US 5591952

I'll verify the details against live sources before summarizing.

Let me check for litigation and any CAFC docket activity involving this specific patent.

Verification note

I searched the web (Google Patents, Espacenet, Justia/FPO, FreePatentsOnline, court records) for the exact identifier US 5,591,952. All results concerned the same document; I did not return or rely on near-miss numbers. One search intended to surface CAFC 2026 dockets returned only an unrelated Brazilian state commercial-registry filing that happened to contain the digit string "5591952" — that is not patent-related and I disregarded it. I found no CAFC (Fed. Cir.) 2026 docket involving US 5,591,952. I will flag below what I could and could not confirm.

1. Bibliographic data (US 5,591,952)

Continuation chain (as recited in the specification): application 08/378,596 is a continuation under 37 C.F.R. §1.60 of Ser. No. 08/240,299 (filed May 9, 1994, now US 5,396,054), which was a file-wrapper continuation of Ser. No. 08/041,281 (filed March 30, 1993, now abandoned), which was a file-wrapper continuation of Ser. No. 07/317,533 (filed March 1, 1989, now abandoned). The specification also cross-references Ser. No. 08/000,794, literally stated in the text as "filed Jan. 1, 1993" — note that January 1 is a U.S. federal holiday, so this date is likely an error in the printed/OCR text (US 5,414,250). I am reproducing it literally rather than correcting it.

Assignee post-issuance records: security interest to JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. (recorded Jan. 5, 2005), released Dec. 3, 2010.

2. Abstract

"In a bar code reader, a field of view which includes a symbol to be read is imaged upon a light-responsive array such as a CCD imager device. The output of this array is transferred to a memory array to provide a bit-mapped type of binary representation of the image including the symbol. The memory is scanned (instead of the field of view itself being mechanically scanned) to recognize and decode the symbol. Because the angular orientation of the symbol is variable, this binary representation may be interpreted to determine how the memory array is to be scanned to recognize the bar code symbol… Or, the memory array may be simply scanned using preselected scan lines (beginning with a raster-type scan) until code recognition is obtained."

The core technical idea: replace mechanical laser-beam scanning with electronic scanning of a stored, bit-mapped image, and use software-controlled addressing to effectively rotate/translate the captured symbol so that rows of a stacked (two-dimensional) symbology such as Code-49 can be traced at arbitrary angles.

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

There are seven independent claims: 1, 12, 24, 29, 33, 34, 39 (claims 2–11 depend on 1; 13–23 on 12; 25–28 on 24; 30–32 on 29; 35–38 on 34).

Claim 1 — Method: image, store, find, then re-scan on the correct angle.
The steps are: (a) optically image a field of view containing the symbol onto a light-detector array; (b) transfer a binary image into a memory array "directly … serially only to a serial port" of that memory; (c) scan that stored binary image through the memory's parallel port to feed a processor; (d) have the processor evaluate the readout to find the bar code and determine the orientation of the linearly arranged pattern; (e) then re-scan the memory through the parallel port using addressing based on that determined orientation, and decode. The novelty emphasis is the dual-port architecture (serial-in imaging port, random/parallel-out processor port) plus orientation-driven addressing.

Claim 12 — Method: generate a scan line at the angle of the symbol, then address memory accordingly.
Similar pipeline, framed for a two-dimensional symbol with rows of bar code data. The array generates a binary representation of the field of view directly; the binary data is transferred by "direct serial only coupling" into a memory array. The processor scans the memory via a parallel port, "generating an effective scan line having an angular orientation corresponding to that of a representation of said symbol," locates a portion of the bar code information, determines its angular orientation, and thereafter addresses memory based on that orientation to produce output corresponding to complete rows.

Claim 24 — Apparatus: the corresponding hardware claim.
Recites (a) optical means for imaging the field of view onto a light-responsive array having a serial output; (b) a memory array having a serial port receiving that serial binary representation and a parallel port; (c) processing means accessing the memory via the parallel port to determine symbol orientation, producing data by scanning based on that orientation, including means for finding bar code information in one row of the symbol in order to determine orientation and then scan complete rows. Notably, this apparatus claim is not limited to 2D symbologies by its own terms beyond the preamble, though the "complete rows" language implies stacked symbols.

Claim 29 — Method: multi-scan-path search, then orient on a detected partial pattern.
For a symbol with a plurality of different linearly arranged indicia patterns, each having a reading direction: image the field of view; transfer a binary representation to a port of a memory; scan using a plurality of scan paths through that port to the processor; evaluate to find the presence of a part of the encoded information and determine the orientation of one of the linearly arranged patterns; then re-scan using scan paths based on the determined orientation to produce the encoded information. This is the "partial-row hit triggers reorientation" concept.

Claim 33 — Method: find one good row, then generate additional scan lines oriented to it.
For a symbol that has different patterns in vertical vs. horizontal directions with preferred directional reading paths: generate a representation with a light-responsive device, transfer it in binary form to a memory array, then scan the memory via the processor. The scan generates a scan line by addressing memory and evaluating the accessed data to find indications of valid data for a complete row, thereby developing a scan line for a first readable path; thereafter the system generates additional scan lines oriented to that first scan line to read additional paths of the symbol. This is the "row-to-row propagation" / parallel-scan-line strategy.

Claim 34 — Method: locate by symbol characteristics, then lock orientation once a full pattern is found.
Again for a symbol with multiple linearly arranged patterns having a preferred reading direction: image; transfer binary representation to a memory port; scan with a plurality of scan paths; evaluate by finding the symbol through detecting characteristics of a portion of it, then orienting the scan paths until a full pattern is found in a given scan path, then continuing to scan with further scan paths oriented according to that found scan path.

Claim 39 — Method: change the scan-path sequence when a partial row is detected; iterate to completion.
The broadest-sounding of the "reorientation" claims: (a) image the field of view; (b) transfer a binary representation to a memory array; (c) scan the memory along a sequence of scan paths to produce data output for at least a corresponding segment of a row including bar code information; (d) change the sequence of scan paths if a partial row of bar code information is detected within a single scan line; and (e) repeat (c) and (d) until the data represented in the complete symbol has been recognized. Note this claim does not expressly recite a serial/parallel dual-port memory, distinguishing it from claims 1/12/24.

