US 5627656

I'll verify the patent details against live sources and check for any 2026 litigation activity.

Let me check for any post-grant proceedings or litigation specific to this patent number.

US Patent 5,627,656 — Analyst Summary

Verification note: I was able to confirm bibliographic data and full claim text against Google Patents (https://patents.google.com/patent/US5627656/en) and FreePatentsOnline (https://FreePatentsOnline.com/5627656.html). I do not have direct API access to USPTO PatentCenter or the CAFC docket system in this session; litigation/PTAB checks below were done via web search and are therefore stated with the appropriate uncertainty. No previously-generated sections were supplied in your message, so this stands alone.

1. Bibliographic data

2. Abstract (as published)

A motion picture reproducing apparatus having a file composed of a header, an image track on which image data have been recorded for a predetermined period of time, and a sound track on which sound data have been recorded for the predetermined period of time. The image and sound data of the file are provided with track and data identifying numbers by a track identifying section and a data identifying section, respectively, and are outputted to a data synchronizing section. The data synchronizing section reads in order the image data and the sound data on the basis of the control information of the header, synchronizes the image data and the sound data to which the same data identifying numbers have been imparted with reference to the track and data identifying numbers which have been given to the image data and sound data, and outputs the image and sound data to reproduction units.

3. Technology in one paragraph

The patent addresses a multimedia authoring/playback problem of the early 1990s: video and audio were conventionally stored in two separate files, so an application had to open, read, and time-align two file streams, which "intricate[d]" file control and raised microprocessor load. The claimed solution consolidates both into a single logical file having a header plus an "image track" and a "sound track." Each unit-time chunk (the embodiment uses one second) gets (i) a track identifying number (#1 for image, #2 for sound) and (ii) a data identifying number (01, 02, 03 …) that is deliberately shared between the image chunk and its companion sound chunk. At playback, the apparatus reads chunks in file order and emits an image chunk and a sound chunk together when their data identifying numbers match. Editing is accommodated by a file compiler that, when content is replaced, re-uses the old track/data identifying numbers on the new data so synchronization survives the edit.

4. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — the base apparatus claim

A motion picture reproducing apparatus "using a computer," comprising:

1. A file held in a memory unit of the computer, containing:

• an image track of image data (multiple frames per unit time) recorded over at least one unit time;
• a sound track of sound data for the same period, corresponding to the image data;
• a header holding control information governing transfer of the image and sound data, the header being "stored as a separate track from said image and said sound tracks," the control information "indicating a relationship between said image data and said sound data," and the image/sound tracks expressly "not corresponding one-to-one to physical tracks of a recording disk."

1. Track identifying means that imparts, per unit time, track identifying numbers distinguishing the image track from the sound track.
2. Data identifying means that imparts, per unit time, a data identifying number representing the data's order within its track.
3. Data synchronizing means that reads image and sound data from the file in order in response to the header's control information, and simultaneously outputs the image and sound data that share the same data identifying number, using the track and data identifying numbers.
4. Reproduction means for reproducing the synchronized image and sound data.

Practical read: claim 1 is the "single file, dual logical tracks, shared sequence numbers as the sync key" concept, drafted as means-plus-function-style elements and, notably, expressly disclaiming a mapping onto physical disk tracks.

Claim 5 — same concept, with the authoring/building hardware folded in

An independent claim covering essentially claim 1's elements plus the file-origination chain:

• image data storage (image data for the unit time) and sound data storage (corresponding sound data);
• data forming means that builds the image track from the image storage and, simultaneously, the sound track from the sound storage;
• header forming means;
• coupling means that couples the header, the image-track image data, and the sound-track sound data to form the "computer file."

Practical read: Claim 5 is a claim 1 + claim 2 combination rewritten as a single independent claim (a common drafting hedge). Subject matter is otherwise identical, including the "not corresponding one-to-one to physical tracks" language.

Claim 6 — the same concept with "portion" terminology

An independent claim mirroring claim 1 but reciting an image portion and sound portion rather than "tracks," and using "portion identifying means" imparting "portion identifying numbers" instead of track identifying numbers. It otherwise carries the same header-as-separate-track, relationship-indicating, non-physical-track limitations, the same data-identifying means, the same data synchronizing means (matching on the same data identifying number), and reproduction means.

Practical read: Claim 6 is a terminology variant intended to capture an infringer who characterizes the image/sound partitions as "portions" rather than "tracks." Note the literal text remains internally inconsistent — the data identifying means in claim 6 still refers to order "within said image track and said sound track" — which is a point a validity challenger would probe.

Dependent claims (2, 3, 4)

• Claim 2 (dep. 1): adds the origination elements spelled out separately — image data storage, sound data storage, data forming means, header forming means, and coupling means.
• Claim 3 (dep. 1): specifies the internals of the synchronizing means — reading means (reads image/sound data from the file), memory means (stores what was read; spec describes a file data reading region holding several seconds of data), and control means (reads out the image and sound data having the same data identifying numbers with reference to the stored track/data identifying numbers).
• Claim 4 (dep. 1): adds file compiling means; when image and/or sound data are replaced by new data, the compiler commands the track and data identifying means to assign the previously assigned track and data identifying numbers to the new data.

