US 5618096

I'll research US patent 5618096 specifically. Let me run targeted searches.

US Patent 5,618,096 — verification and summary

How I verified: I pulled the full text of US5618096A from Google Patents (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5618096](/patent/US5618096)/en) and cross-checked the claims against FreePatentsOnline (https://www.freepatentsonline.com/5618096.html). Bibliographic data below comes from those sources; the claim and abstract quotations are taken verbatim from the supplied authoritative text. I did not have direct API access to USPTO Patent Center or to PACER/CAFC docket systems — my litigation findings are web-search derived and are flagged as such below. Note also a date discrepancy in my instructions: the prompt states April 26, 2026, while my search results are timestamped September 26–27, 2026. I treated the later-dated results as current.

Bibliographic data (literal, as indexed)

Ownership chain of record (per the assignment/reassignment entries): Lumitex, Inc. → (2001-03-15) Lee, Mang-Shiang → (2001-03-20) Solid State Opto Limited → (2010-02-18) Rambus International Ltd. → (2013-03-04) Rambus Inc. → Rambus Delaware LLC. Security interests were recorded by KeyBank National Association (1999-08-06) and released in 2001.

Note on term: the patent has been expired for roughly a decade. The "Expired – Lifetime" status and the 2015-06-27 anticipated expiration follow from a 20-year term measured from the 1995-06-27 parent filing.

Abstract (verbatim)

"Light emitting panel assemblies include light emitting panel members and one or more light sources positioned/embedded in a light transition area, which increases the efficiency of light entering the panel members along the light input area to be emitted from one or more light emitting surfaces along the length of the panel members. Light may be reflected or refracted by a surface which changes the path of a portion of light such that it enters the input area of the panel member at a more acceptable angle. A uniform light output distribution may be produced by utilizing a pattern of light extracting deformities."

Independent claims — plain-language overview

Claim 1 — method of planar illumination. Three steps: (a) generate light; (b) direct that light toward a planar optical conductor so that, in the conductor's cross-sectional plane defined by two axes, the light's angular/spatial distribution is greater along one axis than the other (an asymmetric, "wide-in-one-direction" launch), with the light arriving generally perpendicular to the cross-section; (c) receive the light into a generally planar conductor having a pair of parallel opposed walls, at an angle that traps a significant portion by total internal reflection; and (d) propagate it to a preselected pattern of irregularities so light is emitted outward.

Claim 8 — method of planar illumination. Similar subject matter, drafted in more functional/positional terms: direct light into the conductor at a TIR-sustaining angle relative to the opposed walls; direct the light generally perpendicular to the emission direction, characterized by the same two-axis directional-component concept; distribute more light along the second axis than the first; and recite a preselected pattern of irregularities on the conductor that causes outward emission. Drafting observation: the final clause is stated as an element ("and a preselected pattern of irregularities...") rather than as a step, which is one of several signs of claim wording that appears to have been shaped during prosecution.

Claim 9 — method of planar illumination. A "selectively directing" variant: light is selectively directed so that, in the conductor's planar cross-section, a component along a second axis is distributed to a greater extent than a component along a first axis; light is then received into the planar conductor at a TIR-sustaining angle and communicated to a preselected pattern of irregularities.

Claim 13 — planar illumination system (apparatus). A generally planar optical conductor with a pair of parallel opposed walls and two mutually distinct cross-sectional axes perpendicular to the propagation direction; "directing means" for injecting light spread more along one axis than the other; "receiving means" for coupling that light into the conductor at a TIR-sustaining angle; and a preselected pattern of irregularities that emits light outward. Because it uses "means for" language, this claim (and claim 22) would be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) / pre-AIA ¶ 6 — that is my analysis, not a statement from the patent.

Claim 22 — planar illumination system (apparatus). Adds an explicit light source and recites the directing means as including (i) means for directing light to the planar cross-section generally perpendicular to the propagation direction, and (ii) means for distributing light more along the second axis than the first, plus a preselected pattern of irregularities causing emission.

Claim 24 — illumination system with a display. A light source; a semi-transparent visual display bearing an indicia set of text and/or characters; a planar conductor with opposed parallel walls; directing means providing the asymmetric two-axis light distribution; receiving means coupling light into the conductor at a TIR-sustaining angle; and a preselected pattern of irregularities ordered to correspond with the indicia set so the indicia is illuminated by light from the irregularities. Claims 25 and 26 narrow the indicia set to a flat-panel video display terminal and an instrument panel display, respectively.

Dependent-claim pattern worth noting: claims 2–7 depend from 1; 10–12 from 9; 14–21 from 13; 23 from 22; 25–26 from 24. No claim depends from claim 8. Claims 14–17 refer to the pattern as a "preselected pattern of light scattering irregularities" including a dye, a dispersion material, generally opaque subareas, or generally translucent subareas — terminology that differs from the specification's "light extracting deformities," an internal inconsistency in the claim set that a litigator would likely probe. Claim 19 specifies that the opposed walls are curved.

Litigation and CAFC check — what I found and did not find

Found: Google Patents flags the family as having litigation (https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=23967579). The web record shows the descendant patents in this family were asserted heavily in 2013–2015 by Acacia-linked NPEs Innovative Display Technologies LLC (IDT) and Delaware Display Group LLC (DDG) — e.g., Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. General Motors LLC, No. 1:14-cv-00850 (D. Del.); the Delaware Display Group actions against Lenovo, LG Display, Vizio, Amazon, HTC, Sony and Pantech (No. 13-2106 through 13-2112); and related E.D. Tex. and D. Del. suits against Apple, Google, Canon, Honda, Mercedes-Benz, Huawei and ZTE. Those cases concerned later continuations — US 7,434,974; 7,537,370; 8,215,816; 7,914,196; 6,886,956; 7,384,177 — as confirmed in the D. Del. claim-construction opinion (https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/delaware/dedce/1:2013cv02108/[53947/112](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=53947-0112)/0.pdf) and IDT's IPR2015-01540 mandatory notices (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1459945](/patent/1459945)/download-documents). Rambus Delaware LLC and Rambus, Inc. appear in that record as non-party subpoena targets (owner 2009–January 2013, before the sale to Acacia on 2013-01-30).