4. Claim-drafting anomalies (reported literally, not corrected)

Two claims in the granted text contain referential/typographical inconsistencies that I am reproducing exactly rather than "fixing":

• Claim 17 begins "Apparatus according to claim 15…", yet claim 15 is a method claim ("A method according to claim 12 wherein the symbol includes at least one row…"), and claim 17's own body refers to "said processing means." Claim 16 (also depending on 12) is the antecedent introducing "processing means."
• Claim 23 likewise begins "Apparatus according to claim 21…" and refers to "said optical means," although claim 21 is a method claim.

These read as post-issuance or transcription defects in the patent document / OCR text. A definitive statement about the U.S. Patent Office printed copy would require the certificate of correction or the original printed patent (which I have not separately verified), so I flag this as uncertain.

5. Enforcement / litigation history involving this patent

• Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Metrologic Instruments, Inc., No. 2:05-cv-509 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.). Symbol accused Metrologic of infringing six patents, expressly including U.S. Patent No. 5,591,952, along with 5,479,002; 6,631,845; 5,646,390; 5,521,366; and 6,854,655. (Venue-transfer opinion reported at 450 F. Supp. 2d 676 (2006).)
• ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-551, Certain Laser Bar Code Scanners and Scan Engines, Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (Symbol Technologies v. Metro Technologies Co., Ltd. and Metrologic Instruments, Inc.). Important caveat: US 5,591,952 was NOT among the patents asserted in the ITC complaint. The asserted patents were 5,262,627 (claim 48), 5,545,889 (claims 7, 13, 14, 17, 18), 5,917,173 (claims 17, 18), 5,457,308 (claims 2, 21), and 6,220,514 (claims 1, 2, 4–6). The Commission ultimately found a violation as to claim 48 of the '627 patent and claims 17 and 18 of the '173 patent, issuing a limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist order (June 2007).
• The patent's Google Patents page carries a Darts-IP "family has litigation" flag (family ID 23234112), consistent with the above.

CAFC 2026 dockets: I found no Federal Circuit activity in 2026 concerning US 5,591,952. This is consistent with the patent having expired January 7, 2014 — roughly twelve years before the current date — so live appellate litigation over this specific patent would be unusual. I cannot rule out a stale or appellate-adjacent reference to the patent number in a 2026 brief, but nothing surfaced.

6. Explicit uncertainties

1. No CAFC 2026 docket entry was located. Absence of evidence here is weak evidence; a PACER/CM-ECF-native search would be needed for a definitive negative.
2. Assignee identity is layered: the patent names Symbol Technologies, Inc.; Google Patents' auto-generated "current assignee" field says Symbol Technologies LLC. I have not traced the corporate chain (e.g., Motorola/Zebra acquisitions) for this specific patent.
3. Claims 17 and 23 dependency defects — reported as printed; whether a certificate of correction governs is unverified.
4. The "Jan. 1, 1993" cross-reference date in the specification is reproduced literally and is likely erroneous.
5. I did not independently verify the ITC's complete list of asserted claims against the primary administrative record beyond the Federal Register notices and Commission publications cited above.

Primary sources consulted: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5591952/en; Espacenet bibliographic record for US5591952(A); https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/10/26/05-21317.html; https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2006/04/19/E6-5887.html; https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/233lze3f4/texas-eastern-district-court/symbol-technologies-inc-v-metrologic-instruments/; USITC Pub. 4006 (Inv. No. 337-TA-551).

Litigation Search: U.S. Patent No. 5,591,952

Bottom line

I could not confirm any specific litigation in which U.S. Patent No. 5,591,952 ("Bar code reader," Symbol Technologies) was named as a patent‑in‑suit. My searches of Google Patents, general web sources, and litigation-oriented queries did not return a case caption, docket number, or court record identifying '952 as an asserted patent. Because I did not find verifiable records, I cannot provide plaintiff/defendant/jurisdiction/case number/filing date/outcome without fabricating, which I will not do. If no such litigation exists, the answer is that no litigation is known.

One important flag, however

The authoritative Google Patents record for US 5,591,952 itself carries a litigation indicator:

"Family has litigation — First worldwide family litigation filed" with a link to the Darts‑IP global patent litigation dataset for Family ID=23234112 (https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=23234112).

That flag tells us some member of this patent family (ID 23234112) has been involved in litigation, but it does not identify which family member, the parties, the court, or the docket. Critically, it does not establish that the '952 patent itself (as opposed to its parent or a foreign counterpart) was asserted. The Darts‑IP detail page is behind a subscription and was not retrievable in my searches.

Patent family context (from the authoritative record)

• US 5,591,952 — "Bar code reader," inventors Mark J. Krichever and Boris Metlitsky, original/current assignee Symbol Technologies LLC (Symbol Technologies, Inc.); application 08/378,596 filed 1995‑01‑26; granted 1997‑01‑07; expired – lifetime (anticipated expiration 2014‑01‑07).
• It is a continuation under 37 C.F.R. §1.60 of App. Ser. No. 08/240,299 (now U.S. 5,396,054), itself a file-wrapper continuation of Ser. No. 08/041,281 (now abandoned), itself a continuation of Ser. No. 07/317,533 filed 1989‑03‑01 (now abandoned) — the priority date.
• Family members (see "Country Status (5)"): US 5,396,054; EP 0385478 B1; JP 2779246 B2; CA 1329263 C; DE 69020186 T2.
• The Google Patents page lists 65 "Cited By" and 148 "Families Citing this family" — but those are citations (later patents referencing it), not litigation. I note this because it is easy to mistake citation counts for enforcement activity.

What I could NOT establish (and why I'm not filling the gap)

The searches specifically targeting "5591952 / 5,591,952" plus litigation terms returned no case captions. The results that did surface — e.g., Symbol Technologies v. Opticon, Symbol Technologies v. Lemelson, Metrologic Instruments v. Symbol Technologies (Civil Action No. 03‑2912 (HAA), D.N.J., Markman decision 2006‑09‑29; 460 F. Supp. 2d 571), Symbol v. Hand Held Products (D. Del., filed 2003‑01‑22), Symbol v. Intermec (D. Del., filed 2005‑03‑10) — involve other Symbol and non-Symbol bar‑code patents (e.g., the '297, '186, '971, '698, '870 patents; the Lemelson patents). I have no basis to attribute any of these to US 5,591,952, and doing so would be an unverified guess.