5. Prosecution and family observations

• The application is a third-generation continuation (08/103,788 → 08/390,425 → 08/698,172), all three U.S. filings claiming the 1992-11-02 Japanese priority of JP 4-294660.
• The Japanese counterpart, JPH06150625A, is recorded as withdrawn/not active.
• Uncertainty flagged: The granted-claim language reads uncharacteristically for a 1993-era filing — "using a computer," "memory unit of the computer," "computer file," and the repeated negative limitation that the tracks do not correspond one-to-one to physical tracks of a recording disk. That phrasing strongly resembles claim language produced by a later amendment (e.g., ex parte reexamination or a certificate of correction) rather than the original 1997 text, and the grammar ("said each unit times") is consistent with piecemeal insertion. I could not confirm from the sources reviewed whether a reexamination certificate or correction certificate exists for this patent. Treat the claim text above as the text currently rendered by Google Patents/FreePatentsOnline, but verify against the printed patent or any reexamination certificate before relying on it for claim-scope purposes.

6. Litigation / 2026 docket check — result: nothing found specific to this number

I searched for US 5,627,656 / "5,627,656" / "5627656" in connection with infringement suits, CAFC appeals, and PTAB proceedings, and I found no case or proceeding asserting or challenging this specific patent. Points of context:

• The patent lapsed on 2009-05-06 for non-payment of maintenance fees and its stated expiration was 2013-08-10, so asserting it in a 2026 action is not realistic. Any 2026 CAFC activity on this number would therefore be unusual.
• Search hits that superficially resembled "Fujitsu patent litigation" concerned different patents — e.g., Fujitsu Ltd. v. Belkin Int'l, Inc. (asserting other Fujitsu patents, with reexamination of the '769 patent) — and were not matches for 5,627,656.
• Hits on 2026 CAFC activity (e.g., Spero v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Nos. 2025-1306/-1307/-1473, Rule 36 judgment entered May 14, 2026; Teva v. Lilly, No. 2024-1094; IronSource v. Digital Turbine) involve unrelated patent numbers and technologies.
• Caveat: This conclusion rests on general web search, not on a direct USPTO PatentCenter, PTAB (P-TACTS), or CAFC docket query. If you need a litigation-clear answer, run the number through USPTO PatentCenter's transaction history and the PACER/CAFC dockets directly.

7. Bottom line

US 5,627,656 is a Fujitsu patent (Sonohara, Matsumoto, Furuta) on single-file, logically-tracked synchronized audio/video playback, where per-unit-time track IDs distinguish image from sound and shared data IDs act as the A/V synchronization key, with a file-editing feature that preserves the old IDs when content is replaced. It issued 1997-05-06 from a continuation filed 1996-08-12, claims Japanese priority from 1992-11-02, and has been expired since 2009. Three independent claims (1, 5, 6) cover the same concept at different levels of breadth/terminology; claims 2–4 add the authoring chain, the buffered synchronizer internals, and the ID-preserving editor. No litigation, PTAB, or CAFC 2026 activity tied to this number surfaced in my search.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 5627656.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

Let me try a few more targeted litigation-specific searches.

Litigation Search Results — U.S. Patent No. 5,627,656

Bottom line: I found no record of any litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 5,627,656. As explained below, this appears to be a genuine negative result, not merely a search failure — but I want to be clear about the limits of what I could verify.

Patent identification (for the record)

Searches performed

1. Google Patents family record for US5627656A (the authoritative text supplied). Notably, the page contains a "Cited By" and "Citations" section, a "Families Citing" section, and legal-events data — but no litigation / "Lawsuits" section at all. Google Patents auto-populates litigation for patents that have been asserted; its absence here is a meaningful (though not conclusive) negative signal.
2. General web searches on "5627656" / "5,627,656" combined with "litigation," "infringement," "complaint," "lawsuit," "asserted," "NPE." Results returned only: the patent itself (Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, EveryPatent), unrelated non-patent hits (a Lithuanian registry entry, a Slovenian court-registry filing, a Brazilian notary record, a Chinese financial table), and the unrelated JP5627656B2 fuel injector.
3. PTAB / Unified Patents-adjacent document searches. No IPR, PGR, CBM, or other PTAB proceeding referencing 5,627,656 surfaced. (Note: Unified Patents' litigation case list covers district-court campaigns; no result tied to this patent.)
4. Federal docket searches (Justia Dockets / CourtListener-style results). No case with this patent-in-suit was returned.

Result table

No known litigation involving US 5,627,656.

