrations ripping the live tissue" (https://FreePatentsOnline.com/[4592355](/patent/4592355).html; see also the EP counterpart text at https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/c1/76/23/888399c5c02d4d/EP0117981A2.pdf, which states the loop "is prevented from opening by the engagement of the teeth with the pawl" and that the strap is tightened by pulling it through the head). Antebi also supplies a rod movable inside a tubular extension, with a handle, to pull the strap and tighten the loop — i.e., remote manipulation of a doubled‑back tissue‑encircling strap.

Why the combination is motivated (KSR/MPEP 2143):

1. Same field, same problem, same solution type. All three are surgical instruments that encircle tissue with a flexible band and constrict it. Rydell's own stated object is grasping/manipulating an organ; Antebi's is tying live tissue; Curtiss's is snaring tissue. KSR holds that combining elements of prior art according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious where the references address the same problem.
2. The '684 specification itself supplies the motivation. It states the need for a strap that "should atraumatically grip the body organ or tissue in a manner preventing the tightened loop from slipping off." Antebi expressly solves exactly that problem — recessed serrations "to guard against the serrations ripping the live tissue." Applying Antebi's recessed‑tooth geometry to Rydell's belt is the application of a known technique (recessed traction features on a tissue‑encircling strap) to a known device (a laparoscopic belt‑loop grasper) ready for improvement, with a reasonable expectation of success — which is the KSR paradigm.
3. Predictable result / no unexpected result. The claims recite no critical dimension, angle, material, or ratio for the recess other than "at least intermediate" the thickness. Deeper/shallower recesses producing more/less tissue intrusion is a matter of degree, and the alleged benefit (moist tissue pushing into the recess) is the inherent consequence of placing an aperture or cavity against compressible tissue under tension. Absent a nexus‑bearing showing of criticality, this is a design choice.
4. Antebi undercuts the "trauma" distinction. The '684 patent criticizes Rydell because a "serrated or toughened gripping surface… could result in trauma to the gripped organ tissue." But Antebi had already taught making such formations recessed precisely to avoid tissue trauma. A PHOSITA reading Rydell's trauma concern has an express, one‑step answer in Antebi.

Result: claims 1, 2, 41, 47 and 64, together with their dependent recess‑geometry claims 27–29, 38, 42, 44, 48, 56 and method claims 60–62, are, in my assessment, strong candidates for a §103 rejection on Rydell in view of Curtiss and Antebi.

Combination 2 — Rydell + Curtiss (+ Antebi) for the drive‑rod, collar and anti‑rotation sub‑claims

• Claims 3–6 and 30–32 (drive rod/collar/pin connection). Rydell's slide‑member plate joined to the belt and mounted for axial travel in a frame slot is a drive means with a collar‑like slider; Rydell's rotator knob (pinion 208/racks 204, 206) with rotation on the slider is the claimed "rotational movement of the collar and the drive rod as a unit." Curtiss supplies the lead‑plus‑thumb/finger‑grip actuation architecture. Using a pin‑and‑slot or keyed joint to couple a slider to a rod is a routine mechanical expedient with predictable results.
• Claim 5's "infinite number of annular locations" locking. Rydell's rotatable knob (and its detent/leaf‑spring lock) discloses placing the locking/actuation element at any angular position, albeit implemented as rotation of the loop rather than of a collar. Substituting an annular groove in a collar for Rydell's rack/pinion coupling is an obvious alternative arrangement.
• Claims 7–12, 35, 45, 57(c), 62 (guide means/anti‑rotation). Curtiss's express teaching that a circular lead cross‑section prevents loop rotation, combined with Rydell's belt channel (channel 256 between void 254 and tubular member 258), renders an orientation‑constraining guide obvious. Claims 10–12's three irregularly spaced lugs/slots are a conventional keying expedient (anti‑rotation key/keyway) with the predictable result of a single permissible mounting orientation.

Combination 3 — Rydell (+ conventional mechanical expedients) for the locking claims (13–21, 37, 39, 46, 53, 55, 59, 63)

Rydell expressly discloses a detent tooth engaging a serrated edge to hold the slide, plus leaf springs — which is the claimed "ratchet lock" of claims 19–21 in substance (first member with ratchet teeth, second member mating, biasing means, release). Rydell's thumb‑operated slider is likewise the claimed slide‑lock and cam‑lever families of claims 16–18. Screw‑clamp and collet clamping of a rod or strap are ubiquitous mechanical expedients; notably, the '684 specification itself presents the collet‑and‑collar lock (FIGS. 31–32) as merely one of several interchangeable options, and states that the various locking means are alternative embodiments useful with the same device — an admission that the choice among them is a matter of design preference. On that record, claims 13–21 are the weakest in the patent and would likely fall to Rydell alone or Rydell in view of the ordinary skill in mechanical clamping.

