US 5467102

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number, including any 2026 litigation activity.

Let me run additional targeted searches for litigation and 2026 appellate activity.

Summary of U.S. Patent No. 5,467,102

Note on scope of search: I did NOT find any 2026 CAFC docket activity, or indeed any litigation at all, involving U.S. Patent 5,467,102. My searches returned only patent-database records, citation records, and unrelated 2026 CAFC news (e.g., the Taction Technology v. Apple haptics verdict, which concerns U.S. Patent Nos. 10,659,885 and 10,820,117 — not this patent). I could not access a live USPTO PatentCenter/PTAB or CAFC docket feed directly; my searches relied on web-indexed patent databases (Google Patents, uspto.report, FreePatentsOnline) and third-party patent citations. So I cannot rule out the existence of a docket entry that isn't web-indexed, but I found no evidence of any. Treat "no litigation found" as a search result, not a certification.

The patent is also expired. Google Patents lists its anticipated expiration as 2013-08-31, with legal status "Expired – Lifetime," and it is well past its term.

---

Bibliographic Data

Abstract

"A portable display device capable of presenting a document in an easy to read format, in which a simultaneous display of different parts of the document in reasonable sizes can be made, by a simple operation of the device. The display device comprises a document memory for storing documents to be displayed, at least two display screens for displaying the documents stored in the document memory means, and a display control unit for controlling displays of the documents on the display screens to be in a linked mode in which the displays on the display screens are linked together and in a separate mode in which the displays on the display screens are independent from each other."

Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

Claim 1 (device). A display device with three elements: (a) document memory storing documents to display; (b) at least two display screens; and (c) a display control unit that runs the screens in either of two selectable modes:

• a linked mode, where the screens are tied together to show consecutive pages of a document, and
• a separate mode, where the screens operate independently so that any page can be put on any screen.

The walk-in-the-door novelty here is the final limitation: the linked mode is itself subdivided into

• an "all sides switching" mode — every displayed page changes simultaneously to another page, and
• a "one side switching" mode — only one screen's page changes at a time while the others stay unchanged.

Claim 21 (device, reworded structurally). Substantively the same invention as claim 1, but drafted in less "means-plus-function" language: a memory, at least two display screens coupled to the memory, and a display control unit coupled to both. The screens are in one of a linked mode (screens linked to show consecutive pages) or separate mode (screens change independently, any page on any screen), and in the linked mode are further in either all-sides switching (all screens change simultaneously) or one-side switching (only one screen changes at a given time).

Claim 22 (method). A method of displaying stored documents on multiple screens, with steps: (1) control the screens via a control unit to be in a linked mode (all screens linked to display consecutive pages) or a separate mode (screens change independently, any page on any screen); (2) when in linked mode, further control the screens to be in an all-sides switching mode (all screens change simultaneously) or a one-side switching mode (only one screen changes at a given time); (3) display the stored documents; and (4) change the displays according to the selected mode.

Dependent-Claim Highlights (context for the independent claims)

The dependent claims add: a widened "single display" spanning both screens (cl. 2), automatically triggered by a code in the document data (cl. 3); border treatment — shifting displayed content so small letters don't fall on the seam between screens, including parallel shifting of the whole content (cl. 5) or of an isolated letter series (cl. 6), only when letters are below a prescribed size (cl. 7), with the shifted result stored back into memory (cl. 8); foldability face-to-face and back-to-back (cl. 9) with automatic inactivation of the back screen (cl. 10); per-screen on/off control (cl. 11); mode-selection UI (cl. 12–13); password/secret protection (cl. 14); on-screen soft keyboard command input (cl. 15); enlargement of a portion of one screen onto the other (cl. 16); thumbnails/contracted page list on one screen driving full-size display on the other (cl. 17); and handwriting/pen input with annotation stored in relation to document content (cl. 18–20).

Practical/Prosecution Note

The patent is a two-screen electronic-book "spread" concept. Its specification (Aug. 1992 priority) predates most of the modern e-reader art, and it shows up frequently as an X-category prior-art citation against later two-screen display applications — e.g., it was cited as "X" against WO 98/21665, against the Sony multi-display EP 0 898 223 art, and it appears in search reports for GB 2 345 558 (portable electronic book reader) and in the EP 1 630 989 mixer-system description. It also appears in the file history of the Moscovitch display-mount family (U.S. Ser. No. 09/869,259). These are citations of the patent, not litigation about it.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 5467102.

Let me search more specific litigation databases and related sources.

I found a promising lead referencing a litigation database entry. Let me dig deeper.

Bottom line

I could not identify any verifiable patent infringement litigation asserting U.S. Patent No. 5,467,102 ("Portable display device with at least two display screens controllable collectively or separately," Kuno et al., assigned to Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba, issued Nov. 14, 1995).

Beyond that negative finding, the only trace of a "litigation" association I located is an ambiguous one (described below), and it does not let me state a plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome for a case involving the '102 patent. I therefore cannot report a case list, and I am flagging this rather than guessing.

---

What I searched

• General web searches for 5467102 litigation, "5,467,102" patent lawsuit, and "Portable display device with at least two display screens" ... asserted.
• Searches targeting the Unified Patents litigation/PTAB portal and litigation-alert content.
• Searches for Toshiba patent suits in D. Del. and E.D. Tex.
• The full Google Patents record for US5467102A (supplied in the prompt), including its "Cited By" list and classification data.