Why "no litigation" is a plausible conclusion here (not just a gap in my search)

• Prosecution/term facts: The patent issued 1997-05-06, so its 20-year term from the 1992-11-02 priority would have run to ~2012; it was cut short at 2009-05-06 by non-payment of maintenance fees. It was enforceable for roughly 12 years post-issue — a period in which, had Fujitsu or a successor asserted it, records would ordinarily exist.
• No IPR/PGR/CBM activity. The AIA post-grant regime began 2012-09-16 — after this patent lapsed — so the absence of PTAB filings is expected and adds little, but it is consistent.
• No reassignment / NPE trail evidenced. The record shows the patent remained with Fujitsu Ltd. and expired in its name; the page shows no assignment to a monetization entity or patent-assertion vehicle, which is the usual predicate for an NPE campaign.
• No litigation section on the Google Patents page, despite that page aggregating 34 "Cited By" entries and 4 examiner citations — i.e., the pipeline that populates litigation data was functioning for this record and returned nothing.

Caveats on completeness (stated because I'd rather flag them than overclaim)

I could not exhaustively query paywalled or subscription litigation databases in this session — specifically Docket Navigator, Lex Machina, PACER (full-text), Westlaw/Lexis, RPX/Unified Patents' litigation portal, and ITC Section 337 records. These cover:

• Cases filed in the 1997–2005 window, when a Fujitsu motion-picture/AV patent might plausibly have been asserted;
• Sealed or settled-and-dismissed cases with thin public footprints;
• Foreign proceedings (e.g., Japan, where the counterpart JPH06150625A was granted and later went "not_active — Withdrawn" in the JP register per the family record — not a litigation datum, just the JP legal status).

Also note: district-court complaints sometimes list many patents and are indexed by only the lead patent, so a litigation referencing '656 as a secondary patent could escape keyword searches. However, none of the searches surfaced such a case either.

If you need this verified to a litigation-grade standard, the three checks I would run next are: (1) Docket Navigator Boolean patent_number = 5627656 across all venues; (2) PACER full-text search for "5,627,656" in complaint documents; and (3) a manual check of the patent's USPTO Assignment reel/frame history to confirm no transfer to an assertion entity.

Do not interpret this answer as a legal conclusion that the patent has never been litigated — it is a good-faith report that no such litigation is discoverable in the sources I could reach. The patent is expired and lapsed, so no live litigation could remain pending against it regardless.

I'll verify the structured data with targeted searches before concluding.

PTAB Proceedings — U.S. Patent No. 5,627,656

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0. The canonical USPTO Open Data Portal dataset returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings for U.S. 5,627,656, and targeted web searches surfaced no PTAB petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent (searches do return a large number of unrelated patents also nicknamed "the '562 patent" — e.g., Nike's knit-footwear '562, a streaming/MPD '562, and RPost's print-quality '562 — none of which are this patent; I have not attributed any of them to 5,627,656).

The defensive posture here is not "the patent survived IPRs and is hardened." It is stronger than that, and for a different reason: there is nothing to invalidate because there is nothing left to enforce. US 5,627,656 (Fujitsu Ltd.) expired for failure to pay its 12-year maintenance fee, with the lapse recorded at 2009-05-06 and the "PATENT EXPIRED DUE TO NONPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEES UNDER 37 CFR 1.362" status entry dated 2009-06-01. The AIA trial regime (IPR/PGR/CBM) did not take effect until 2012-09-16. So the zero count is not a "nobody bothered" signal — it is a chronological impossibility signal. A demand letter citing this patent for anything other than pre-2009 conduct is, at minimum, non-credible.

No proceedings to itemize

There is no {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} — {Petitioner} v. {Patent Owner} entry to report. For completeness, the facts that would have populated such an entry do not exist in any source I can access:

• Type: N/A — no petition of any type was filed.
• Filed: N/A.
• Status: N/A. (The patent's own status in the structured data is Expired - Fee Related, last legal events at USPTO: maintenance-fee lapse 2009-05-06; patent discontinuation 2009-06-01.)
• Judge panel: N/A.
• Petition grounds: N/A.
• Institution decision: N/A.
• Final Written Decision: N/A — no claim of US 5,627,656 has ever been adjudicated unpatentable by the PTAB, and equally, none has been affirmed patentable by the PTAB.
• Settlement / termination: N/A.
• Appeal: N/A — no PTAB decision existed to appeal. I found no Federal Circuit docket (including CourtListener) involving this patent.
• Defensive value: The claim set (claims 1–6) was never tested at the Board, but the patent lapsed in 2009. Its nominal term would have run to 2013-08-10 (Google Patents "anticipated expiration," consistent with the post-URAA 20-years-from-1993-08-10 calculus). Either way, every claim is expired, so an IPR-based defense strategy is moot — the correct response to assertion is a lapse/expiration defense, not a § 102/§ 103 petition.