Recommended verification steps

To definitively answer, the following sources should be checked directly (all require interactive access I could not complete):

1. Darts‑IP — owner family page for Family ID 23234112 (the link embedded in the Google Patents record), which is the source of the "Family has litigation" flag.
2. Unified Patents litigation portal — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation — search the patent number; results were not retrievable for me.
3. PACER / CourtListener / RPX Insight — docket search on "5,591,952."
4. USPTO PatentCenter / Assignment records — to trace whether the patent was ever the subject of a recorded license/security interest tied to litigation (note the JPMorgan Chase security interest recorded 2005‑01‑05 and released 2010‑12‑03 — that is a financing arrangement, not litigation).
5. Federal Circuit opinions and ITC EDIS — for any appeal or Section 337 investigation naming the patent.

Caveats

• Per your strict instruction, all identifiers above are reported literally as they appear in the authoritative source; I have not corrected or normalized spelling or numbers (the source contains typographical artifacts such as "bat code scanner" and "LS 810011," which I have left as-is where quoted).
• The Google Patents page is a secondary aggregation. Its "Family has litigation" flag is a pointer to Darts‑IP, not independent evidence, and does not specify the asserted family member.
• My conclusion is a negative finding based on incomplete access, not proof that no litigation exists. Given the family-level litigation flag, there is a reasonable possibility that litigation exists — most likely involving the '054 parent or a foreign counterpart — but I could not verify it, so I am reporting it as unconfirmed rather than asserting it.

I'll verify the structured "no PTAB proceedings" finding against public sources before finalizing.

Let me run a couple more targeted searches to be thorough on CBM activity and any litigation-linked PTAB filings.

One more check on litigation/FWD references tied to this specific patent number before I finalize.

Proceedings overview

Total PTAB proceedings on file for US 5,591,952: zero (0). The structured USPTO Open Data Portal block reports no AIA trial proceedings, and my independent web searches — for IPR/PGR/CBM petitions naming the '952 patent, for the inventors (Krichever / Metlitsky), and for the assignee (Symbol Technologies) — surfaced none. Breakdown: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0. The bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB record here at all — and, more decisively, the patent expired on 2014-01-07, so the practical defense is not validity but the expiration date. Any demand letter asserting US 5,591,952 against present-day conduct is asserting an expired patent.

⚠️ Conflation warning. Multiple unrelated patents are commonly abbreviated "'952" and will contaminate your research: U.S. Patent No. 7,652,952 (Johnson Outdoors marine electronics), U.S. Patent No. 10,993,952 (Ingenus cyclophosphamide formulation), U.S. Patent No. 5,479,002 (a different Symbol patent), and others appear throughout the search results. Verify the full number "5,591,952" before relying on any secondary source. None of those proceedings concern this patent.

No AIA trial proceeding exists — enforcement context only

Because there are zero proceedings, the requested per-proceeding sections cannot be populated without fabricating numbers, which I will not do. What follows is the litigation history on this patent number, clearly labeled as not PTAB activity, since it is the only reason a defendant would recognize the number today.

District court litigation — Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Metrologic Instruments, Inc.

(Not a PTAB proceeding — district court patent case)

• Type: District court infringement action — not an IPR, PGR, or CBM.
• Filed: 2005 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division), Civil Action No. 2:05-CV-509.
• Status: Terminated / resolved long ago; no PTAB counterpart.
• Patent-in-suit: US 5,591,952 was one of six Symbol patents asserted — the complaint accused Metrologic of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 5,479,002; 6,631,845; 5,646,390; 5,521,366; 5,591,952; and 6,854,655, all relating to "laser scanners and dataform readers." (Symbol v. Metrologic, 450 F. Supp. 2d 676 (E.D. Tex. 2006))
• Key procedural event: Metrologic moved to transfer venue to S.D.N.Y.; the court denied the motion on 2006-08-08. That order is the only readily retrievable judicial document confirming '952's assertion. It is a venue ruling, not a merits decision — the court did not rule on '952 validity or infringement.
• Appeal: None identified specific to the '952 patent. Do not infer a Federal Circuit disposition for this patent.
• Defensive value: This confirms the patent was a real commercial weapon for Symbol in the mid-2000s — but the case is two decades old and the patent has since expired. It does not create any estoppel and does not establish validity of any claim.

ITC investigation — Inv. No. 337-TA-551, Certain Laser Bar Code Scanners and Scan Engines

(Not a PTAB proceeding — Section 337 investigation)

• Filed/instituted: 2005; final Initial Determination 2007-01-29 (Complainant Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Metro (Suzhou) Technologies and Metrologic Instruments). (USITC Pub. 4006)
• Caveat: I could not confirm from the available record that US 5,591,952 was among the patents actually asserted in this investigation (the ID references other patents, e.g. the '889 patent). Treat any claim that '952 was at issue in 337-TA-551 as unverified. Do not cite it without pulling the complaint.

Strategic summary

Claim status of US 5,591,952. No claim has been canceled through any AIA trial, because no AIA trial was ever filed. The entire claim set (claims 1–39) is legally intact as issued — but mooted by expiration: the patent reached its anticipated expiration on 2014-01-07 and its legal status is "Expired - Lifetime." The distinction matters for how you frame the defense: you are not litigating "hardened, PTAB-survived claims"; you are litigating a dead patent. There is no "surviving claim" set to worry about because there is no enforceable term left.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel and no § 325(e)(2) estoppel on this patent, because estoppel attaches only after a PTAB Final Written Decision, and none exists. The flip side is that nothing has been narrowed either — no petitioner has pinned down claim constructions or knocked out art. If (hypothetically) a live dispute existed, every invalidity ground would be open. Practically, though, the § 286 six-year damages lookback from today reaches back only to roughly 2020, which is entirely after the 2014-01-07 expiration — so there is no recoverable past-infringement window and no future infringement.

Pattern signals. No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) is in the chain — Unified's typical targets are software/fintech patents asserted by NPEs, and this is a 1989-priority bar-code-reader patent that has been in the hands of a practicing entity (Symbol → Motorola Solutions after 2006 → Zebra Technologies after the 2014 acquisition) the entire time. There is no NPE, no serial petitioner, and no PTAB appeal history. The Google Patents family record flags "Family has litigation" (Darts-IP family ID 23234112, https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=23234112), consistent with the Symbol/Metrologic/ITC activity above — but note that this is litigation, not PTAB, and the ODP trial list is empty.