No search returned a complaint, docket entry, judgment, or settlement naming US 5,467,102 as an asserted patent.

---

The one ambiguous reference found (NOT confirmed as '102 litigation)

In an exhibit filed in IPR2015-00127 (inter partes review of U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE036978, Moscovitch, "Dual display system" / Mass Engineered Design line of cases), the RE36,978 reexamination file history contains a litigation-report page that shows the following:

• Entry: "247 PORTABLE DISPLAY DEVICE WITH AT LEAST TWO DISPLAY SCREENS CONTROLLABLE COLLECTIVELY OR SEPARATELY, US PAT 5467102 — Assignee: Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba (U.S. PTO Utility 1995)", immediately followed by entry 248 for US 5,673,170 (Dell).
• The same page then reproduces a docket header: U.S. District Court – Eastern District of Texas (Marshall), "Mass Engineered Design, Inc. et al v. 9X Media, Inc. et al," filed 11/12/2009, Judge T. John Ward, NOS 830 (Patent), cause 35:183, jury demand both, Other Docket No. 2:06-cv-00272.
• A nearby Derwent LitAlert line reads "P2009-47-22 (Nov 12, 2009), Action Taken: complaint."
• Source: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-00127/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Reissue_Pat._RE036978/docs/02-19-2015-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-1012-978_ReExam_FH.pdf

Why I do not treat this as evidence of '102 litigation:

1. The page is an OCR-mangled mix of (a) a patent citation list from the RE36,978 reexamination (the '102 and '170 patents were cited as prior art/considered references in the reexam) and (b) a litigation docket for the RE36,978 family case. The numbered patent entries ("247," "248") are citation entries, not litigation parties.
2. Mass Engineered Design, Inc. v. 9X Media, Inc. was a case on the Moscovitch multi-screen/reissue patents (RE36,978 and its family) — not on Toshiba's '102 patent. Mass Engineered Design would have no standing to assert Toshiba's patent.
3. Toshiba is not a party to that case, and no defendant in it is identifiable as the accusing party for the '102 patent.

So the most that can be said is that US 5,467,102 appears in a litigation-alert/citation listing, and separately that it was cited as prior art in the RE36,978 reexamination. Neither is an infringement suit on the '102 patent.

---

Context that bears on why no litigation is likely to be found

• Term/status: The Google Patents record for US5467102A shows "Anticipated expiration 2013-08-31" and status "Expired – Lifetime." The chain is: JP priority 1992-08-31 (JP 4-230732 / JP3579061B2); parent US application Ser. No. 08/113,637 filed 1993-08-31 (now abandoned); the '102 patent issued from continuation Ser. No. 08/411,924 filed 1995-03-28. Its enforceable term therefore ended in 2013. Any suit would have had to be filed before then.
• The patent's role in the record is as prior art, not as an asserted patent. It is heavily cited against later e-reader / dual-screen patents — e.g., WO1998021665A1 (Chombo, "Electronic book"), GB2345558A (Assaf, "Portable electronic book reader"), and US 5,904,328 / US 6,343,006 (Moscovitch) examiner citations. Prior-art citation is not litigation.
• Toshiba suits I found are unrelated patents. St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., D. Del. No. 09-354 (order 11/23/2015) and Intellectual Ventures I & II LLC v. Toshiba Corp., D. Del. No. 13-453 (opinion 12/19/2016) involve plaintiffs' own patent portfolios, not the '102 patent.

---

Important caveats and how to verify definitively

• I could not reach the Unified Patents litigation case list, PACER, or Docket Navigator directly in this session; web-search hits for "5467102" returned only patent citations, prosecution/reexam references, and unrelated cases with similar numbers (e.g., Olander Patent No. 2,663,102 in J.R. Clark Co. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel). Those are different patents and I have not treated them as relevant.
• Absence of a search hit is not proof that no suit ever existed. A case could exist that is not indexed in the sources I could reach.
• Recommended primary checks to close the question conclusively:
  • USPTO PatentCenter / Public PAIR "Litigation Search Report" for US 5,467,102 (the Office routinely attaches a Lexis/Westlaw litigation-search report to reexaminations of this patent family).
  • LexisNexis LitAlert / Westlaw LitAlert by patent number.
  • CourtListener RECAP, Docket Navigator, or Lex Machina patent-number lookup.
  • The Unified Patents portal case list (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) — note that portal tracks PTAB challenges and district-court tracking; I saw no IPR/PGR naming the '102 patent either.

If you can share the LitAlert page for US 5,467,102 itself (rather than the RE36,978 file-history exhibit), I can extract the plaintiff/defendant/jurisdiction/case number and status precisely from it.

I'll verify the structured data with targeted searches for any PTAB or Federal Circuit activity on this patent.

Let me run a couple more targeted searches to be thorough about any AIA trial or reexamination activity.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on U.S. Patent No. 5,467,102: zero. The USPTO Open Data Portal structured block provided in this prompt returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings, and my independent web searches (Google Patents, uspto.report, FreePatentsOnline, PTAB-related indexes and law-firm trackers) surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or appeal naming this patent. Breakdown by status therefore is: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0. The bottom line for a defendant is not the "hardened by two IPRs" posture, and it is emphatically not the "claims 1–5 are canceled" posture either — it is the third, less-discussed posture: the patent was never worth attacking at the Board because it expired before it could be. All 22 claims — including the three independents (1, 21, 22) — are live on paper but UNTESTED at the PTAB, and the patent's term ended 2013-08-31.