Not found: I located no instance in which US 5,618,096 itself was asserted in those or any other identified suits, and no CAFC 2026 docket entry naming 5,618,096. The only hits tying the number to litigation are (a) a prior-art search string listing "5618096" inside Exhibit 1002 in IPR2014-01359 (a search-history artifact, not an assertion), and (b) the Darts-IP family-level litigation flag. Given the patent expired 2015-06-27, live 2026 appellate activity over it would be implausible absent collateral licensing or fee disputes.

Confidence and caveats

• High confidence in the bibliographic fields, abstract, claim text and claim dependency structure — taken directly from the authoritative full text.
• Moderate confidence in the ownership chain; assignment records often lag or omit intervening transactions, and Google's "current assignee" listing shows two names (Lee Mang-Shiang and Rambus Delaware LLC), which reflects incomplete normalization rather than joint ownership.
• Lower confidence on litigation specifics: I could not query PACER, the CAFC docket, or Darts-IP directly. The absence of a 5,618,096-specific suit or 2026 CAFC appeal is a negative search result, not proof that none exists.
• I have not seen the prosecution file history, so any statement about claim amendments during prosecution is inference from claim wording, not verified fact.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 5618096 across patent litigation databases.

Let me search specialized litigation databases and patent litigation trackers.

Summary of my search

I was unable to find any litigation in which U.S. Patent No. 5,618,096 ("Light emitting panel assemblies") itself was asserted as a patent‑in‑suit. I searched general web sources plus patent‑litigation‑oriented resources (Google Patents/Google Patents legal‑events section, RPX Insight, Unified Patents‑style references, PTAB/IPR databases, and litigation‑document repositories). No case naming the '096 patent came up.

Caveat on confidence: I could not exhaustively query PACER, the ITC, or the Darts‑IP family‑litigation record (the Google Patents page shows a "Family has litigation" flag pointing to Darts‑IP at https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=23967579&..., but the underlying case list was not retrievable here). So I cannot rule out that '096 was asserted in some case that I could not surface. What I can say is that no such case appeared in the sources I could reach.

What the record for '096 does show

From the authoritative patent text you supplied (Google Patents, fetched 2026‑09‑27):

• Patent: US 5,618,096, "Light emitting panel assemblies"; inventors Jeffery R. Parker, Mark D. Miller, Daniel N. Kelsch; original assignee Lumitex Inc.
• Priority date: 1995‑06‑27 (continuation of Serial No. 08/495,176, which issued as US 5,613,751); filed 1995‑11‑20; issued 1997‑04‑08.
• Ownership chain: Lumitex → Lee, Mang‑Shiang (2001‑03‑15) → Solid State Opto Limited (2001‑03‑20) → Rambus International Ltd. (2010‑02‑18) → Rambus Inc./Rambus Delaware LLC (2013‑03‑04).
• Status: "Expired – Lifetime"; anticipated expiration 2015‑06‑27.

Because the '096 patent expired in 2015, any infringement suit on it would have had to be filed before that date (subject to the 6‑year §286 damages look‑back for earlier conduct).

Closely related family litigation (different patents — not '096)

The only litigation campaign I confirmed that involved this patent family asserted other members of the same family/portfolio, not '096:

• Innovative Display Technologies, LLC (IDT) — an Acacia Research subsidiary — began a campaign in June 2013, asserting a group of seven patents "related to light emitting panel assemblies used in LCDs," including U.S. Patent No. 6,755,547.
• In late December 2013, Delaware Display Group LLC (DDG), another Acacia subsidiary, joined IDT as co‑plaintiff in seven more suits, adding U.S. Patent No. 7,914,196 ("backlight system") to the seven patents already asserted.
• Named defendants (Dec. 2013 wave): Amazon, HTC, Lenovo, LG, Pantech, Sony, and VIZIO — alleged infringement via laptops, smartphones, and tablets incorporating accused displays.
• Provenance: the litigated patents were previously owned by Rambus and were transferred to Acacia in March 2013.

Source: RPX Insight, "Innovative Display Expands Campaign with New Acacia Sub Delaware Display as Co‑Plaintiff" (Jan. 9, 2014) — https://insight.rpxcorp.com/news/3720

I do not have verified case numbers, jurisdictions, or ultimate outcomes for these IDT/DDG suits, and I will not fabricate them. They are also distinguishable from your request because the asserted patents were 6,755,547, 7,914,196 and related continuations — not US 5,618,096.

Bottom line

• Confirmed litigation specifically naming US 5,618,096: none found.
• The patent is part of a family that did see significant litigation and licensing activity (Lumitex → Solid State Opto → Rambus → Acacia/IDT/DDG), but the cases I located asserted sibling patents, not '096.
• The Google Patents "Family has litigation" flag indicates litigation exists somewhere in the family (23967579); it does not by itself establish that '096 was asserted.

If you need a definitive negative, the next step would be a direct PACER/ITC and Darts‑IP family query on family ID 23967579, which I was unable to complete here. I'd recommend treating the above as "no confirmed '096‑specific cases found," not as proof that none exists.

I'll verify the canonical "no PTAB activity" signal against live sources before concluding.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 5,618,096: zero (0) — no IPR, no PGR, no CBM, active or terminated — so there is nothing to break down by status; the USPTO ODP "PTAB proceedings on file" block is empty, and my independent web checks (Google Patents family/legal-events data, PTAB E2E/PTAB Decisions result sets, docket-aggregator searches for "5,618,096" / "5618096") surfaced no petition ever naming this patent as the challenged patent.[*] The bottom-line defensive posture for a defendant is unusual: the patent has not been hardened by surviving IPRs (it has never been tested at the Board), but it also has no live bite — it is a pre-AIA patent with a 1995-06-27 priority date that expired on 2015-06-27 and is recorded as "Expired – Lifetime," so any demand letter you receive citing it is, at most, a claim for pre-expiration infringement, and § 286's six-year damages lookback makes a suit filed today effectively worth zero in damages.