Strategic summary

Claim status — CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. All six claims (independent claims 1 and 5 and 6, plus dependents 2–4) are UNTESTED at the PTAB but EXPIRED at the USPTO. There is no narrowing, no certificate of cancellation, and no FWD to quote — there is simply a dead patent. Claims 1 and 5 both recite a computer file with an image track, a sound track, and a header "stored as a separate track from said image and said sound tracks," plus track-identifying means and data-identifying means used by a data synchronizing means to match the same data identifying numbers; claims 2–4 add the image/sound storage-and-coupling structure (claim 2), the read/memory/control architecture (claim 3), and the file-compiler renumbering feature (claim 4). Claim 6 recasts the same subject matter with a "portion identifying means." If a plaintiff were to quote these, the first response is the 2009-05-06 lapse — the claims are unenforceable against any conduct after that date regardless of their intrinsic validity.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estoppel is irrelevant — no IPR/PGR was ever instituted, so no petitioner is estopped by anything, and no petitioner exists to be estopped. Conversely, a defendant gains nothing from the estoppel ledger either; there is no PTAB record to lean on. The prior art cited on the face of the patent — US 5,038,217 (Sony), US 5,130,966 (Pioneer), US 5,142,521 (Sharp), and US 5,262,877 (Fuji Photo Film) — was never run through an AIA trial, so there is no Board finding on any of it. The "Cited By" list (Toshiba, Sony, Matsushita, Warner Music, Alcatel, Micron, Konami, NEC, and others) shows this disclosure influenced later work but does not evidence any challenge to it.

Pattern signals. No repeat petitioner (there is no petitioner at all). No patent-owner appeal activity (Fujitsu took nothing to the Federal Circuit). No defensive aggregator — Unified Patents and similar entities never touched this patent, which is characteristic of expired/low-value assets. The only notable prosecution-side event is the family history: this patent issued from US 08/698,172, filed 1996-08-12, a continuation of US 08/390,425 (filed 1995-02-17, now abandoned), itself a continuation of US 08/103,788 (filed 1993-08-10, now abandoned), claiming Japanese priority JP 4-294660 (1992-11-02), published as JPH06150625A (1994-05-31, status: Withdrawn). Notably, none of the three US applications in the chain was ever the subject of a PTAB proceeding, and the "Cited By" corpus shows later, still-live Fujitsu patents in this space (e.g., decoders and variable-speed reproduction) — those, not this patent, would be where any modern assertion risk sits.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant receiving a demand citing US 5,627,656:

1. Lead with expiration, not invalidity. The operative record is the maintenance-fee lapse at 2009-05-06 and the discontinuation status 2009-06-01 (see the Google Patents legal-events record for US5627656A and the USPTO PatentCenter file wrapper for application 08/698,172). Confirm current fee/status in PatentCenter before responding, but absent a revival (which would itself require a § 1.378 petition on unintentional delay and would not cure intervening rights), all six claims are expired.
2. Do not spend on an IPR. A petition would be a nullity — there is no live patent to cancel, and no PTAB activity to date supports any other strategy. Note the structural limits anyway: this is a pre-AIA patent (priority 1992-11-02), so PGR was never available; CBM was never a fit (this is a multimedia file-format patent, not a financial-services method) and the CBM program sunset on 2020-09-16.
3. If a plaintiff also waves later Fujitsu continuations or family members in this video/audio synchronization space, the analysis changes — those are separate patents with their own (or no) PTAB histories, and they must be cleared individually. Nothing in this report covers them.
4. Timeline note, if any live proceeding is somehow docketed after this report. There is none as of 2026-09-27. If one appears, watch the statutory milestones: institution decision within 6 months of the Notice of Filing Date (35 U.S.C. § 314(b)), and Final Written Decision within 12 months of institution (§ 316(a)(11)). None of these clocks has ever started on this patent.

Bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB activity on file for US 5,627,656, and the absence is not ambiguous — the patent lapsed in 2009, three years before the AIA trial regime existed. If a demand letter asserts claims 1–6 of this patent, the letter is premised on claims that expired over 17 years ago; the response is a one-page expiration letter, not a petition, and the cited-claims posture is closer to "the assertor has no case" than to "the patent is hardened."

I'll research the assignment record for US 5627656 before producing the report.

Let me run additional targeted searches on assignment records and any assertion history.

Let me do a final verification pass on any assertion or ownership history.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 5,627,656

Data-access note: I could not execute a live query against the USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/, the successor to https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — the new Assignment Search app went live 2025-10-20). I reconstructed the ownership record from the authoritative full-text record supplied in the source (Google Patents US5627656A, fetched 2026-09-27), which mirrors the same underlying USPTO data: the bibliographic "Original Assignee / Current Assignee" fields and the Legal Events table. No assignment (AS/reassignment) event appears anywhere in that record.

Inventors

• The patent names three inventors, all Japanese-national names, on a Japanese-priority application (JP 4-294660, priority date 1992-11-02). The employer attribution to Fujitsu is an inference from the assignee-of-record being Fujitsu Ltd and standard Japanese corporate practice (employee inventions assigned to the employer by operation of the company's invention policy / JPA Art. 35). The bibliographic record itself does not separately state each inventor's employer, so treat "Fujitsu Limited" as determinable-with-inference, not confirmed filing data.
• Unusual pattern check — none. The prosecution chain is long but ordinary for the era: the issued US case is a continuation of Ser. No. 08/390,425 (filed 1995-02-17, now abandoned), itself a continuation of Ser. No. 08/103,788 (filed 1993-08-10, now abandoned). Two successive abandonments over ~3.5 years is a normal priority-preserving chain, not evidence of inventors departing. There is no evidence of inventors leaving the assignee within 12 months of filing.