Combination 4 — Rydell + Moll (US 4,654,030) + Ponsky/Mellinger for the sealing claims (22–26, 33, 39, 41, 50, 51, 54, 57(d))

The '684 specification expressly incorporates by reference US 4,654,030 to Moll et al. for "a more detailed description of such a trocar device and its use" — and the front‑page reference list confirms Moll et al., US 4,654,030, March 1987. A trocar/cannula of that class necessarily embodies a seal that permits an instrument to pass and slide while retaining insufflation gas. Ponsky & Mellinger (cited in the '684 PRIOR ART section) teaches performing infundibular retraction during laparoscopic cholecystectomy using a standard polypectomy snare through laparoscopic access in the insufflated abdomen, which is the very environment in which gas containment is required. The '684 patent also admits that Rydell "does not provide for sealing the belt inside the tube so that gases and fluids present inside the body cavity are not prevented from escaping."

Motivation: the problem (loss of pneumoperitoneum through an open instrument lumen) and its solution (a septum/diaphragm/slit seal or O‑ring around the sliding member) are both well known in the cannula and trocar art, and the '684 patent's own "closely spaced sliding fit" alternative in claims 23 and 54 is expressly a design choice rather than an inventive step. KSR makes short work of "seal the leaky passage with the seal known in this art."

Where a genuine §103 attack is weakest

I should be candid about the limits:

• Claim 57 (disposable kit) and claims 10–12, 39–44 (removable guide). These depend on structure (bayonet‑type locking lug/tang, disposable molded guide). The prior art of record is thinner here. Antebi shows a head held in a fork/detent‑type holder, and the '684 specification itself supplies the disposability rationale (cost; the guide, strap and seal "are more susceptible to wear… and need to be replaced after every procedure"), and cites the off‑the‑shelf Bard polypectomy snare as the ordinary single‑use instrument. Disposability with a reusable handle is a familiar commercial design choice, but if the patentee could show nexus‑bearing commercial success or an unexpected simplification, this is where the argument would live.
• Claim 47's "opposed surfaces on the conduit" collapse mechanism and claim 54's keyway‑seal‑and‑rotate architecture are more specific mechanical arrangements whose obviousness over the listed art is less clear‑cut; I would want the 5,084,054 (Bencini et al.) and 5,106,369/5,108,406/5,123,906/5,171,314 snare/loop documents examined in full before asserting a confident conclusion.

Non‑obviousness arguments the patentee would likely raise, and my assessment

1. "Rydell teaches away because its gripping surface is traumatic." Weak. Rydell does not disparage a flat belt, and Antebi expressly teaches recessed, non‑ripping traction formations; the art points toward, not away from, the claimed structure.
2. "Rydell's thumb‑slide limits loop travel." Not recited in claim 1, and Rydell's alternative handle (FIG. 9) uses a rack; moreover, use of the strap itself as the manipulative means is expressly claimed as an alternative in claim 2.
3. "Unexpected result — moisture escapes and tissue pushes in." This is the inherent consequence of placing an aperture against moist, compressed tissue; to be probative it needs a comparative showing of a result that would not have been expected, which the specification does not supply.
4. "Long‑felt need for an atraumatic laparoscopic grasper." Cut against by the density of contemporaneous art in this exact field — Ponsky & Mellinger (1991), Hennig & Seuberth (1988), Rydell (1992) — and by the '684 specification's own framing of the field as one of "rapid development." The specification's acknowledgment of rapid, incremental advance in the art tends to support obviousness rather than rebut it.
5. Hennig & Seuberth alternative. Their extractor's "two narrow steel bands with tiny studs" shows band‑loop gripping features, but studs are projections, whereas claims 1/41/64 require recessed formations/notches. This reference therefore supports "traction features on a looped band are known" but does not itself disclose the claimed recess; it is best used as corroborating the general knowledge, with Antebi carrying the recessed‑formation teaching.

Bottom line

The core insight is that the '684 claims are a combination of three known expedients in a crowded art: Rydell's laparoscopic tube‑and‑belt adjustable loop, Curtiss's ribbon loop that is flexible in its plane and rigid normal to it, and Antebi's tissue‑encircling strap with traction formations recessed into the strap body to avoid ripping tissue. Each reference is directed to the same problem the '684 patent addresses (atraumatically encircling and holding tissue), each supplies a discrete claimed element, and the combination produces nothing more than the predictable sum of its parts. On that record, the §103 case is strong, with the residual uncertainty concentrated in the disposability/guide‑mounting claims (10–12, 39–44, 57) and the opposed‑surface collapse architecture of claims 47–56.

If you would like, I can (a) pull the full texts of US 5,084,054, 5,106,369, 5,108,406, 5,123,906 and 5,171,314 to firm up the disposable‑guide and collapse‑loop claims, or (b) re‑run the analysis in formal MPEP 2143 format with a claim‑chart exhibit for a selected independent claim.