[*] Caveat on completeness: I could not exhaustively page PTAB E2E for every proceeding number series in this session. The ODP canonical list is empty, and nothing contradicting that turned up in search. Treat "zero" as high-confidence but not certified-complete; a defendant's counsel can confirm in minutes via the PTAB E2E "Patent Number" search and the PTAB Decisions portal (below).

No proceedings to list

Because the structured source is empty, there is no {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} — {Petitioner} v. {Patent Owner} block to populate. To be explicit about what does not exist:

• No institution decision, no Final Written Decision, no IPR certificate for 5,618,096. The patent's Google Patents legal-events timeline contains only assignment/reassignment entries and the 2015-06-27 "Anticipated expiration" event — no Patent Trial and Appeal Board trial events, no IPR/PGR certificate event.
• No Federal Circuit appeal of anything involving this patent, because there is no Board decision to appeal.
• *The closest thing to PTAB contact is this patent appearing as prior art, not as the patent at issue.* For example, US 5,618,096 appears in the reference table of a petition exhibit in IPR2014-01359 (inter partes review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,914,196), where it is cited alongside other Parker-family references. That is a citation event only — it confers no estoppel and produces no claim-level outcome for the '096 patent.

Strategic summary

Claim status: all 26 claims are UNTESTED at the PTAB. Claims 1–26 of US 5,618,096 (methods at claims 1–12; systems at claims 13–23; display/illumination systems at claims 24–26) have never been the subject of an AIA trial. Nothing is canceled, nothing is confirmed, nothing is under a certificate. The claims themselves are the original issued claims — the printed claims in the patent text include the "first/second axis," "generally parallel opposed walls," "internal reflection," and "preselected pattern of irregularities" limitations of claims 1, 8, 9, 13, 22 and 24, plus the dependent dye / dispersion material / translucent subarea / opaque subarea limitations (claims 5–7, 14–17) and the display-related dependents (claims 4, 11, 21, 24–26).

Estoppel landscape: there is none, in either direction. § 315(e)(2) estoppel only attaches to a petitioner that obtained a Final Written Decision; no FWD exists, so no party is barred and no ground is off the table. Conversely, nothing is pre-cleared: a defendant today retains the full menu — §§ 102 and 103 on the '096 claims, § 112 challenges on the broad "directing light … defined by a directional component in each of first and second … axes" claim language (claim 1's functional/axis language is a plausible written-description and indefiniteness target), and § 251 reissue or § 307/§ 312 avenues in district court. Note the AIA-trial limits that apply: this is a pre-AIA patent (filed 1995-11-20, priority 1995-06-27), so PGR is unavailable (no first-inventor-to-file claim), and CBM review is unavailable absent a financial-product/service tie. IPR remains theoretically available even on an expired patent, with the caveat that the patent owner can no longer amend claims.

Pattern signals: no petitioner, no aggregation, no appeal history. No serial filer, no race between parallel IPRs, and no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) activity on this patent appears in the public record — consistent with the patent being both expired and, apparently, no longer the tip of the assertion spear. The family tells the story of a monetization pipeline rather than a PTAB fight: original assignee Lumitex, Inc. → Lee, Mang-Shiang (2001-03-15) → Solid State Opto Limited (2001-03-20) → Rambus International Ltd. (2010-02-18) → Rambus Inc./Rambus Delaware LLC (2013-03-04). The Google Patents page also carries a "/family=23967579" litigation flag for the family, so litigation touching family members (notably the continuation-in-part/division descendants such as US 6,712,481, US 7,108,414, US 6,779,222 and the "light redirecting films" line) is documented — but I did not verify in this session which of those cases named the '096 patent itself, and I will not guess at case numbers. Treat the family litigation flag as a lead to pull from the Darts-IP link on the patent page rather than as a proven assertion of this patent.

The dominant defensive fact is expiration, not PTAB history. The '096 patent expired 2015-06-27. Under 35 U.S.C. § 286, damages reach back only six years from the filing of a complaint, and post-expiration sales are not infringing at all. So the practical defense is a § 286 / standing-and-remedy attack plus an on-sale/prior-use and § 112 posture — not an IPR-driven one.

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm the zero-count directly at the source before you rely on it in a brief. Run the patent number through PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and the PTAB Decisions / Trials@USPTO decision search (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions; PTAB E2E is the "public-informations" system), and cross-check CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/) for any Federal Circuit docket naming "5,618,096." If all three are clean, you can state affirmatively: no AIA trial proceeding has ever been instituted or terminated on this patent.
2. If you are a defendant and the demand letter cites claims of 5,618,096: the dispositive point is the 2015-06-27 expiration (recorded on the patent page as "Anticipated expiration," status "Expired – Lifetime"). Demand damages for post-2015 activity are not recoverable, and a complaint filed now can reach back under § 286 only to roughly 2020 — after expiry. Pair that with a validity/§ 112 position on claim 1's "defined by a directional component in each of first and second … axes" language (never construed by any tribunal, and there is no Board or court claim construction to bind a district court). There is no FWD to link because none exists — do not represent otherwise.
3. If you need an invalidity vehicle pre-suit: because no estoppel applies, an IPR remains available in principle (petition within the § 315(b) one-year window from service), but weigh it against the fact that an expired patent offers the patent owner no amendment runway and that the same art is fully usable in a district-court § 282 defense with no 12-month statutory trial clock. Ex parte reexamination (the tool aggregators typically use on expired/NPE-held patents, e.g., Unified's stated practice) is also open and cheaper, but is not an AIA trial and does not produce § 315(e)(2) estoppel.
4. Parallel-monitoring item, not a current risk: the current assignee of record is Rambus Delaware LLC (via Rambus Inc./Rambus International Ltd.). Check the Darts-IP family link on the patent page (https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=23967579) and the Google Patents "Family Applications" list for the live descendants — US 7,513,672; US 7,524,101; US 7,563,012; US 7,798,695; US 8,142,063; US 8,308,334; US 8,215,816; US 6,712,481; US 7,108,414; US 5,613,751 — because those unexpired members are where the actionable claims in this family actually live. If the assertion you are facing stretches to "the Parker/Lumitex light-guide family," your PTAB diligence should move to those numbers, where IPR activity is far more likely than on the '096 patent.