I found no fabricated or candidate proceeding numbers to report, because none exist. Reported below is the evidence trail for that negative finding, followed by the strategic read.

---

Search evidence for the "no proceedings" conclusion

Caveat on the negative finding (stated plainly): I could not reach a live PTAB E2E / PatentCenter docket feed in this session. My conclusion rests on the ODP structured data plus web-indexed corroboration. A docket entry that is not web-indexed cannot be ruled out by me. Treat this as "no proceedings found," not as a certification of zero. The way to hard-verify in one step is the PTAB E2E "Patent Number" query for 5467102 at the USPTO PTAB End-to-End system, and a CourtListener docket/reporter search for "5467102" at CourtListener.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: all 22 claims UNTESTED, none canceled, none sustained. Because no AIA trial ever reached a Final Written Decision, there is no estoppel-producing record and no claim-level adjudication to point to. The independent claims — claim 1 (device with linked/separate modes, linked mode split into all-sides switching and one-side switching), claim 21 (same invention in structural claim language), and claim 22 (method counterpart) — remain exactly as issued on 1995-11-14. Practically, this is a historical curiosity rather than a live threat: the patent's anticipated expiration is 2013-08-31 (Google Patents legal status: "Expired – Lifetime"), and the statutory damages window for pre-expiration infringement is long closed. Even if some entity held a lingering right to sue over pre-2013 conduct, an IPR on an expired patent is legally permissible but economically pointless, and the PTAB's own practice is to construe expired claims under Phillips rather than the broadest reasonable interpretation — a nuance that never got litigated here because nobody bothered.

Estoppel landscape: none generated. There is no § 315(e)(1)/(2) estoppel on any party from this patent, because estoppel attaches only on a final written decision in an instituted IPR (or a written termination after institution). No institution → no estoppel. This cuts both ways for a hypothetical defendant: you are not barred from raising prior-art grounds (there are none to be barred from), but you also have no prior PTAB win to lean on for a § 325(d) or General Plastic argument, and no admission-laden FWD to mine. Your invalidity case, if one were ever needed, would have to be built from scratch — though the patent's own prosecution history and its heavy use as an X-category reference against later electronic-book filings (e.g., WO 98/21665) suggest a § 102/§ 103 record is not hard to assemble.

Pattern signals: none. There is no repeat petitioner, no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents or RPX IPR in the chain — I specifically looked for and found no such entry), and no aggressive PTAB-appeal posture by Toshiba on this patent. The asymmetry is instructive: Toshiba's PTAB activity in this space runs in the other direction — as a petitioner attacking others' patents (IPR2014-01447, IPR2022-01426) — never as a patent owner defending 5467102. The patent's retirement to "expired" status on 2013-08-31, with a § 102(b)/pre-AIA priority date of 1992-08-31, is the whole story: AIA trials arrived in 2012-09-16, and by the time defendant-side petitions became routine for two-screen e-book art, the enforcement runway on this patent was down to a year.

---

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant today and someone cites 5,467,102 in a demand letter: verify the numbers before doing anything else. The patent's anticipated expiration is 2013-08-31, so any assertion must be limited to pre-expiration conduct and to a live, damages-capable plaintiff. The absence of any PTAB proceeding means there is no FWD to link to and no invalidated claim to quote — don't let anyone on your team imply otherwise. Ask the asserting party to identify (a) the asserted claims by number as reprinted, and (b) the accused product and its date of sale, because the expiration date may itself end the dispute.
• If you are actually facing an active assertion (i.e., a suit over pre-expiration conduct): an IPR remains legally available for this expired patent, but budget it as an early filing and be aware that, post-expiration, the Board applies a Phillips-style construction rather than BRI — which can shift claim-scope outcomes. Because no prior petition exists, you would be the first filer, with no General Plastic bar and no § 315(e) estoppel constraint.
• If no PTAB activity exists — which is the case — say so plainly, and read it as a signal. A 1992-priority two-screen display patent that was cited as X-art against twenty-plus later applications but never itself challenged tells you the market judged it unenforceable-by-then, not unassailable: it simply ran out of term before AIA trials were available in volume. The defensive takeaway is "expired and untested," not "hardened."
• Open item I could not close from here: this patent has a Japanese counterpart — JP 3579061 B2 (published as JP 6-083779 A), 1992-08-31 priority. I did not search Japanese opposition or invalidation-trial records, and I am not representing that none exist; that is a separate database (JPO J-PlatPat). If you need a complete global invalidity picture, that is the next query — but it has no bearing on U.S. PTAB exposure.
• Verify before relying: run the one-step checks above at PTAB E2E and CourtListener for "5467102." If either returns a proceeding I could not see, the analysis above must be revised — and I would want to know, because it would mean the ODP negative was a stale-ingest artifact rather than ground truth.

I'll search for the assignment record for this patent.

Let me search the assignment records and related dockets directly.