Recommended next steps

1. Lead with expiration, not invalidity. US 5,591,952 expired 2014-01-07. If a demand letter cites it, the dispositive response is that the patent can no longer be infringed and there is no open damages window (35 U.S.C. § 286 bars recovery for conduct more than six years before suit; that window begins long after expiration). No PTAB petition is needed — and none is possible to "win."
2. There is no PTAB activity to cite. I cannot link you to a Final Written Decision because none was ever issued for this patent. Do not accept, and do not repeat, any assertion that "claims of 5,591,952 were invalidated in IPR" — verify the full patent number first, as several unrelated patents share the "952" shorthand.
3. If you must litigate validity anyway (e.g., a license dispute about past royalties during 1989–2014), the untouched-art field is wide open precisely because no IPR ever occurred, and the file history is long (a § 1.60 continuation chain: Ser. No. 07/317,533 filed 1989-03-01 → 08/041,281 → 08/240,299, now US 5,396,054 → 08/378,596 → US 5,591,952), which historically creates prosecution-history and priority-date attack surface. But confirm the term/expiration before spending on validity work.
4. Confirmation step. Pull the PTAB E2E / USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board docket and the PatentCenter "Post-Grant" tab for US 5,591,952 directly to double-confirm the zero count at the time of your filing — I am relying on the ODP canonical block plus negative search results, not a page-by-page E2E review.

Confidence / caveats. High confidence that no AIA trial proceeding has ever been instituted or even filed naming US 5,591,952. Lower confidence on the perimeter of the old district-court and ITC cases — I confirmed '952 was in the E.D. Tex. complaint via the venue opinion, but I could not verify its precise role in ITC 337-TA-551 or the ultimate disposition of the '952 counts (the case history shows a 1996 Metrologic–Symbol cross-license and a broader multi-forum dispute, but I did not find a merits judgment on '952). State those as unverified rather than asserting outcomes.

I'll start by gathering what the authoritative patent text and public records say, then cross-check for any assignment records.

Let me pull the specific assignment/legal-events record and the corporate history.

Ownership Reconstruction — US 5591952 ("Bar code reader")

Scope note / data limitation up front. I could not query the USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) directly — it is a form-driven database that is not exposed to the retrieval tools I have. The authoritative full patent text provided in the prompt contains no reel/frame data, and Google Patents' "Legal Events" tab (which is derived from the same USPTO assignment feed) reports conveyance type, party names and recording dates but does not surface reel/frame numbers. I therefore report the recorded events that are documented, and I do not fabricate reel/frame identifiers. Where a reel/frame is needed for verification, I flag it as unretrieved. Everything below is grounded in the patent text and the sources cited.

Inventors

• Espacenet inventor field confirms exactly two inventors: KRICHEVER, MARK J [US]; METLITSKY, BORIS [US].
• The application was filed by Symbol, not by the inventors personally (see Original assignee below), which is consistent with an employer-owned invention under the inventors' employment agreements.
• Unusual-pattern check — not present. I found no evidence that either inventor departed Symbol within 12 months of filing (1989‑03‑01 priority / 1995‑01‑26 filing). Both names recur across Symbol's scanner portfolio, consistent with long tenures. This is absence of evidence, not positive proof of tenure — I could not verify employment end-dates from a primary HR or SEC source.

Original assignee

Symbol Technologies, Inc. (Holtsville, New York) — the applicant of record per Espacenet; the full patent text itself repeatedly refers to related cases as "assigned to Symbol Technologies, Inc."

Name discrepancy to flag: Google Patents normalizes both "Original Assignee" and "Current Assignee" to "Symbol Technologies LLC." The patent's own text and Espacenet use "Symbol Technologies, Inc." The 2005 assignment event in Google's legal events likewise names the assignor as "SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES, INC." (capitalized). I treat the LLC/Inc. distinction as a corporate-form change by Google's normalizer, not as a separate recordable assignment — but this should be confirmed on Assignment Center.

• Products embodying the claims: Yes. The specification itself is written around Symbol's commercial hand‑held reader (expressly compared to the "LS 8100II" and to the gun-shaped readers of U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,387,297 / 4,409,470 / 4,760,248, all Symbol). Symbol was the market leader in bar-code readers and rugged mobile computers.
• Primary line of business: Bar-code scanners, hand-held/rugged mobile computers, wireless LAN and RFID hardware. 2005 revenue ~$1.77 B; mobile computing ≈66.5% of sales.
• Current status (corporate, not assignment-record):
  • 2004: SEC fined Symbol $37 M for fraudulent accounting; eleven executives charged (reported by Computerworld). Not a bankruptcy — Symbol remained solvent.
  • 2006‑09‑19: Motorola, Inc. agreed to acquire Symbol for $3.9 B ($15/share); EC cleared 2007‑01‑08; deal closed late 2006/early 2007. Symbol became a Motorola subsidiary.
  • 2011: Motorola split; the enterprise/scanning business (Symbol) went with Motorola Solutions.
  • 2014: Motorola Solutions sold its Enterprise business to Zebra Technologies. (Linear corporate succession — I found no recorded USPTO assignment evidencing this transfer, which is common for large mergers and asset sales. Do not treat the Zebra connection as a recorded chain link.)

Assignment timeline

Records below are the only post-issue entries in Google Patents' Legal Events for US 5591952 (equivalent to the USPTO assignment feed). Reel/frame numbers were not retrievable from the sources available to me — flagged explicitly on each line.

• Executed ~2004‑12‑29 (as of date of the Credit Agreement; recorded 2005‑01‑05) — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: SECURITY INTEREST (see document for details)
  • Assignor: Symbol Technologies, Inc.
  • Assignee: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (as Administrative and Collateral Agent)
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable from the sources consulted. Flag: cannot run the recurrence check the assignment requires; must be read off Assignment Center.
  • Context: Securitization / collateral — not a title transfer. Underlying instrument is the Credit Agreement dated as of 2004‑12‑29 among Symbol, the lenders, JPMorgan Chase as administrative & collateral agent, and Fleet National Bank as syndication agent (Symbol SEC exhibit 10.22, filed 2005‑01‑03), plus the Guarantee and Collateral Agreement of even date.

• Executed 2010 (recorded 2010‑12‑03) — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY
  • Assignor: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
  • Assignee: Symbol Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable.
  • Context: Lien release — extinguishes the 2005 security interest; confirms title remained with Symbol. Not an acquisition, fire-sale, or transfer to an asserter.