Sources consulted: Google Patents, US5618096A (authoritative full text, claims, family, legal events, assignees, litigation flag) — https://patents.google.com/patent/US5618096/en; USPTO PTAB E2E petition/decision material surfaced in web results (IPR2014-01359 exhibit listing citing US 5,618,096 as prior art); Unified Patents insights page (for the aggregator-practice context, no '096 activity). No AIA trial proceeding on US 5,618,096 was found, and none is asserted here.

I'll research the assignment record. Let me run several searches in parallel.

Let me dig for the specific recording data (reel/frame) and correspondent details.

Ownership & Assignment Reconstruction — US 5,618,096

Scope note / material limitation up front: I could retrieve the event-level reassignment record (assignor → assignee + conveyance type + event date) for '096 from Google Patents' legal-events feed, which mirrors the USPTO assignment abstracts. I could not retrieve the underlying reel/frame numbers or the correspondent-of-record for the '096 links within this session — the USPTO Assignment Center interface is a JavaScript search app that my tools cannot query, and no indexed copy of the '096 "Patent Assignment Abstract of Title" surfaced. Every reel/frame value below is therefore marked NOT RETRIEVED unless it is drawn from a sibling patent's abstract (and flagged as such). I will not invent reel/frame or correspondent data.

Inventors

Unusual pattern (partial, do not over-read): Parker remains economically and technically attached to this family across the 2001 and 2010 transfers, while Miller and Kelsch do not appear again in the chain. That is consistent with — but does not prove — the two non-founder inventors exiting the technology at the 2001 divestiture. No evidence of an inventor → Lumitex assignment being recorded on '096's own abstract was surfaced; such a record likely exists pre‑issue but was not retrievable here.

Original assignee

Lumitex, Inc. — a corporation of Ohio, expressly so described in the recorded security agreements (see 1999 link below).

• Primary line of business: design and manufacture of fiber-optic and solid-state ("SolidState™") light-delivery systems — surgical illuminators (LightMat), machine-vision backlights, membrane-switch and appliance lighting, phototherapy. Roughly 130+ patents claimed in its own marketing collateral.
• Did it ship products embodying the claims? Yes, at least on the fiber-optic / panel-illumination side; Lumitex marketed molded and machined plastic light guides and flat panel illuminators commercially. The '096 subject matter (edge-lit planar conductor with light-extracting deformities) is squarely in the product line Lumitex was selling, and Lumitex simultaneously cross-referenced two of its own earlier patents (US 4,897,771 and US 5,005,108) as the light-source disclosure.
• Current status: Operating, not dissolved, not in bankruptcy. ISO 9001 / ISO 13485 certified, Strongsville OH headquarters, with the Poly-Optical division in Irvine CA. It divested the relevant patent assets in 2001 while continuing as a company.

Assignment timeline

Chronological, from Google Patents' legal-events record for US 5,618,096A (the authoritative text supplied), which reproduces USPTO assignment abstracts. Reel/frame and correspondent are NOT RETRIEVED for every entry except where noted.

• 1999‑08‑06 / recorded 1999‑08‑06 — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Lumitex, Inc. (a corporation of Ohio)
  • Assignee: KeyBank National Association
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization — Lumitex pledges its IP as collateral to its bank.

• 2001‑02‑02 / recorded 2001‑02‑02 — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Release of Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Ohio Mezzanine Fund, Ltd.
  • Assignee: Lumitex, Inc.
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization unwind — release of a subordinated lender's lien. ⚠️ Gap: the corresponding Ohio Mezzanine Fund grant of security does not appear on '096's event list; it may have been recorded only against sibling '751 or on a different reel. Flagging as an incomplete record, not as a missing lien.

• 2001‑02‑02 / recorded 2001‑02‑02 — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Release of Security Interest in Patents
  • Assignor: KeyBank National Association
  • Assignee: Lumitex, Inc.
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization unwind — senior lender's lien discharged. Both releases recorded the same day = Lumitex was cleared to sell clean title.

• 2001‑03‑15 (recorded 2001‑03‑15) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (see document for details)
  • Assignor: Lumitex, Inc.
  • Assignee: Lee, Mang‑Shiang (individual; Chairman of Global Lighting Technologies / 茂林光電, Taiwan)
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Divestiture / fire-sale of a division — Lumitex sells its light-panel patent family to the buyer of its optical business (widely reported as ~US$ value undisclosed at this step; the later resale to Rambus is reported at ~US$26 million). Note the six-week gap between lien releases and this assignment.

• 2001‑03‑20 / recorded 2001‑03‑20 — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Lee, Mang‑Shiang
  • Assignee: Solid State Opto Limited (British Virgin Islands business company)
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Internal reorg into an IP-holding vehicle — the individual buyer immediately parks title in a BVI company, five days after acquiring it. (Contemporaneous with the reported joint venture between Lee and Lumitex to form Solid State Opto.)

• 2010‑02‑18 / recorded 2010‑02‑18 — Reel NOT RETRIEVED for '096; sibling-patent evidence: REEL/FRAME 023950/0598

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Solid State Opto Limited
  • Assignee: Rambus International Ltd. (Cayman Islands)
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Sale to a monetization/litigation platform — Rambus acquires the Solid State Opto lighting portfolio; the transaction is documented as the Asset Purchase Agreement among Rambus Inc., Rambus International Ltd., Rambus Delaware LLC, and Global Lighting Technologies, Inc. / Solid State Opto Limited (filed as an exhibit to Rambus' 10‑K). ⚠️ Reel caveat: 023950/0598 is taken from the Google Patents legal events of US 7,448,775, a sibling in the same SOL→Rambus transfer (recorded 2009‑12‑11 there). It is probable but unverified that the bulk portfolio assignment for '096 sits on the same or an adjacent reel/frame. Do not treat 023950/0598 as a confirmed '096 record.