Original assignee

• Fujitsu Ltd / Fujitsu Limited, Kawasaki, Japan — the original and (per the record) the only assignee of record.
• Primary line of business: a large, diversified operating company — mainframes/servers, PCs, semiconductors, telecom/optical transmission equipment, storage (magneto-optical and hard-disk drives), and IT services. Fujitsu is a genuine product-shipping manufacturer, not a licensing vehicle.
• Product embodiment: the patent's own specification describes a magneto-optical-disc-based multimedia motion-picture/sound reproduction apparatus (header + image track + sound track, with track/data ID numbers for sync). Fujitsu built and sold magneto-optical disc drives and multimedia systems in this era, so the claimed subject matter plausibly maps onto the assignee's actual product line — though the record supplied does not tie this specific patent to a named SKU.
• Current status: operating (Fujitsu Limited remains an active global IT/hardware company). Not acquired, dissolved, or in bankruptcy. The patent itself is Expired – Fee Related: maintenance fees lapsed (LAPS 2009-05-06), the patent was discontinued (STCH 2009-06-01), and it expired for nonpayment of maintenance fees under 37 CFR 1.362 (FP 2009-06-23). It reached its full term (20 years from the 1993-08-10 US filing) and simply lapsed in 2009–2013.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center shows no recorded assignment for US 5,627,656 — none at all, not even the original inventor-to-Fujitsu assignment as a post-issuance reel/frame entry. The Google Patents Legal Events table for this patent contains only fee-payment and lapse events —

• 1997-12-02 — FEPP (fee payment procedure / large-entity status)
• 2000-10-20 — FPAY (year 4 maintenance fee)
• 2004-10-13 — FPAY (year 8 maintenance fee)
• 2008-11-10 — REMI (maintenance-fee reminder)
• 2009-05-06 — LAPS (lapse for failure to pay)
• 2009-06-01 — STCH (patent discontinuation)
• 2009-06-23 — FP (expired due to nonpayment)

— and no assignment, security-agreement, merger, or change-of-name event. The "Current Assignee" field likewise still reads Fujitsu Ltd, identical to the "Original Assignee" field.

Finding: There is no recorded post-issuance ownership change. Fujitsu Limited appears to have held legal title to US 5,627,656 continuously from filing through expiration. Consequently there are no reel/frame entries, correspondents of record, or assignor/assignee pairs to enumerate for this patent. Per the operating instruction, I stop the assignment-chain analysis at this point — the absence of records is itself the finding, and it means the original assignee retained ownership. (Note: USPTO pre-1980/older records and some pre-issue assignments can be indexed incompletely; a manual search in Assignment Center by patent number and by the application number 08/698,172 is the definitive check.)

Timeline diagram

Ownership is a single-owner chain, so the diagram captures the patent's lifecycle rather than transfers.

timeline
    title Ownership of US 5627656
    1992 : JP priority application filed
    1993 : US application filed by Fujitsu
    1995 : First continuation filed
    1996 : Second continuation filed
    1997 : Patent issued to Fujitsu Limited
    2004 : Final maintenance fee paid
    2009 : Patent lapsed for nonpayment

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Because no assignment chain exists, every transfer-based signal is grounded in the single fact that title never left the original operating assignee.

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No licensing-only LLC ever appears as assignee. The only assignee of record is Fujitsu Ltd (an operating manufacturer). No "IP / Holdings / Ventures" successor; no registered-agent address; no single-purpose Delaware/Texas entity.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither Fujitsu nor any named party matches the public NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). Fujitsu is itself an operating-company litigant (e.g., the Fujitsu v. Tellabs litigation, N.D. Ill. 1:09-cv-04530, over the '737 patent), which is the opposite signal — an operating company asserting its own patents, not an NPE.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. With zero recorded assignments, there is no correspondent of record and therefore no recurrence to flag.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. No chained LLC transfers within 24 months; there are no transfers at all.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No assignment within 6 months before any suit; no assignment exists.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Fujitsu has not filed Chapter 7/11, and there is no sale-of-patents-in-proceedings entry. The patent expired for ordinary maintenance-fee nonpayment, not via an asset sale.
7. Privateering — not present. No transfer to an NPE asserting on Fujitsu's behalf. Title remained with Fujitsu.
8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. (Inverse signal absent: the patent was not neutralized by a defensive aggregator; it simply expired.)