• 2014‑01‑07 — Anticipated expiration (legal event, not an assignment)

  • Context: Patent term ended (17 years from the 1997‑01‑07 issue date). An expired patent cannot be asserted in a new infringement action.

Finding: There is no recorded assignment transferring title away from Symbol Technologies / its corporate successors. The only two recorded post-issue events are a financing encumbrance and its release. On the assignment record alone, the patent remained with the original operating assignee throughout its enforceable life.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 5591952
    1989 : Priority application filed
    1995 : Continuation application filed
    1997 : Patent issued to Symbol Technologies
    2005 : JPMorgan Chase records security interest
    2010 : JPMorgan Chase releases security interest
    2014 : Patent expires

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No licensing-only LLC, no "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" entity appears anywhere in the chain. The only non-operating party in the record is JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., a national banking association acting as administrative/collateral agent (recorded 2005‑01‑05), and it took a security interest, not title. "Symbol Technologies LLC" is the operating company's successor form, not a shell. (Reel/frame unretrieved.)

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither the current record owner (Symbol) nor the prior security holder (JPMorgan) matches Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, Round Rock, etc. No asserter ever appears.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / insufficient data. Correspondents of record were not exposed by any source I could retrieve. Without at least two correspondent datapoints, the recurrence test cannot be run. This is a gap, not a negative finding — pull the correspondent for both recordings on Assignment Center before relying on this section.

4. Cascading transfers (<24 months through chained LLCs) — not present. Only two recorded events, 5.9 years apart (2005‑01‑05 → 2010‑12‑03), and both are financing documents, not equity/asset transfers.

5. Pre-litigation transfer (within 6 months of first suit) — not present. I found no infringement suit naming US 5591952. (See caveat on the Google Patents "family has litigation" flag below.)

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Symbol's only financial distress was an SEC accounting-fraud penalty (2004, $37 M); it was not a debtor. It was acquired for $3.9 B in cash in 2006/07 — the opposite of a fire-sale.

7. Privateering — not present. No evidence of transfer to an NPE asserting on Symbol's behalf. Symbol asserted its own patents directly (e.g., Symbol v. Proxim, settled 2004; judgment Aug 2004) — but those suits concerned other Symbol patents (the '183 and '441 patents), not US 5591952.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. No RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN party in the chain.

Caveat on litigation: Google Patents displays a "Family has litigation" pointer for family ID 23234112 (which contains US 5396054 and US 5591952). That flag attaches to the family, and the Darts-IP citation could not be resolved to a docket asserting this patent. I could not identify any case naming US 5591952 as an asserted patent; treat the family flag as inconclusive for this patent specifically.

Verdict

Insufficient data — no NPE pattern present, and no recorded title transfer beyond the original assignment.

The entire post-issue record for US 5591952 consists of just two entries: a security interest recorded 2005‑01‑05 in favor of JPMorgan Chase and a release by secured party recorded 2010‑12‑03, neither of which changes ownership; title remained with Symbol Technologies, Inc., the original operating assignee, and the patent expired 2014‑01‑07. There is no shell entity, no known asserter, no cascading LLC chain, no bankruptcy sale, and no litigation on this patent — so the NPE rubric resolves negative on every populated signal. The verdict is "insufficient data" rather than "defensive/non-asserting" only because the essential enforcement inputs — reel/frame numbers and the correspondent(s) of record — could not be retrieved, and Google Patents' "family has litigation" flag is unresolved as to this patent.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 5591952; also mirrored at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). Cross-check Google Patents legal events at https://patents.google.com/patent/US5591952/en.

Single most useful next pull: the correspondent of record on the 2005‑01‑05 security-interest recording — if Symbol used outside counsel rather than an in-house paralegal, and that same attorney/firm later appears on any Symbol-divestiture recordings, the recurrence test becomes runnable. Until then, signal #3 must stay unclear.

I'll research this systematically. Let me search for the patent and its cited references.

Let me get the actual "References Cited" (patent citations) list from the face of US5591952.

Let me find the front-page "References Cited" list specifically.

Summary of what I found (and an important limitation up front)

Patent verified. US 5,591,952 ("Bar code reader"), inventors Mark J. Krichever and Boris Metlitsky, assignee Symbol Technologies (now Symbol Technologies LLC / Motorola Solutions). Application No. US 08/378,596, filed 1995‑01‑26, granted 1997‑01‑07. Earliest priority 1989‑03‑01 (Ser. No. 07/317,533). Status: Expired – Lifetime. Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5591952/en

Limitation on this answer: I was unable to retrieve the exact front‑page "References Cited / U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS" table for US5591952 — my searches returned the specification/definitions text and third‑party citing documents, but not the printed examiner citation list, and I exhausted my search budget before pulling the front page from Justia/FreePatentsOnline/USPTO PatentCenter. So the list below is the prior art cited on the face of the specification of US5591952 itself (the authoritative text you supplied), which is the citation set the patent attorney/patentee relied on. If you need the examiner‑cited front‑page list specifically, it should be pulled directly from the USPTO PatentCenter full‑document images for 08/378,596; I cannot confirm its exact contents from the searches I ran and will not fabricate it.

Everything below is grounded in the specification text you provided (https://patents.google.com/patent/US5591952/en). Where I state a filing/issue date not given in the patent text, I flag it as needing verification.

The references cited in US5591952

1. U.S. Pat. No. 4,387,297 — "Portable laser scanning system and scanning methods" (Swartz et al., Symbol Technologies)

• Cited for: Hand‑held, gun‑shaped laser scanner aimed by the user at the symbol; mechanically scanned beam (oscillating mirror); triggers/decode electronics.
• Date: Issued ~1983 (not stated in the 5591952 text — verify).
• Brief description: Base hand‑held laser bar code scanner architecture; the specification uses it as the archetype of the mechanically‑scanned, single‑scan‑line reader that the invention improves upon.
• § 102 relevance: Potentially discloses the environment of claims 7 / 18 / 26 / 27 (hand‑held unit aimed toward the symbol, manually activated trigger; also radio/rf coupling referenced via 4,409,470). It does not disclose the dual‑port memory array or the serial‑in/parallel‑out bit‑mapped scanning that is the core of independent claims 1, 12, 24, 29, 33, 34 and 39. No full anticipation of any independent claim.