• 2013‑03‑04 / recorded 2013‑03‑04 — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Rambus International Ltd.
  • Assignee: Rambus Inc. (NASDAQ: RMBS)
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Internal reorg / onshoring — Cayman holdco to US parent.

• 2013‑03‑04 / recorded 2013‑03‑04 — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Rambus Inc.
  • Assignee: Rambus Delaware LLC (Rambus IP-holding subsidiary; PatentsView/Patsnap records an Ohio HQ address for this entity)
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Internal reorg into a dedicated IP-holding LLC, recorded the same day as the Rambus International → Rambus Inc. step. This is the last recorded link; Google Patents lists the current assignee as both "LEE MANG-SHIANG" and "Rambus Delaware LLC," an artifact of how its assignee field aggregates the chain — the operative terminal owner per the final recorded assignment is Rambus Delaware LLC.

Correspondent finding: Because the Assignment Center record was not retrievable, I cannot confirm or refute a repeat correspondent across the chain. The prompt's thesis — that the recording attorney is the durable fingerprint — is exactly the check that this patent most needs, and it is the one datum I do not have. That check should be run manually at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 5618096) and at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (Patent Assignment Search → enter 5618096).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 5618096
    1995 : Filed by Lumitex Inc
    1997 : Patent issued April 8
    1999 : Security agreement to KeyBank
    2001 : Lien releases by KeyBank and Ohio Mezz
         : Assigned to Mang Shiang Lee
         : Assigned to Solid State Opto Ltd
    2010 : Assigned to Rambus International Ltd
    2013 : Assigned to Rambus Inc
         : Assigned to Rambus Delaware LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT (qualified).
Title passes through two offshore non-operating holding vehicles with no products of their own: Solid State Opto Limited (BVI) on 2001‑03‑20 and Rambus International Ltd. (Cayman) on 2010‑02‑18, terminating at Rambus Delaware LLC, a Rambus IP-holding subsidiary. Qualification: Solid State Opto had a product-side affiliate (Global Lighting Technologies) and the Rambus purchase agreement transfers employees of a "Seller R&D" entity, so these are not bare single-member shells in the classic sense. The BVI/Cayman layer is nonetheless the classic tell for title-holding designed for transfer and enforcement.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT (for the family; UNCLEAR for '096 itself).
The chain terminates at Rambus Inc./Rambus Delaware LLC — a public company whose model is majority patent licensing and which has been one of the most prolific patent litigants of the 2000s–2010s. Separately, Acacia Research Corp. (explicitly on the prompt's asserter list) is reported by the Science & Technology Policy Research and Information Center (STPI, Taiwan) to have taken this patent family onward to Innovative Display Technologies LLC, which asserted seven family members starting June 2013 — a campaign corroborated by the earlier litigation section of this analysis (RPX Insight, Jan. 9, 2014). ⚠️ Flagging a contradiction with the previously generated litigation section: that section named the asserted patents as including US 6,755,547 and US 7,914,196; the STPI record lists the seven as 6,755,547; 7,300,194; 7,384,177; 7,404,660; 7,434,974; 7,537,370; and 8,215,816. Note that 8,215,816 is a member of family 23967579 (filed 2011‑12‑09, priority 1995‑06‑27) — i.e., a direct continuation sibling of '096. The two lists are probably different assertion waves, not an error, but the discrepancy should be reconciled before either is relied on. No source places Acacia/IDT as assignee of '096 itself.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNKNOWN / NOT DETERMINABLE.
Correspondent-of-record was not retrievable for any link. This is the single largest evidentiary hole in this reconstruction. One partial anchor: the sibling SOL→Rambus transfer for US 7,448,775 carries REEL/FRAME 023950/0598, recorded 2009‑12‑11 — if the same reel/frame appears on '096's abstract, that establishes a shared recording event (bulk portfolio conveyance) but still not a named correspondent.

4. Cascading transfers through chained LLCs in <24 months — NOT PRESENT.
The links are spaced 2001 → 2010 → 2013; the only same-day pair is the 2013‑03‑04 Rambus International → Rambus Inc. → Rambus Delaware LLC reorg, which is an internal restructuring, not a cascading NPE hand-off.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — UNCLEAR.
The final '096 assignment (Rambus Inc. → Rambus Delaware LLC) is dated 2013‑03‑04, and the IDT assertion campaign over family members began in June 2013 with Acacia acquiring Rambus lighting patents in March 2013. That temporal alignment is suggestive. But no suit naming '096 was found (per the earlier litigation section), so the "pre-litigation transfer to enable assertion of this patent" element is unproven. '096 itself expired 2015‑06‑27, so any assertion window closed a decade ago.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
Lumitex released two secured lenders' liens on 2001‑02‑02 and sold the patents cleanly on 2001‑03‑15. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding involving Lumitex, Lee, Solid State Opto, or Rambus was surfaced. The 2001 divestiture reads as a strategic carve-out, not a distress sale — though the tight release-then-sell sequencing (Feb 2 → Mar 15) shows the transaction was pre-arranged.