⚠️ Source-access caveat up front: I could not reach the USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) or its API as a live endpoint — my tools are web-search only. The findings below therefore rest on web-indexed patent records (Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, legacy-assignments.uspto.gov PDFs surfaced in search) plus confirmed 1992–1995 prosecution data. Treat everything below as "no records found in indexed sources," not as a certification that no assignment exists. The one-click verification URL is at the end.

---

Inventors

All three are Japanese-resident employees of a single corporate assignee in Toshiba's Tokyo/Kanagawa engineering corridor, consistent with a routine corporate R&D filing rather than a founder-owned startup patent.

Unusual-pattern check: No evidence found of any inventor departing the assignee, and no inventor-side assignment activity (i.e., no "inventor retains rights → later assigns to a third party" pattern). Not determinable rather than "not present," because individual personnel records are outside my sources. There is no observable inventor-departure fire-sale signal here.

---

Original assignee

• Entity on the issued patent: Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba (trading as Toshiba Corporation), 1-1 Shibaura 1-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-8001, JP (per the patent and Toshiba's own recorded correspondence address in later USPTO assignment filings). Google Patents lists "Toshiba Corp" as current assignee.
• Primary line of business: diversified electronics — consumer electronics, laptops (the Libretto and Dynabook lines), semiconductors, and display-bearing portable computing products. Toshiba was one of the largest LCD/notebook manufacturers of the 1990s.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Unclear / no direct evidence located. The specification is written as a "portable display device" with two hinged screens, an electronic pen, and an external-device connector — a concept device. I found no product literature tying this 1992 disclosure to a commercially sold Toshiba two-screen reader. The claims are also apparatus-generic enough (any two-screen doc viewer with linked/separate modes) that a shipped-product question is not answerable from the record. Toshiba did commercialize notebooks and later the Libretto, but I cannot confirm any embody the specific linked/all-sides/one-side switching claim set.
• Current status: Operating. Toshiba remains a going concern. Note the corporate restructurings relevant to the rest of Toshiba's patent estate but not to this patent: Toshiba Memory Corporation was carved out and sold in 2018 (renamed Kioxia), and K.K. Toshiba took itself private in 2023–2024. None of those transactions plausibly touch a display patent that expired in 2013.

---

Assignment timeline

Finding: I located no post-issuance assignment record for US 5,467,102 in any indexed source.

Specifically:

• The Google Patents rendering of US 5,467,102 (fetched 2026-09-24, source text reproduced in the patent record above) shows "Current Assignee: Toshiba Corp" and "Original Assignee: Toshiba Corp" with no legal-events entry recording any assignment, change of name, merger, security interest, or reissue — only the priority, filing, grant, anticipated-expiration (2013-08-31), and "Expired – Lifetime" entries.
• No reel/frame number for this patent surfaced in any of my searches.
• The only document I retrieved that lists this patent number in a non-citation context is a PTAB petition artifact (petition 1556820 on ptacts.uspto.gov) whose text is a bare list of patent numbers and publication numbers ("5467102" "5847698" "7289084" "5227771" "RE40821" ...). That is a search-string/prior-art exhibit, not an ownership record, and I could not establish which party filed that petition or what it concerns. I flag it as an unresolved lead, not a finding — it does not evidence any assignment, and no assignment can be inferred from it.

The standard inventor-to-corporate-assignee assignment for this application (done at the 1993 parent filing stage, the 1995 continuation filing stage, or at issue) almost certainly exists — Toshiba could not have been listed as assignee and its Japanese priority JP 4-230732 carried through without one. But I did not retrieve its reel/frame, execution date, or correspondent, and I will not supply a fabricated number. The prior section's prosecution correspondent of record is Foley & Lardner (attorney/agent of record), which is what a recording of that original assignment would most likely have been filed through.

Because the Assignment Center produced no records for this patent, per the task instruction I state that plainly and stop the chronological list here. The one substantive ownership conclusion available is: the chain never left the original assignee of record.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 5467102
    1992 : Priority filed by Toshiba inventors
    1993 : Parent US application filed
    1995 : Continuation filed
         : Patent issued to Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba
    2013 : Anticipated expiration reached
    2026 : No post-issuance assignment found

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. No assignment to any "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" entity exists in the record. The only assignee of record on the face of the patent and in Google Patents' current-assignee field is Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba, an operating company. No single-purpose LLC appears.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. No assignee of record matches Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or any Spangenberg-related entity. Toshiba is an operating company, not an NPE-list member. I also found no litigation at all naming this patent (consistent with the prior section's conclusion), which independently rules out an asserter-driven chain.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — NOT PRESENT (and not testable). There are no assignment correspondents in the chain because there are no post-issuance assignments retrieved. The prosecution-side correspondent, Foley & Lardner, is a large general-practice IP firm that services operating companies; a single appearance would in any event not be a signal per the recurrence rule. No recurrence observed.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. No consecutive assignments exist, so no <24-month LLC-to-LLC chaining is possible. Not present by absence of the predicate.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. There is no litigation naming this patent, so there is no pre-suit assignment to test. Not present.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. Toshiba (Japan) did not file Chapter 7/11 in a manner that sold this patent. Toshiba's 2017 near-insolvency (Westinghouse) and the 2018 Toshiba Memory/Kioxia carve-out are real events, but they post-date this patent's 2013-08-31 anticipated expiration and concern memory/semiconductor assets, not this display patent. No record ties US 5,467,102 to any bankruptcy estate.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. No evidence Toshiba transferred this patent to an NPE to assert against competitors; the patent expired with Toshiba as owner of record and was never asserted by anyone.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT, but note an analogous neutralization. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. However, the patent is expired (anticipated expiration 2013-08-31; Google Patents legal status "Expired – Lifetime"), which neutralizes it functionally — no one can assert it now. That is expiry, not defensive aggregation, and the two should not be conflated.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data (the task's own carve-out: "no records, or only the original assignment").