2. U.S. Pat. No. 4,409,470 — "Narrow bodied, hand‑held laser scanning head" (Shepard et al., Symbol Technologies)

• Cited for: Hand‑held reader that may be self‑contained with RF (radio frequency) coupling to a host; gun‑shaped housing with window.
• Date: Issued ~1983 (not stated — verify).
• § 102 relevance: Same as above — environment only. Bears on the wireless‑coupling language and hand‑held framing of claims 7/18/26/27, not on the imaging/memory‑scanning limitations. No anticipation.

3. U.S. Pat. No. 4,760,248 — "Portable laser scanning system…" (Swartz et al., Symbol Technologies)

• Cited for: Gun‑shaped hand‑held style and the commercial LS 8100II configuration referenced for the FIG. 10/11 housing.
• Date: Issued 1988 (verify).
• § 102 relevance: Housing/ergonomics and trigger feature of claims 7/18/26/27. No anticipation of the claimed method/apparatus.

4. U.S. Pat. No. 4,369,361 — "Stationary bar code reader" (Swartz et al., Symbol Technologies)

• Cited for: Stationary reader in which the operator places the product into a fixed field of view (contrasted with hand‑held units).
• Date: Issued ~1983 (verify).
• § 102 relevance: Bears on the "stationary unit aimed toward a fixed field of view" element of claims 6 and 20. But claims 6 and 20 are dependent on claims 1 and 12 and therefore also require the serial‑transfer‑to‑memory and parallel‑port scanning steps, which this reference does not disclose. No anticipation.

5. U.S. Pat. No. 4,794,239 — "Method of encoding and decoding a two‑dimensional bar code" (Code 49)

• Cited for: Code‑49, the stacked/two‑dimensional symbol standard (rows of characters, start/stop patterns, up to eight rows) read by the invention.
• Date: Stated in the 5591952 text as issued Dec. 27, 1988.
• § 102 relevance: This defines the symbol/symbology and the row structure central to claims 5, 15, 16, 31, 37 (two‑dimensional symbol with a plurality of rows of bar code patterns). However, it discloses a symbology/encoding scheme, not a reader with a dual‑port memory array. A symbology reference cannot anticipate a reading‑apparatus/method claim. No anticipation; at most relevant to the subject‑matter context.

6. U.S. Pat. No. 4,816,661 — "Hand‑held laser scanner with scan pattern of mutually parallel lines" (Krichever et al., Symbol Technologies)

• Cited for: A hand‑held laser scanner generating a scan pattern of mutually parallel lines sweeping in opposite directions, vertically spaced — facilitating decode when a symbol is backwards/upside‑down, and multiple/varied scan paths.
• Date: Stated in the 5591952 text as filed Dec. 22, 1986, issued Mar. 28, 1989.
• § 102 relevance: Closest of the cited patents to the scanning‑pattern limitations (independent claim 33/34 and dependent claims 4, 14, 25 on addressing rows/columns in a sequence of linear patterns at different angles; claim 34's "orienting said scan paths until a full pattern is found… then continuing to scan"). But 4,816,661 achieves its pattern by mechanical optical scanning of the beam — not by electrical addressing of a memory array. Because claims 1/12/24/29/33/34 each require scanning a memory array holding a bit‑mapped image via a port of the memory while processing means evaluates/decodes, this reference does not disclose every element. No anticipation of the independent claims; potentially relevant under § 103 as to the scan‑pattern concept.

7. U.S. Pat. No. 4,441,125 — Light‑transparent‑window DRAM ("OpticRAM," Micron Technology)

• Cited for: The light‑responsive memory device used as both image converter and storage (64K/256K dynamic RAM with a transparent window, e.g., IS32/IS256), i.e., the FIG. 8/9 embodiment where the same device is the light‑responsive array 12 and the memory 20.
• Date: Issued ~1984 (not stated in 5591952 text — verify).
• § 102 relevance: This is the one cited reference that touches the "single device performs both conversion and storage with random access" concept relevant to claims 32 and 38 ("said memory has a serial port for receiving said binary representation from said light‑detector device, and has a second port for access by said processing means"). It still does not disclose the orientation‑determination/scan‑an‑angle addressing steps of the independent claims. No anticipation.

Related / co‑pending applications (NOT prior art)

• US 5,396,054 — "Bar code reader using scanned memory array" — the parent application Ser. No. 08/240,299 (filed 1994‑05‑09) in the same family (family ID 23234112). Same inventors/assignee.
• Ser. No. 08/000,794 (filed 1993‑01‑01), now US 5,414,250 — described by the patent as containing related subject matter and being a continuation of Ser. No. 317,433.
• Foreign family members: EP 0385478B1, JP 2779246B2, CA 1329263C, DE 69020186T2.
  These are same‑family/co‑pending documents, not § 102 prior art.

Anticipation analysis (35 U.S.C. § 102)

A reference anticipates a claim only if it discloses every element of that claim as arranged in the claim (no reliance on the knowledge of a skilled artisan to supply a missing element). Applying that standard:

Bottom line: The references cited on the face of the US5591952 specification are background/context art. The claimed invention's point of novelty — (i) optically imaging a field of view onto a light‑detector array, (ii) transferring a binary representation directly and serially only to a serial port of a memory array, (iii) scanning the stored image via a parallel port of that memory to a processor, (iv) evaluating the data to find the symbol and determine the angular orientation of its rows, and (v) re‑addressing the memory based on that determined orientation to read complete rows and decode — is not disclosed in any single one of these references. On this record I do not find a § 102 anticipation of independent claims 1, 12, 24, 29, 33, 34, or 39. The references are more naturally deployed under § 103 (e.g., a hand‑held/stationary laser scanner in view of the OpticRAM light‑sensing DRAM and known digital‑image/pattern‑recognition techniques), and several are also relevant to narrower dependent claims' environmental features (triggers, housings, stationary vs. hand‑held).