7. Privateering — UNCLEAR / structurally analogous.
The 2001 sale to Lee and the 2010 resale to Rambus ($26M reported) both involved the sellers (Lumitex; GLT/Solid State Opto) retaining rights to keep practicing the technology. That "monetize the paper, keep using the art" structure is exactly the privateering shape. However, the arm's-length enforcement I can document (Rambus; later Acacia/IDT) was directed at third parties on the acquirer's own account, not demonstrably "on behalf of" Lumitex. Call it unclear.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
No RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN link anywhere in the chain.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The chain is an unambiguous patent-monetization pipeline: an operating company (Lumitex, Inc.) pledged the patents to KeyBank in 1999 (recorded 1999‑08‑06), had both liens released on 2001‑02‑02, and passed title six weeks later through an individual buyer (Lee, Mang‑Shiang, 2001‑03‑15) into a BVI IP-holding company (Solid State Opto Limited, 2001‑03‑20), then to a Cayman holding company (Rambus International Ltd., 2010‑02‑18) and finally to Rambus Delaware LLC (2013‑03‑04) — an entity with no manufacturing footprint and a Rambus IP-holding mandate. That is two strong signals (offshore shell-holding layer + terminal owner on a licensing/litigation platform). It falls short of high confidence for three concrete reasons: (i) I could not verify any reel/frame or correspondent for '096, so the prompt's key repeat-counsel test is unrun; (ii) the terminal owner is a public, revenue-generating company (Rambus Inc., NASDAQ: RMBS) with a genuine products arm (MicroLens optics, Pentelic), so "no products" is not cleanly satisfied; and (iii) no infringement suit naming '096 was found, and the patent expired 2015‑06‑27, so there is no assertion event on this specific patent to anchor a troll characterization.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — search patent number 5618096 and capture the reel/frame + correspondent for each of the eight events listed above; also pull the abstract for sibling US 5,613,751 (same filing date, family application 08/495,176) and US 8,215,816, since the bulk portfolio recordings and the Acacia/IDT conveyance are likelier to be legible there.

I'll search for the patent's citation record — both references it cites (backward) and patents citing it (forward).

I have useful leads. Now let me pull the actual "References Cited" (prior-art) list from the '096 front page and its sibling documents.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 5,618,096 ("Light emitting panel assemblies")

Scope/ID discipline: I searched the literal string 5618096 and treated it as US 5,618,096 only. I deliberately exclude lookalike numbers that my searches surfaced (e.g., US 6,624,096 "Textile Fabric for the Outer Shell of a Firefighter's Garment," US 9,943,096 (Fraser et al.), US 5,618,095) — none of these are the patent at issue.

1. Important evidentiary caveat (read first)

The authoritative full text you supplied does not contain a [56] References Cited block. The Google Patents fetch for US 5,618,096 includes the Descriptions, Claims (26), Classifications, and "Cited By (135)" — but the backward citation list (the examiner's cited prior art) was not in the retrieved payload. I could not retrieve the '096-specific [56] list from the sources reachable in this session.

Two consequences:

1. The 135 "Cited By" entries are FORWARD citations (documents citing '096, all published 1996–2026). They are not § 102 prior art against '096 and are irrelevant to this task. Do not use them as prior art.
2. Best available substitute, and why it is reliable: US 5,618,096 is expressly "a continuation of co-pending application Ser. No. 08/495,176 filed on Jun. 27, 1995," which issued as US 5,613,751 (Mar. 25, 1997) — same specification, same three inventors (Parker, Miller, Kelsch), same assignee (Lumitex). I retrieved the US 5,613,751 front-page [56] list from a PTAB exhibit PDF (Exhibit 1006 in IPR2015-00506). Because the two cases share one specification, this is highly probative of — but not guaranteed identical to — the art cited in '096. Treat it as presumptive, not as a verified [56] transcription.

Source for the '751 [56] list: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-00506/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._7434973/docs/12-30-2014-Petitioner/Exhibit-1006-Ex_1006___US5613751_Parker.pdf

2. Presumptive [56] prior art for '096 (from the continuation parent, US 5,613,751)

All are U.S. patents. Examiner-cited references (§ 102(a)/(b)/(e) candidates). Dates and class codes are as transcribed from the '751 front page.

Classification note: the "362/31" cluster (edge-illuminated panel lights) is the field in which '096's claims live. That cluster is where a § 102 rejection would most plausibly originate.

Caveat: I have not read the full text of the above references in this session. The "claims potentially implicated" column is my preliminary mapping based on the reference titles/classes and the claim language of '096 — it is an analyst hypothesis, not a verified element-by-element anticipation analysis.

3. References incorporated by reference into the '096 specification itself

This is grounded directly in the text you supplied and does not depend on retrieving [56]:

"Each light source 3 may also be of any suitable type including, for example, any of the types disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,897,771 and 5,005,108, assigned to the same assignee as the present application, the entire disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference."

• US 5,005,108 (Pristash et al., 4/1991, Lumitex) — confirmed to be an examiner-cited reference on the '751 front page as well. It is the single strongest candidate reference: it discloses a panel member illuminated from a light source via an optical coupling, with TIR propagation and light extraction.
• US 4,897,771 (Lumitex-assigned, incorporated by reference) — also Lumitex-assigned. ⚠️ I could not independently verify its title, exact issue date, or inventors in this session, and it does not appear in the '751 [56] list retrieved. I am flagging this because the incorporation-by-reference makes it potentially highly material to '096 claims 1–3, 9–10, 13, 20, 22–23 (light-source/transition-area coupling) despite its absence from the printed citation list.

4. Prior art considered by the EPO for the family member EP 0 751 340 (same priority: US 495,176, 27.06.1995)

This is search-report-level prior art on the same disclosure as '096 (Applicant: Lumitex, Inc.; inventors Parker, Miller, Kelsch). It is the closest thing to an examiner's § 102/§ 103 assessment of this specification that I could retrieve. From the EP 0 751 340 A3 European Search Report (app. no. 96 30 4662):

Source: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/14/7a/4f/446d08c11d8210/EP0751340A3.pdf

EP 0 453 092 A (General Electric) is therefore the strongest documented § 102 candidate against '096's claim 1/claim 13-type subject matter — an examiner rated it X (single-reference anticipation/obviousness) against the entire claim set of the EP counterpart.

⚠️ Claim-number correspondence caveat: EP 0 751 340 was examined on a 15-claim set (matching the parent US 5,613,751-family claim set), whereas '096 carries 26 claims (1–16 method, 13–23 system, 24–26 display). The EPO claim numbering should not be mapped 1:1 onto '096's claim numbers.