Justification: the only ownership evidence in any indexed source is the original inventor→Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba assignment reflected in the patent's original-assignee field; Google Patents' legal events show no post-issuance assignment, change of name, merger, or security agreement, and my searches surfaced no reel/frame record for this patent at all — including no NPE assignee, no repeat counsel, no chained LLCs, and no litigation. Every one of the eight NPE signals is either not present or untestable for want of an assignment record, so no NPE verdict could be supported even at moderate confidence; the honest call is that the chain appears never to have left Toshiba, and the patent has been expired since 2013-08-31, making it commercially and legally inert.

Verify directly (my searches could not query the live registry):

• USPTO Patent Assignment Search — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "5467102"; also mirrored at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). The reel/frame for the original inventor→Toshiba assignment, and confirmation of the absence of post-issuance records, must be confirmed there.
• Google Patents legal events — https://patents.google.com/patent/US5467102/en (source of the "Expired – Lifetime" and 2013-08-31 anticipated-expiration entries).
• PTAB petition artifact (unresolved lead, not ownership evidence) — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1556820/

I'll search for the prior-art citations of US 5,467,102. Let me start with targeted queries.

I have some forward-citation data. Now let me find the backward citations (prior art cited on the face of the '102 patent), which is what the task requires.

Let me pull the "References Cited" section from the FreePatentsOnline and uspto.report records.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 5,467,102

0. Number verification (literal, no auto-correction)

I searched for exactly 5467102 / 5,467,102. Confirmed record (Google Patents mirrors the USPTO grant record; cross-checked against uspto.report):

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5467102A](/patent/US5467102A)/en ; https://uspto.report/patent/grant/5467102 ; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/5467102.html

I did not return any similar-number hits (e.g., U.S. 2,663,102 in J.R. Clark Co. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel, or the "US 5,467,102" string that appears inside the US20030136417A1 / US7699059B2 family as an internal application-data reference — those are unrelated and I am excluding them).

---

1. A threshold point you need before any § 102 table: "citation for 5467102" runs in two directions

There are two entirely different lists, and only one of them can support anticipation of the '102 claims:

The task's requested output — "which claim(s) it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102" — is only answerable from the backward list. So that is where I focused.

---

2. Honest limitation on the backward list (read this before the tables)

I could not fully retrieve the "Patent Citations" (backward) table of US 5,467,102 in this session, and I will not reconstruct it from memory or invent reel-style entries. The Google Patents text supplied in the record for this patent was truncated before the "Patent Citations" section (it jumps from the Abstract/Description/Claims straight to the "Cited By (241)" list), and my web searches for the front-page citation list returned only citations of '102, not citations on it.

Consequently I am not able to give you, for each backward citation, a verified full citation + date + claim mapping. Flagging this rather than fabricating. One-step verification (these sources print the exact "References Cited" US/foreign/non-patent lists):

• Google Patents, "Patent Citations" panel: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5467102A/en
• Front-page PDF via the Google Patents "Download PDF" link (the "U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS" column on the face of the grant)
• Espacenet "Also published as / Cited documents": https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search?q=US5467102
• USPTO PatentCenter for application 08/411,924 (Form PTO‑892 "List of References Cited by Examiner" and the PTO‑1449)

If you paste that front-page column, I can complete the per-reference § 102 table in one pass.

---

3. What I can verify, and what it tells you

3a. The family member (not § 102 art)

Confirmed in the WO 98/21665 search-report family annex: "US‑5467102‑A → JP‑6083779‑A, 25.03.94."

3b. The references '102 was measured against as a citing document (reverse direction — not § 102 art against '102)

This is the most probative evidence in the record for how the field mapped '102's claims, but note it does not anticipate '102:

Sources: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/19/4b/ce/70e55e03cf91d8/WO1998021665A1.pdf ; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/3f/98/49/99818e602539fb/GB2345558A.pdf ; http://data.epo.org/gpi/EP0810536A1-User-controllable-persistent-browser-display-pages.html

Key analytic takeaway: the X-category passage mapping ("Figs. 1 & 17, col. 11‑12") corresponds to '102's two-screen reader + pen/keyboard/menu + page-manipulation disclosure — i.e., the examiner-side reading of the inventive core maps most tightly onto independent claim 1 (linked/separate display modes) and the dependent soft-keyboard/handwriting/mode-selection claims (cls. 12–20). That is the same core that makes '102 hard to distinguish from later e-reader art.

3c. Forward citations ("Cited By" — cannot anticipate '102; listed because the task asked for "each patent citation")

A representative slice of the 241, with the dates drawn from the Google Patents "Cited By" table. None of these can be § 102 art against '102 — each post-dates the 1992‑08‑31 priority. They are potential targets of '102's § 102 disclosure:

(Full 241-entry list is in the prompt's "Cited By" table; e.g., WO 97/22097 Motorola; WO 97/20274 Everybook; US 5,534,888 Lebby et al./Motorola; US 5,663,748 Motorola; EP 0 390 611 A2 Hiuka Sangyo; RE36,978 Moscovitch — these last appear in other search reports, see §3b.)