Caveats / what I could not verify

1. Front‑page examiner citations. I did not obtain the printed "References Cited" list on the face of US5591952; the set above is the citation set recited in the specification. The examiner‑cited list may include additional U.S. or foreign patents (and NPL) not mentioned in the description. Treat this as the in‑specification prior art, and pull the front page from USPTO PatentCenter for the complete record.
2. Dates. Only 4,794,239 (issued 1988‑12‑27) and 4,816,661 (filed 1986‑12‑22, issued 1989‑03‑28) are dated in the 5591952 text. Dates for 4,387,297, 4,409,470, 4,760,248, 4,369,361 and 4,441,125 are given from general knowledge and should be confirmed against their own front pages.
3. § 102 timing. To anticipate, each reference must also qualify as prior art relative to the 1989‑03‑01 earliest priority date (or the relevant effective date of each claim). Verify each reference's issue/publication date against that date.
4. Litigation flag. Google Patents notes "Family has litigation" for family ID 23234112 (Darts‑ip link: https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=23234112). If you need the actual invalidity contentions or IPR petitions for this family, that is a separate, more targeted search.

If you can give me the go‑ahead, I can do a focused follow‑up search to pull the exact examiner‑cited front‑page list from Justia/FreePatentsOnline/USPTO for 08/378,596 and then complete the per‑reference § 102 element‑by‑element chart.

I'll ground this analysis in the references actually cited on the patent's own page and in the specification text, then verify their content/dates with live sources.

Key hit: a pre-1989 reference (US 4,680,704) already used the Micron IS32 OpticRAM as an image sensor addressed as memory. Let me verify that and dig for other pre-1989 image-memory bar code reading art.

Strong finding: the parent patent's citation list is now available. Let me characterize the key pre-1989 references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 5,591,952 ("Bar code reader") under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analyst note on sources. The page content supplied for US 5,591,952 contains a "Prior art keywords" line (symbol, array, bar code, light, memory), a "Cited By (65)" list, and a "Families Citing this family (148)" list — but it does not contain the patent's own front‑page "Patent Citations" (References Cited) section, which is normally present on a Google Patents page. To build the § 103 record I therefore relied on (i) the references cited in the specification text of the '952 itself, and (ii) the 28‑reference citation list printed on the face of the parent, US 5,396,054, which I retrieved in full (https://patents.searchlight.law/doc/US5396054). The '054 list is the closest available proxy for what the examiner of this family considered. Where I use a reference whose content I verified in this session, I say so; where I only have a title, I flag it.

1. Legal framework and the person of ordinary skill

• Governing law: Because the effective filing date is March 1, 1989 (the '952 recites a § 1.60 continuation chain to Ser. No. 07/317,533, filed 1989‑03‑01), the pre‑AIA version of § 103(a) governs. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966); KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (a "court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions").
• Critical date: 1989‑03‑01. Most references below issued more than one year earlier and are therefore § 102(b) art (§ 102(b) is the strongest category because it cannot be antedated by a Rule 131 showing).
• PHOSITA: a person holding a B.S.E.E./B.S.C.S. (or equivalent) with ~2–4 years' experience in electro‑optical bar code reader design and digital image processing / machine vision, or an M.S. plus ~1–2 years. This is a combined skill set; the claim is precisely at the seam between bar code scanning and image processing, which matters to the motivation analysis.

2. The prior-art record

3. Element mapping of the independent claims

Claim 1 is representative. Its five steps and where each is met:

The only genuinely debatable element is (d)+(e) — "find the symbol/orientation in the stored bit‑map, then re‑address the memory accordingly." Everything else is either (i) admitted prior art in the '952's own specification (the dual‑port TMS4161), or (ii) squarely in the pre‑1989 art.

4. The combinations, and why a POSITA would have made them

Combination A — "OpticRAM image‑store + Code 49 + machine‑vision orientation"

US 4,441,125 + US 4,680,704 + US 4,697,245 (or EP 0 224 901 B1) + US 4,794,239

1. US 4,441,125 + US 4,680,704 are in the same field, address the same problem (low‑cost solid‑state imaging where a light‑sensitive DRAM is the frame store), and 4,680,704 is not merely analogous art — it uses the very IS32 OpticRAM device the '952's own FIG. 8 embodiment uses. Combining them requires no leap.
2. Both already teach that the image is binary, that it is randomly addressable, and that a computer interrogates it. That is claim elements (a)–(c).
3. US 4,697,245 supplies element (d): once the image is in an addressable RAM, run an algorithm over it to find a known object and its geometry. EP 0 224 901 B1 supplies even more directly the word "orientation," derived from a scanned optical‑RAM pixel array. Neither reference is bar‑code art, but both are image‑analysis art, and the claimed step is nothing more than image analysis of a stored bit‑map.
4. US 4,794,239 supplies the reason to do it for bar codes: Code 49 is defined by "ordered rows," each row self‑identifying by parity and checksum, and its decoding method is inherently row‑sequential. Once you know the symbology consists of stacked rows that must each be traversed along their own reading direction, determining the row angle before traversing is the obvious thing to do.
5. Motivation, articulated (KSR factors):

• Problem recognized in the art: the '952's own Background admits that for Code 49 "the reader must be aimed at each row, individually," and that multi‑scan mechanical readers "produce a number of scan lines at an angle to one another so these are not suitable for recognizing Code‑49 type … symbols."
• Design incentive: the '952 states the object as eliminating "mechanical scanning of the symbols" — fewer moving parts, lower cost, higher reliability, lower power. Substituting an electronic scan for a mechanical scan, where the data is already stored and randomly addressable, is the classic predictable substitution.
• Predictable solution set (KSR "finite number of identified, predictable solutions"): the '952's own specification enumerates the entire solution space — raster scan first; then angular scans "at 5° increments"; or rotate the image in memory; or rotate a Dove prism mechanically. It then states: "Many other algorithms … may be selected by a skilled programmer." That sentence is, functionally, an admission that the algorithm is within ordinary skill.

Combination B — "CCD area imager + frame store + Code 49 + orientation‑robust scanning"

US 4,516,017 + US 4,538,060 + US 4,715,615 + (TMS4161 frame store) + US 4,794,239 (+ US 4,816,661, subject to § 103(c))

1. US 4,516,017 teaches a two‑dimensional area image sensor electronically scanned to read markings on a label — the exact physical front end of Fig. 1 of the '952.
2. US 4,538,060 is directed to an optical reading apparatus with an "electronic scanning type" reading sensor.
3. US 4,715,615 teaches a CCD array bar code scanner arranged to "sense various locations of the bar code label" — i.e., breaking the one‑scan‑line‑one‑orientation constraint.
4. Adding a dual‑ported video DRAM (TMS4161) as the frame store between the CCD and the microprocessor is admitted prior art in the '952's own text, including the specific benefit the '952 relies on: "serial access can be at a much higher clock rate than the cycle time for random access, and … random access can be occurring at the same time as serial loading."
5. US 4,816,661 teaches generating mutually parallel, vertically spaced scan lines so that a symbol at an arbitrary orientation still decodes. Once the scan is electronic rather than mechanical, generating those same lines as address sequences into a memory is a mere change of the instrumentality for a known function (KSR; In re Prater).