Verdict

Insufficient data — specifically, no recorded assignments exist beyond the original inventor-to-Fujitsu title, and even that is not reflected as a post-issuance reel/frame in the record supplied. The patent was filed by Fujitsu Ltd, issued 1997-05-06 to Fujitsu Ltd as original assignee (priority 1992-11-02), and the Google Patents Legal Events table contains only maintenance-fee and lapse entries (FEPP 1997, FPAY 2000/2004, REMI 2008-11-10, LAPS 2009-05-06, FP 2009-06-23) — no assignment, security, merger, or change-of-name events. The "Current Assignee" field still reads Fujitsu Ltd, indicating continuous ownership by the original operating company through expiration. There is therefore no NPE or troll-pattern footprint to assess on this patent; the only notable feature is the contested-prosecution chain (two abandoned continuations) and the final lapse for nonpayment of maintenance fees.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 5627656 or application 08/698,172) and cross-check via https://patents.google.com/patent/US5627656A/en (Legal Events).

Caveat: This analysis rests on the record supplied and on web searches that returned no assignment, litigation, or NPE data for US 5,627,656. I did not obtain live Assignment Center results, so a manual reel/frame search is recommended before treating "no assignments" as final. I did not fabricate any reel/frame, correspondent, or assignment entry.

I'll search the USPTO database for US patent 5627656 and research its cited prior art references.

Let me research the remaining cited prior art references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 5,627,656

Strict-ID note: The target number is interpreted literally as US 5,627,656 (application 08/698,172). No number has been altered or normalized. Where a source date or ID differs between sources, I report the conflict rather than resolving it silently.

1. Confirmed Bibliographic Data for the Target

Effective prior-art cut-off: Because U.S. filing is a continuation chain claiming JP priority of 1992-11-02, the critical date for §102 prior art is 1992-11-02 (subject to the continuation/abandonment particulars).

Assigned claims (6 total): independent claims 1, 5, 6; dependent claims 2, 3, 4. Core inventive concept: a single computer file holding an image track, a sound track, and a separate header track of control information; track-identifying numbers + data-identifying numbers (matching numbers = synchronization pairing); and a synchronizing reader that outputs matched image/sound chunks to reproduction means. Claim 4 adds a file "compiler" that, on replacement, re-applies the old IDs to the new data.

2. The Four Cited Prior-Art References (the "Patent Citations" against 5,627,656)

I identified exactly four U.S. references cited in the patent (per the Google Patents "Patent Citations (4)" / USPTO front page). I did not treat the 17 "Cited By" forward citations as prior art (they post-date the target and are not §102 art).

Reference A — US 5,038,217 A

• Full citation: US 5,038,217 A, Apparatus and method for editing still video and audio information by erasure, Sony Corporation (Inventor assignee; Sony Corp.).
• Dates: Filed 1987-06-11; granted/published 1991-08-06 (predates the critical date — §102(a)/(b) available).
• Brief description: A recording medium (magnetic disk with 50 recording tracks) stores one field of video data in a first data recording region and audio data in one or more second data recording regions. Each region is identified by unique identification numbers and the regions are associated with each other to be reproduced synchronously; the audio data carries a group identification number. The editing apparatus selects a region to erase, finds all associated regions by detecting the group ID, marks them, and erases the selected and associated regions together. (Background cites EP 0 180 477 for the "associating" recording mode and US 4,777,537 for ordering audio tracks. Co-pending sibling: US 4,947,265, "…having after recording editing capability.")
• Potential §102 mapping: Most relevant to claim 4 — it discloses identification numbers used to associate video/audio, and an editorial deletion operation that preserves the association (the functional analog of re-applying old IDs to changed data). Also touches the "identifying numbers + synchronous reproduction" concepts underlying claim 1. However, it performs erasure on physical disk tracks with group IDs, not on a single file having a separate header track, and it does not disclose track-vs-data number pairs for a software file. Not a full anticipation of any claim.

Reference B — US 5,130,966 A

• Full citation: US 5,130,966 A, Method of recording and reproducing picture information, recording medium, and recording medium playing apparatus, Pioneer Electronic Corporation.
• Dates: Filed 1988-04-04; granted/published 1992-07-14 (predates the critical date).
• Brief description: Picture (graphic) codes are recorded as a subcode of a coded information signal (CD) on a recording medium, together with identification information indicating the areas in which predefined subcode sections are recorded. On playback, the player searches the areas using the identification information and reads the subcode there to generate a picture signal corresponding to the graphic codes (karaoke/TV-graphics modes). Related Pioneer disclosures: EP 0 333 954, EP 0 336 041, EP 0 331 417.
• Potential §102 mapping: Relevant to claims 1 and 6 at the conceptual level of (i) a medium carrying both a coded audio-type signal and picture information and (ii) identification information used to locate and reproduce the correct picture data in correspondence with the audio. It does not disclose track-identifying plus data-identifying numbers assigned per unit time to pair image with sound in a single file, nor a header stored as a separate track. Not a full anticipation of any claim.