---

4. § 102 anticipation assessment — the honest bottom line

• The correct § 102 list for US 5,467,102 is its front-page "References Cited" (pre-1992 art), which I could not retrieve here. Therefore I cannot, in this session, name a specific U.S. reference and say "it anticipates claim 1" with a verified citation and date. I am stating that limitation rather than filling it with plausible-looking but unverified numbers.
• What the record does establish about the strongest § 102-type reference is inverted: '102 is itself repeatedly used as X-category art — against claim 1 (and cls. 4–8) of GB 2 345 558 and against claims 1–7, 10, 12 of WO 98/21665. That tells you the claims most vulnerable to a single-reference § 102 attack are the broad independent claim 1 (and its structural/method twins 21 and 22); the narrow dependent claims with structural/functional specifics (e.g., claims 3, 5–8, 10, 14, 19–20 — automatic wide-display code, border-shift, back-screen inactivation, password, annotation linkage) are the ones examiners consistently treated as not met by a single reference.
• Anticipation vs. obviousness caveat: X-category in a foreign search report is an examiner opinion, not an adjudicated § 102 finding; and the same document was mapped to 8/9/11/13‑28 with a second reference, i.e., a § 103 posture for those.

---

5. Recommended one-step verifications (to finish the assignment properly)

1. Backward (controlling) list: open https://patents.google.com/patent/US5467102A/en → "Patent Citations" panel, or the front-page PDF → "U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS" column. Send me that list and I will return the full per-reference table (citation, filing/publication date, description, and anticipated-claim mapping under § 102).
2. Prosecution record: USPTO PatentCenter, application 08/411,924 → PTO‑1449/PTO‑892 — this is the definitive "references cited by examiner vs. applicant" split.
3. Family/priority confirm: JP 6‑083779 A / JP 3579061 B2 (J‑PlatPat) — confirms the priority chain and that the JP is a same-family member, not third-party art.
4. Reverse-direction targets (if your real question is "what does '102 anticipate?"): the X-category mappings in WO 98/21665 and GB 2 345 558 above are the documented instances.

Confidence statement: The bibliographic data, the forward-citation list, and the X-category mappings in §3b/§3c are verified from the cited URLs. The backward "References Cited" enumeration for US 5,467,102 is not verified here, and I have not guessed at it.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual prior-art references of record for US 5,467,102 rather than working from memory.

Let me pull the actual front page of the patent, which carries the examiner's cited references.

The patent's own examiner-cited references aren't surfacing in those results. Let me retrieve them directly from the patent's citation record.

§ 103 Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 5,467,102 (Kuno et al.)

---

0. Threshold problem with the source material — read this first

The instruction was to "[u]se the results from the Prior Art section of this page." The page as provided does not contain a prior-art reference list usable for a § 103 analysis. Here is exactly what the "Prior Art" data on the page consists of:

The examiner's front-page "References Cited" (U.S. Pat. No. 4,xxx,xxx / JP …) list is simply not present in the supplied text, and my searches for it were cut off by a tool-step limit before I could retrieve the front-page PDF. I am not going to reconstruct that list from memory and present it as the record — that is exactly the failure mode the operating rules forbid.

What follows therefore rests on three things I can stand behind:

1. The applicant's own admissions in the specification (citable prior art under MPEP 2129 / In re Nomiya) — the Background section concedes the multi-window and scroll art.
2. Art classes I can identify from the record with the caveat that I name specific patent numbers only where I have at least a retrieval basis, flagged inline.
3. Post-1992 search reports that cite '102 as X-art (WO 98/21665, GB 2 345 558, EP 0 898 223, EP 1 630 989) — verified in this session, and useful only to show how the disclosure maps onto later claims. These are not available as prior art against '102 and I do not use them as such.

⚠️ Flagging a terminology discrepancy that matters for §§ 102/103 mapping and for claim construction: the specification consistently calls the sub-mode the "both sides switching mode" (FIGS. 7A), while claim 1 recites an "all sides switching mode." Claim 21 uses "all sides switching mode"; claim 22 uses "all sides switching mode." A challenger can use this as a § 112(b) written-description lever in addition to § 103, or argue the terms are synonymous under Phillips. It is also the kind of ambiguity that narrows the patent owner's ability to read on a three-or-more-screen device.

---

1. Governing framework and critical date

• Statute: The application chain (parent Ser. No. 08/113,637 filed 1993-08-31; continuation 08/411,924 filed 1995-03-28) predates the AIA's first-inventor-to-file provisions. So pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) governs. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), supply the test; MPEP §§ 2141–2144 supply the rationales.
• Critical date: The claims are entitled at earliest to 1992-08-31 (JP 4-230732 priority) and at latest to 1993-08-31 (the parent US filing; the 1995 continuation adds no new date). A reference must predate that window. Any art dated 1994+ (e.g., JP 6-083779 A, published 1994-03-25 — the family's own Japanese publication) is out.
• PHOSITA: A designer of portable computing/handheld display devices as of 1992, with ~2–4 years of experience in small-form-factor LCD product design and document-viewing software, familiar with (a) hinged/folio portable enclosures, (b) multi-window GUI document viewers, and (c) multi-display controller/desktop-spanning systems.
• Burden: A challenger must prove obviousness by clear and convincing evidence, with the patent owner entitled to KSR's "teaching away" and unexpected-results rebuttals. As noted in the Litigation and PTAB sections, no court has ever construed these claims and no Board has ever reached a Final Written Decision, so there is no § 282 record, no estoppel, and no claim-construction order to work around — the full scope of claims 1, 21, and 22 is unadjudicated.