5. Prior art asserted in PTAB proceedings against sibling patents — bearing on '096's distinctive limitation

'096's claim 1 is built around a specific limitation: light "defined by a directional component in each of first and second relatively unique axes of a cross-sectional area of an optical conductor… such that a component… along the first axis is distributed to a greater extent therealong than a component… along the second axis" (i.e., an output distribution wider than it is tall — the off-axis/"low-profile LED" concept). The same limitation appears in sibling patents US 7,404,660 and US 7,434,973, which were challenged in IPRs (IPR2014‑01094 / IPR2015‑00487 / IPR2015‑00506). The prior art shopped against that exact limitation in those proceedings:

• US 5,381,309 (Borchardt) — conventional array of round "bullet" LEDs feeding an edge-lit panel (Parker's declaration, Ex. 1020).
• US 5,050,946 (Hathaway) — fluorescent-lamp edge-lit backlight (Ex. 1014).
• Nishio — rough surface on light guide formed by injection molding (Ex. 1011).
• Tsunoda '014 — protrusions on light guide formed by metal-die molding (Ex. 1023).
• Etsuo — edge-lit backlight with low-profile rectangular LEDs 20, 21 enabling a 1.0–3.0 mm profile (Ex. 1025).
• Tsuchiyama — low-profile rectangular LEDs 12a/12b in a miniature pager (Ex. 1022).
• Muraki — linearly arranged LED pellets as linear light sources for displays (Ex. 1031).
• Buchner — flat LED elements attached to a lateral edge of a translucent body (Ex. 1032).

Sources: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1461340](/patent/1461340)/… and the Parker declaration (Ex. 2013) at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-00487/…

Analyst judgment: the Etsuo / Tsuchiyama / Muraki / Buchner group (low-profile rectangular LED emitters) plus Hathaway/Borchardt (edge-lit panel, TIR, extraction) is the prior-art combination most likely to be asserted against '096's claims 1, 8, 9, 13, 22 and 24 under § 102 (individually) or § 103 (in combination). I have not verified that any single one of these discloses all elements of any '096 claim.

6. Summary table of "most relevant prior art"

7. Bottom line and honest limitations

• I could not retrieve '096's own printed [56] list in this session. What I have provided is (a) the presumptive prior-art list inherited from its continuation parent US 5,613,751, (b) the references expressly incorporated by reference in '096's specification text, and (c) the EPO search report for the same disclosure's EP counterpart — the strongest examiner-grade § 102 evidence available.
• I have not performed element-by-element claim charts. The "potentially anticipates" column in § 2 is a reasoned hypothesis, and I have said so. Do not represent it as a completed invalidity analysis.
• Do not auto-correct or conflate these IDs. Note in particular: US 5,618,096 ('096, Lumitex/Rambus, light emitting panel) is a different patent from US 6,624,096 (PBI, firefighter textile fabric) and US 9,943,096 (Fraser et al.), both of which appeared in my searches.
• To obtain the definitive answer, pull the literal [56] block for 5,618,096 from USPTO Patent Center / the granted front page (https://uspto.report/patent/grant/5,618,096 and the official printed patent), and for each cited reference run the element-by-element comparison against claims 1, 8, 9, 13, 22 and 24. That is the only way to convert the above hypotheses into a defensible § 102 statement.

I'll ground this analysis in the prior-art record for the '096 patent. Let me pull the actual cited references and the two patents incorporated by reference.

Excellent — I've found the EP search report for this family and the IPR record. Let me pull the specific prior-art references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Pat. No. 5,618,096 ("Light emitting panel assemblies")

Governing law: This patent has an effective filing date of June 27, 1995 (it is a continuation of Ser. No. 08/495,176, filed 1995-06-27, which issued as US 5,613,751; the '096 was filed 1995-11-20 and issued 1997-04-08). Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 therefore applies, evaluated under the Graham v. John Deere factors and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).

1. What on this page actually counts as prior art — and what does not

A threshold analyst note, because this page is easy to misread: the large "Cited By (135)" and "Families Citing this family (395)" lists are later documents (1996–2026). They are not prior art to a June 1995 priority date, and I have not used them as such. The references I rely on are (a) the two patents the '096 specification expressly incorporates by reference, (b) the references the EPO cited against the EP counterpart of this very specification, and (c) references established in USPTO proceedings against sibling family members.

⚠️ Cross-reference / flag vs. the earlier Litigation section: that section reported no litigation naming '096. Consistent with that, I found no §103 challenge to '096 itself. However, the record shows Pristash '108 was used as the primary reference in IPR2015-00506 against U.S. Pat. No. 7,434,973 (see the Exhibit 1006 file at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/[PTAB](/ptab)/IPR2015-00506/…/Exhibit-1006-Ex_1006___US5613751_Parker.pdf) and in another petition against a sibling referred to as the '816 patent (which appears to be US 8,215,816, a 2011 continuation in Family ID 23967579) (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1459470](/patent/1459470)/…). This is complementary, not contradictory, to the earlier "no '096-specific litigation" finding — but it materially strengthens the obviousness case, because the '096's own incorporated-by-reference prior art was used to invalidate its siblings.

2. Claim construction points that drive the analysis

The independent claims are drafted in a way that makes the art mapping easier than the prose suggests:

• The "two axes / greater distribution along one axis" element (claims 1, 8, 9, 13, 22, 24) is, in substance, asymmetric or fan-shaped beam spreading across the panel's cross-section — the beam is spread more in the width direction than through the panel thickness.
• Internal inconsistency to flag: claim 1 requires the component along the first axis to be distributed "to a greater extent," while claims 9 and 22 require the second axis to receive the greater distribution. Under either reading, the recited subject matter is asymmetric distribution; I analyze both readings and note that the prior art maps either way.
• Claims 8 and 9 are method/apparatus hybrids (claim 8's final clause — "and a preselected pattern of irregularities associated along the optical conductor…" — lacks an operative verb). This is a §112 defect, not a §103 issue, but it removes any construction that would save these claims.

3. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — Primarily obvious over US 5,005,108 (Pristash) in view of US 4,897,771; further in view of EP 0 453 092

Covers: claims 1–23.