Combination C — the "dual‑port" recitations (claims 1, 12, 24 and the "port" language of 29/32/34/38)

TMS4161 (admitted) + US 4,441,125 / US 4,680,704. The serial‑in / parallel‑out architecture the independent claims treat as the point of novelty is described in the '952 as an off‑the‑shelf part number. A claim cannot be saved by a limitation the specification concedes is commercially available prior hardware.

5. Claim‑by‑claim conclusions

6. Secondary considerations (and why they are weak here)

• Long‑felt need / failure of others: Plausible on paper — imaging readers did not displace laser scanners until the 1990s. But the need as articulated in the patent was already being met by mechanical means (multi‑line mechanical scanners, US 4,816,661; rotating CCD carriages, US 4,715,615). That undercuts the "failure of others" narrative.
• Commercial success: Symbol's LS 8100II is named in the '952 as the prior‑art laser product, not the invention. There is no evidence of nexus between any commercial success and the specific "re‑address the memory based on determined orientation" limitation, and no licensing‑driven nexus data in the record I reviewed.
• Teaching away: The only candidate is the general 1980s attitude (discussed in US 4,441,125) that DRAM light sensitivity was "a negative or adverse characteristic." That is a narrow teaching away from light‑sensitive DRAM as a sensor — it does not teach away from Combination B, which uses a CCD plus a conventional frame store.
• Skepticism / unexpected results: None pleaded or evidenced. The soak‑time limitation (≈250 ms for the IS256) and the fixed "gap" in the array are described in the '952 as trade‑offs, not surprises.

7. Vulnerabilities in a § 103 rejection — be aware of these

1. § 103(c) common‑ownership disqualification. US 4,816,661 (filed 1986‑12‑22, issued 1989‑03‑28) qualifies as prior art in this family only under § 102(e) — it had not issued by the 1989‑03‑01 priority date. Because it is commonly owned by Symbol Technologies with the '952, it is very likely disqualified as § 103 prior art under pre‑AIA § 103(c). A rejection resting on 4,816,661 must substitute non‑commonly‑owned art (US 4,715,615 for orientation‑robust CCD scanning, or the general knowledge of multi‑line scanners).
2. US 4,760,248 issued 1988‑07‑05 — less than one year before 1989‑03‑01, so it is § 102(a) art only (not § 102(b)); it can be antedated by a Rule 131 showing. US 4,387,297 and US 4,409,470 (1983) are solid § 102(b) art and should carry the hand‑held/trigger limitations instead.
3. "Directly… only" in claim 1(b). The '952's own FIG. 2 places a threshold‑responsive buffer 33 between the CCD output and the DRAM input. A literal‑infringement/admissibility fight over whether a thresholding buffer breaks "directly" is possible; a rejection should address this head‑on by citing 4,441,125's digitized two‑level output.
4. The claim set is broader than the parent. Comparing the '952's claim 1 to claim 1 of US 5,396,054: the '054 recited "(c) during said transferring, scanning … via a parallel port," whereas the '952 dropped "during" and instead added a new step (e) (re‑scan on determined orientation + decode). The '952 also appended a "two‑dimensional bar code symbol" preamble to claims 1 and 12 that the '054's claim 1 lacked. A broader, later‑filed claim that drops a concurrency limitation is more, not less, exposed to art that shows sequential load‑then‑scan.
5. Claim‑drafting defects already flagged in the previously generated sections — claims 17 and 23 begin "Apparatus according to claim 15/21" although 15 and 21 are method claims. If those claims are invalid under § 112 ¶ 2/¶ 4, the practical effect is to narrow the asserted claim set to the independent claims, where the art is strongest.

8. Explicit uncertainties

1. I did not see the '952's own front‑page citation list. The conclusion above uses the '054's 28‑reference list as a proxy. If the '952's front page cites additional references, the analysis could shift.
2. Content of several cited references was not verified in this session — US 4,570,057, US 4,766,300 (Chadima), US 4,727,245, US 4,728,784, US 4,746,789, US 4,748,318, US 4,748,319, US 4,753,498, US 4,761,544, US 4,652,730, US 4,748,955, US 4,744,326, US 4,888,852, US 4,742,883. Any of these could independently anticipate or strengthen a § 103 position; I did not read them and do not rely on them.
3. US 4,538,060 (Sakai) — I verified only its title and issuance date.
4. "Prior art date 1989‑03‑01" is the Google Patents assumption for the whole family; I have not verified the actual 07/317,533 filing date from the USPTO file wrapper.
5. Post‑dating art that is not prior art but is probative of conventionality: US 5,446,271 (Cherry, Spectra‑Physics/PSC, 1992) formalized "virtual scan lines" from stored CCD image data, and US 6,296,187 describes 2‑D CCD readers using "virtual scan lines." These post‑date the 1989 priority date and therefore cannot be used as § 102/§ 103 art; I mention them only because they show the concept the '952 claims became the industry norm — which is itself a KSR "predictable solution" signal, not a legal ground.
6. Per the standing instruction, all identifiers above are reproduced literally; I have not corrected spellings or numbers in the source, and where the source contains evident typographical errors (e.g., "bat code scanner," "LS 810011," "NTST") I have not silently normalized them.

Bottom line: On this record, claims 1, 12, 24, 29, 33, 34 and 39 are each reasonably rejectable as obvious over US 4,441,125 / US 4,680,704 in view of US 4,697,245 or EP 0 224 901 B1, further in view of US 4,794,239, with the dual‑ported serial/parallel video DRAM (TMS4161) supplied as admitted prior art. The dependent claims add only routine decoding heuristics (transition counting, bar/space ratio, adjacent‑scan comparison), stationary/hand‑held form factors, and scan‑angle variations — all of which were known. The single strongest counter‑argument available to the patentee is nexus‑free commercial success plus the absence of a reference that puts bar code finding and bar code re‑orientation together; a rejection should be built by making the "image analysis" references (4,697,245, EP 0 224 901 B1) do the finding/orienting work, since that is the one element the pure bar‑code art of 1989 does not contain.