---

2. Element mapping for the independent claims

Note how much work the specification's own Background does. It concedes: "This difficulty can be resolves by using the multi-window function, such that two different parts of the document can be displayed simultaneously in two different windows," and that the multi-window function was furnished by screen-division or overlap. That concession supplies the separate mode and the independent addressing element virtually verbatim. The only element left to supply is the two-panel physical form factor with a selectable linked mode — which is the entire content of the two-panel electronic-book prior art.

---

3. Reference set

(a) Admitted art (fully citable, no retrieval risk):

• REF-B: Single-screen multi-window document viewer (Background of '102). Two windows, split or overlapping, each showing a different part of one document; scroll to move a displayed portion. This is an applicant admission and is dated by the applicant's own characterization to "before" 1992.
• REF-C: Multi-display desktop systems offering selectable clone vs. independent/extend operation. The X Window System's multi-screen support (mid-1980s) and Microsoft Windows 3.0's multiple-display support (1990) are § 102(b) public-use/printed-publication art for the proposition that a controller selectively linking or decoupling two displays was known and was a user-selectable setting. [Systems-level recall; the underlying code/manuals are the § 102(b) publication, not a patent — verify against a 1989–1990 product manual or review article before relying on it in a filing.]

(b) Patent art:

• REF-A: U.S. Pat. No. 4,159,417 (Rubincam), "Electronic book." Two hinged flat-panel displays arranged as facing pages of a book, with page-advance controls. ⚠️ [recalled from the art, NOT re-verified in this session's searches — treat as a lead to confirm, not a finding.] This is the canonical pre-1992 two-panel "book-format" display reference and, if confirmed, is the primary § 102(b) vehicle for the "at least two display screens displaying consecutive pages" element.

(c) Post-1992 art that is NOT available against '102 (listed to prevent misuse):

Using these would be textbook hindsight. I flag them because they are overwhelmingly what a web search returns for this patent — a search-only analyst would be tempted to build a § 103 case out of them, and that case would be improper.

(d) How the art later treated '102 (context only, not § 103 support): In the WO 98/21665 search report, '102 was cited as X against claims 1–7, 10, 12 with the passage mapping "Figures 1, 3 and 11; column 3, line 26 – column 4, line 36; column 9, lines 4–40" (i.e., the folio device, the block diagram, and the wide-display function). In the GB 2 345 558 search report, '102 was cited as X against claims 1, 4–8 with "figs. 1 & 17, abstract, and columns 11 & 12." These confirm the two-panel folio + linked-display disclosure is narrow enough that examiners repeatedly read it onto broad two-screen book-reader claims — but again, these are forward citations and prove nothing about '102's own validity.

---

4. Proposed combinations

Combination 1 — Claim 1 (and 21, 22): REF-A (two-panel electronic book) + REF-B (admitted multi-window single-screen viewer)

Motivation to combine: REF-A gives the physical two-panel folio but leaves the reader locked in a rigid spread; REF-B teaches that a reader of a long document benefits from simultaneously viewing two different parts and from moving them independently. A PHOSITA seeking to make REF-A's fixed spread more useful to a reader of a long text (the express problem the '102 specification sets out to solve) would predictably import REF-B's independent-window addressing into REF-A's second panel. The specification's own Background frames the invention as the combination of the two — which is an admission of the motivation.

Why the sub-modes add nothing: the difference between "all sides" and "one side" switching is the difference between turning a leaf pair and turning a leaf in a physical book. That is a predictable variation of a known technique and, at most, an obvious design choice among a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 421). One of skill would recognize the "read-ahead on one page while still finishing the other" benefit (spec, col. describing the one-side mode) without invention.

Confidence: high, contingent on confirming REF-A's page-advance disclosure. This is the strongest attack and it reaches all three independent claims, because claims 21 and 22 are the same invention restated structurally and as a method step — In re Abele / § 103 does not permit separate patentability for a claim that recites the same combination in method form.

Combination 2 — Claim 1 as an alternative: REF-C (dual-display clone/extend controller) + REF-B (document viewer)

REF-C supplies a controller that selectively drives two displays in a linked (clone/span) or independent (extend) mode, as a user-selectable setting. REF-B supplies the document-navigation semantics (which page lives where, how it advances). Motivation: porting a two-window document viewer onto a two-head display controller is the straightforward application of a known document-navigation technique to a known display architecture — KSR's "use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way." This combination is weaker than Combination 1 only because REF-C is a systems/publication reference rather than a patent, which complicates proof.

Combination 3 — Claims 2 and 3 (widened display spanning both screens; auto-triggered by a document code)

A single logical image spanning two physical panels is the definitional behavior of REF-C's "extend/span" mode; reading a two-page figure across a spread is what REF-A's facing-page geometry physically provides. Auto-activating a display mode in response to a code in the document data is a routine data-driven mode selection (document-format tags, page-description codes). Motivation: the specification concedes the wide-figure use case and the "letter enlargement" use case. Confidence: high.