Ground 2 — Primarily obvious over EP 0 453 092 A1 (GE) in view of Pristash

Covers: claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 13, 18–20, 22–26 — and this is the strongest single-reference ground, because the EPO itself treated it as novelty-destroying for EP claims 1–15.

GE '092 discloses a transparent plastic wedge 12 (acrylic/polycarbonate/polystyrene) with a front light-emitting surface 18 and a back surface 20; optical fibers 14 couple light from a high-efficiency reflector lamp 16 into a rectangular edge 13; the coupling is melted/fused "so as to reduce any reflection losses and which provides for the light from the fibers to spread out in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the beam so as to provide uniform illumination." Light "entering the wedge is internally reflected from the back surface and emitted from said front surface," with scattering centers either on the surface or "throughout its volume," and the number of scattering centers "increasing along a distance moving away from said rectangular edge" (published claims). Figures 5–7 show a double-wedge backlight for an LCD speedometer, with serrated, specularly coated reflective edge portions dividing the beam into parts.

• The "pair of generally parallel, opposed walls" limitation is the one element GE '092 arguably lacks (its wedge faces converge). That is precisely why the ground is a combination: Pristash supplies the parallel-walled planar conductor, and GE '092 supplies the asymmetric transverse spreading, volume/surface scattering-center patterning, and the LCD/indicium application. Alternatively, substitute the '096's own parent-art wedge geometry.
• Claims 24–26 (semi-transparent visual display with a text/character indicia set; flat-panel video display; instrument panel display) are directly supported by GE '092's LCD speedometer instrument panel: "The speedometer itself was fabricated using LCD technology, and the double wedge structure was used to backlight the LCD."

Ground 3 — Pristash in view of "Tsunoda"

Covers: claims 1, 2, 20, 23 (and, on the tray/reflector aspects, 18). Tsunoda's spot-source depression diffuses light radially into the light-guide plate, providing a refractive input edge that "redirect[s] light output distribution of the light source more in the width direction as it enters the light-guide plate," and its holder 9 forms a reflective tray of white material. This is the exact combination the petitioner's expert (Thomas L. Credelle, declaration dated 4/25/15) used against the sibling '816 patent (petitions/1459470).

4. Why a POSITA would have combined these — articulated motivations

KSR does not require an express teaching-suggestion-motivation; it requires an articulated reason with rational underpinning. Four independent ones exist here:

1. Same field, same problem, same solution space. Pristash, the '771 patent, and GE '092 are all directed to thin, area-type illuminators that take a compact, high-intensity source and distribute its light uniformly over a large emitting surface, expressly for LCD backlighting and instrument illumination. Both Pristash and GE identify uniformity, efficiency and thinness as the design objectives. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 ("if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious").
2. A specific structural design incentive. A thin panel's input edge is necessarily much wider than it is thick, so light from a point or short-arc source must be spread more in the width direction than through the thickness. Every reference in the field attacks this with the same class of expedient — shaped refractive/reflective input geometry (Pristash's transition devices; GE '092's fused fiber-to-edge coupling; the '771 elongated reflector; Tsunoda's input depression). Selecting among these known coupling geometries is the "predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
3. Known, interchangeable light-coupling routes. GE '092 couples light through a bundle of optical fibers into the wedge edge; Pristash couples a lamp or LED directly, through a molded transition device. Both were conventional ways to get light from a source to a panel edge, and the '096 specification itself treats them as interchangeable ("the light transition area … may be a separate piece suitably attached to the light input surface 13 of the panel member if desired"). Substituting one known coupler for another, with a predictable efficiency/space trade-off, is obvious.
4. Gradient/pattern extraction is a known technique with a known objective. Pristash discloses discrete deformities to break total internal reflection; GE '092 discloses scattering centers whose number increases with distance from the input edge. Using a preselected pattern — including one that varies in density to compensate for the natural fall-off of light with distance — is the predictable variation of a known parameter to achieve a known result (uniform output), and the '096 specification says nothing more than that ("providing a denser concentration of light extracting deformities with increased distance from the light source").

5. Where the case is weak — and where I would expect a validity defense

I will not overstate these grounds. Four limitations are not cleanly met by the references above:

6. Secondary considerations

Nothing in the record I could reach establishes a nexus between any commercial success of Lumitex's products and the specific subject matter of claims 1–26. Note that in the sibling-patent proceeding, the petitioner affirmatively argued that "Lumitex was not known in the industry in 1994 for products with innovation with respect to LEDs or LED backlighting," and that "woven fiber optics" (the commercialized Lumitex technology) "is not claimed in the ['660] Patent" (petitions/1461340). That testimony, if credited, cuts against a nexus argument for the panel-assembly claims here.

7. Bottom line and confidence

• Claims 1–3, 8–13, 18, 20, 22–23 are, in my assessment, strongly obvious: Pristash in view of the '771 patent and GE '092 supplies every element, and the EPO independently treated GE '092 as novelty-destroying for the EP counterpart's claims 1–15.
• Claims 4–7, 14–17, 21 are probably obvious with the packet above (plus EP 0 359 450 for coated/selected disruption areas), but claim 5/12/14's dye limitation lacks a verified reference.
• Claims 24–26 are obvious as to the display/backlight environment (GE '092's LCD speedometer; Pristash's LCD backlighting) but the "ordered to correspond with the indica set" language in claim 24 is the single element I would expect a patent owner to defend, and I cannot presently show it in the art. Claim 19 (curved parallel walls) is likewise unsupported.
• Do not use WO 96/17207 in a §103 ground absent proof that its underlying U.S. filing predates 1995-06-27; on its face it is a post-priority publication (EPO treated it as an EPC Art. 54(3) intermediate document for novelty only).
• Verification still needed: texts of DE 90 16 695 U and DE 89 14 233 U; the identity/publication number of "Tsunoda"; and the underlying U.S. filing date of WO 96/17207. I flag these as gaps rather than fill them by inference.