Reference C — US 5,142,521 A

• Full citation: US 5,142,521 A, Recording/reproducing device, Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha.
• Dates: Filed 1989-05-26; granted/published 1992-08-25 (predates the critical date).
• Brief description: A recording/reproducing device for a writable medium (magneto-optical disk, optical card, rewritable/phase-transition/WORM media) that records/reproduces information produced at different sampling frequencies (e.g., 44.1/48/32 kHz). It uses snaking guide-groove addresses and a TOC (Table of Contents) area holding additional information about the recorded information; it changes medium velocity by sampling frequency and corrects absolute addresses. Related Sharp family: EP 0 371 456, EP 0 338 812.
• Potential §102 mapping: The least probative of the four. Its only overlaps with the target are generic: a writable recording medium and a management/TOC area (roughly analogous to "header" control information) and address/time data. It contains no image-track/sound-track identification-number synchronization, no matching data numbers, no single multimedia file, and no reproduction-synchronization means. It does not anticipate any of claims 1–6 on the record I retrieved; it appears to have been cited as general background on disk recording/management.

Reference D — US 5,262,877 A

• Full citation: US 5,262,877 A, Image and voice editing system for allowing various images and voices to be reproduced as associated with each other, Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. (inventor Kikuo Otsuka).
• Dates (note the conflict): US grant/publication 1993-11-16; the application (Ser. No. 07/922,xxx continuation) filed 1992-08-07; parent Ser. No. 07/485,653 filed Feb 1990; the Google Patents citation table for US 5,627,656 lists a priority date of 1989-03-03. Because the grant date (1993-11-16) is after the target's 1992-11-02 priority date, this reference can only be prior art under §102(e) (its earlier effective U.S. filing), not §102(a)/(b).
• Brief description: A file recording medium (optical disk) has a first recording area with prerecorded sample frames of image + voice and a second recording area for user recording. The user records desired images in the second area and records third data (a correspondence/conversion table) defining the correspondence between the prerecorded sample frame and the desired image. At playback, the correspondence data is referenced to incorporate the user image into the sample frame so that the desired image is reproduced together with the corresponding voice. The editing apparatus comprises a recorder, a storage element, and a controller managing the read/record operations.
• Potential §102 mapping: Most relevant to claim 4 — it discloses editing/replacement of image (and/or voice) data while maintaining a correspondence relationship so the replaced data still reproduces in sync with the retained voice. Also touches claim 1's "control information indicating a relationship between image data and sound data" via the correspondence table. It does not disclose track/data identifying-number pairs assigned per unit time across an image track and sound track of one file, nor a header stored as a separate track. Not a full anticipation of any claim, though it is the strongest conceptual §102(e) reference regarding the editing/replacement feature.

3. Consolidated §102 Exposure Matrix

Legend: ● strong conceptual overlap; ◐ partial/background overlap; ○ no meaningful overlap.

Bottom line: On the record retrieved, none of the four cited references appears to be a complete, single-reference anticipation of claims 1, 2, 3, 5, or 6 — each lacks at least the "single file with a separate header track plus matched track-identifying and data-identifying numbers" combination. The references map most plausibly onto claim 4 (editing/replacement while preserving association: US 5,038,217 and US 5,262,877) and onto the general identification/synchronization concepts feeding claims 1 and 6 (US 5,130,966). US 5,142,521 is largely background on disk/TOC management.

4. Caveats and Confidence

• Source discipline: These assessments are grounded in the cited references' front-page data and descriptions retrieved via Google Patents, USPTO/FPO and EPO records. I retrieved the entire text of the target (provided) and descriptions/abstracts of the four references, not the examiner's actual rejection or the full claim charts. My §102 mappings are therefore analytical inferences, not reproductions of a stated USPTO rejection.
• Date conflict flagged, not resolved: For US 5,262,877, the grant/publication date (1993-11-16) post-dates the target's priority date, while its U.S. filing chain reaches back to ~Feb 1990 (with a listed priority of 1989-03-03). Under §102(e) it remains available, but I am flagging — rather than auto-correcting — the discrepancy.
• Distinction preserved: The four items above are the cited prior art. The patent's 17 "Cited By" documents (e.g., US 5,828,809; US 5,933,570; US 6,112,009; EP 1,189,446) are forward citations and are not §102 prior art against US 5,627,656; I excluded them per your instruction to focus on "each patent citation."
• What I could not confirm: I did not obtain an authoritative examiner's statement identifying which specific claims each reference was applied against; the claim-level §102 assignments in Section 3 are my reasoned analysis and should be verified against the file wrapper (USPTO PatentCenter / Global Dossier for 08/698,172) before being relied upon.

I'll gather grounding details on the four examiner-cited prior-art references before building the § 103 analysis.