Combination 4 — Claim 14 (password protection on document transfer and on display)

File/power-on password protection was standard in 1992-era portable computers and file systems (BIOS/lid/HDD passwords; password-protected document files), and remote document transfer over a link with access control was conventional. Motivation: the specification itself supplies the rationale — documents are taken outside, so secret documents need protection. Coupling a known access-control mechanism to a known transfer step is a predictable variation with an articulated, art-recognized benefit. Confidence: high.

---

5. Dependent-claim scorecard

Where the obviousness case thins — the two pockets of genuine strength:

1. Claims 4–8 (border treatment). The invention here is not "put text on two screens"; it is "detect that a line or an isolated letter-series will straddle the physical seam, and parallel-shift the content (or just the letter series) to move the seam to an inter-letter or inter-line gap — and only do it when the letters are below a prescribed size." The best § 103 attack is the analogy to line-breaking/justification and hyphenation algorithms (word-wrap, widow/orphan control, Knuth–Plass-style optimal line-breaking, all pre-1992) and to column-layout/2-page imposition in electronic publishing: a PHOSITA laying out text across a physically split medium would predictably avoid splitting a word or a short letter-series across the break, exactly as one avoids splitting a word across a page or column break. That is a reasonable attack, but it requires the challenger to find the line-breaking reference and to articulate why a two-physical-screen seam is the same problem as a column/page break. It is a real argument, not a slam dunk — and claims 5 (shift whole content), 6 (shift isolated letter series), 7 (size threshold), and 8 (persist the shifted layout) each add narrowing structure that must be separately met. If one is attacking the patent, these claims are where secondary references (a hyphenation/justification reference + a two-panel display reference) must be assembled, and where a § 112 written-description attack on the "prescribed size" parameter is worth running in parallel.
2. Claim 19 (content-anchored annotation with relocation). The pointer-to-content anchoring plus automatic repositioning on deletion is a specific mechanism; it is not supplied by the mere existence of a stylus tablet.

---

6. Secondary considerations

Nothing in the record supports a Graham rebuttal. As noted in the Assignment section, no commercial embodiment of these claims was located, so there is no nexus-bearing commercial-success evidence, no licensing program, and (per the Litigation and PTAB sections) no copying or industry-acclaim evidence — the patent was simply cited as prior art against later filings and then expired on 2013-08-31. A patent owner facing a Combination 1 attack would have to rebut on the strength of the claim language alone.

---

7. Bottom line

• Claims 1, 21, and 22 are the most vulnerable claims, and Combination 1 — a two-panel "electronic book" reference (REF-A/A) in view of the multi-window single-screen document viewer that the '102 specification itself admits (REF-B) — is the combination that would most likely render them obvious, because every limitation is separately disclosed and the "all-sides vs. one-side" distinction is the leaf-pair-vs-single-leaf behavior of an ordinary book, i.e., a predictable variation within a finite set of known options. The Background section's own admission of the multi-window art is what makes this a combination argument rather than a hindsight argument.
• Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 are, on this record, largely design choices and predictable variations of the same combination, with 10/11/14/15/16/17 being especially weak to defend.
• Claims 4–8 (border treatment) and 19 (content-anchored annotation) are the only real defensive strongholds. Any serious § 103 challenge must bring a second, non-analogous-feeling reference (line-breaking/justification art for 4–8; content-anchored annotation art for 19) and must argue seam-splitting and column/page-splitting are the same problem — which is exactly the kind of "same problem, known solution" reasoning KSR endorses but which a jury may resist.
• All of this is academic for enforcement purposes: as the earlier sections establish, the term ended 2013-08-31 and no suitor ever challenged these claims. The value of this analysis is as a prior-art map for downstream e-reader/dual-screen validity work, where '102 is an X-category reference, not an asserted patent.

---

8. What must be verified before this analysis is relied on

1. Retrieve the actual "References Cited" list from the front page of US 5,467,102 (patentimages front-page PDF, or PatentCenter / Global Dossier for the 08/411,924 and 08/113,637 files). I could not retrieve it in this session — my search budget ran out. My analysis above is built from admitted art and art-class reasoning precisely because that list is missing. If the examiner cited, e.g., a Japanese two-panel reference or a specific multi-window reference, the combinations above should be re-anchored to it, and the analysis gets stronger, not weaker.
2. Confirm REF-A (U.S. 4,159,417, Rubincam). I named it from the art, not from this session's search results. Verify the number, title, and that its disclosure actually includes page-advance controls.
3. Confirm REF-C. Locate a dated 1989–1990 product manual or review establishing selectable clone/extend multi-display operation — the analysis needs a § 102(b) document, not a systems-level recollection.
4. Pull the 08/113,637 prosecution history (the parent that went abandoned) — it is absent from the supplied material, and any interview record or examiner's statement there bears directly on what the applicant conceded and what the art was understood to teach.

Source-integrity note maintained throughout: no patent number, reference, or date in this section has been invented. Where I rely on recall rather than a retrieved source, it is labeled inline as such. Where the recovered search results show '102 being cited against later patents, I have expressly declined to treat those as prior art against '102.