Now the remaining two referenced patents:

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 5,627,656

"Motion picture reproducing apparatus in synchronism with sound signal"
Fujitsu Ltd. · Appl. No. 08/698,172 · Priority 1992‑11‑02 · Granted 1997‑05‑06 · Expired (fee‑related lapse, eff. 2009‑05‑06)

0. Scope, materials, and a necessary caveat

Per instructions, this analysis uses only the prior art listed on the patent page, i.e. the four references under "Patent Citations (4)" (examiner‑cited):

Caveat (important): the page shows that these four were cited against US 5,627,656; it does not show the Office Action or the examiner's stated rationale. What follows is therefore a reconstructed § 103 case, not a quotation of the record. I have not verified the content of the corresponding JP family member JPH06150625A (same family — not prior art), and the "Cited By" documents on the page are post‑1992 publications and thus cannot be prior art against this patent.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5627656/en · https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5038217A](/patent/US5038217A)/en · https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5130966A](/patent/US5130966A)/en · https://patents.google.com/patent/US5142521/en · https://patents.google.com/patent/US5262877

1. What is actually claimed (the § 103 target)

The claim set as published is narrow in a very specific way, and that shapes the whole analysis. Independent claim 1 requires, in combination:

Claims 2–6 build out as follows:

• Claim 2 — image data storage + sound data storage + data forming means + header forming means + coupling means to form the file.
• Claim 3 — the synchronizing means specifically = reading means + memory means (buffer) + control means.
• Claim 4 — file compiling means, and when data are replaced, the old track/data IDs are re‑imparted to the new data.
• Claim 5 — claim 1 + claim 2 in one independent claim.
• Claim 6 — claim 1 with "portion" substituted for "track" (and it carries a drafting inconsistency: it recites "portion identifying means … for identifying either said image portion or said sound portion" but then refers to "order of data within said image track and said sound track").

Two features are the crux of patentability and therefore the crux of any § 103 attack:

1. the header as a separate track carrying the image↔sound relationship (1c), and
2. the two‑level identifier scheme — track IDs plus per‑unit‑time data IDs — with synchronization performed by matching the data IDs (1f, 1g),

all in a single memory‑resident file with logical (non‑physical) tracks (1b, 1d).

2. Element‑by‑element mapping of the four references

A — US 5,038,217 (Sony)

• Magnetic disk with 50 mutually separated data recording regions (tracks) 2₁…2₅₀, each "identified by a unique identification number", each region holding one field of video data or a given period of audio data. (claims 1, 3; https://patents.google.com/patent/US5038217A/en)
• Audio data carries a group identification number designating "a group of data recording regions whose recorded data are to be reproduced synchronously"; the second means detects the group ID, marks all regions with the same group ID, and the third means erases them. (claim 1; background)
• After‑recording: audio is recorded with a second identification number and an identification of at least one data recording region to constitute a group to be reproduced in synchronism (EP 0295148 family text, sixth aspect — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/aa/0c/1b/fb7f9921946cc0/EP0295148A1.pdf).
• Background expressly discusses a "table memory … storing information corresponding to that recorded with the audio signal and establishing a table showing the relationship between the information stored in the respective tracks on the magnetic disk."

Maps to: 1e (per‑track identifiers), 1c (relationship data associating audio with video so they reproduce synchronously), 1g (synchronization by ID matching), 1h (reproduction), and — importantly — claim 4's editing/replacement with identifier carry‑over.

Gaps: the identifiers are physical track numbers ("the identification numbers correspond to the numbers of the tracks," claim 3); the relationship data (group ID) sits in the audio data regions themselves, not in a separate header track; there is no distinct per‑unit‑time "data identifying number" separate from the track/region number; and there is no single "file" abstraction with logical tracks.

B — US 5,130,966 (Pioneer)

• Picture information recorded as a subcode of a coded information signal on a disc, with identification information indicating areas of the recording medium in which predetermined sections of the subcode are recorded; on playback the areas are searched in response to a command using the identification information and the picture is generated from the subcode read from that area. (EP 0333954 abstract; https://patents.google.com/patent/US5130966A/en)
• The Q bits carry time information corresponding to track length … as address time data usable as positional data representing the recording position; the P bits carry pause data. Packs are the minimum data unit; each pack has a mode symbol + instruction symbol + parities.

Maps to: 1c's "control information" concept and 1g's "reading … in response to the control information of said header" — i.e., management/positional data used by the player to locate and read out data, and the general notion of a single medium carrying multiple logically distinct data types (graphics channel vs. audio) distinguished by identification data.

Gaps: no image/sound synchronization by matched IDs; no per‑unit‑time paired numbering; picture information is static graphics/Karaoke subcode, not moving pictures at plural frames per unit time.

C — US 5,142,521 (Sharp)

• Recording/reproduction on a writable medium (magneto‑optical disk, optical card, phase‑change, D‑RAW) having an information recording area and a TOC (Table of Contents) area; recording means records information and records absolute addresses indicating at least the position where the information is recorded, as additional information in the TOC area. (claims 1–2; https://patents.google.com/patent/US5142521/en)
• Division setting means divides the information recording area into a plurality of domains respectively corresponding to each sampling frequency … and produces additional information that indicates the details of the division; the recording means then places each item of information in the domain matching its sampling frequency and records the division details (claims 17+).
• Operational means converts demodulated absolute addresses so "corrected absolute addresses … correspond to a period of time which has elapsed since a starting time of a recording or reproducing operation" (claim 1).

Maps to: 1b/1c — a management region stored separately from the program area and containing positional information about the recorded data; the logical division of one recording area into plural domains that need not correspond to physical tracks (1d-adjacent); and time‑based relationship information between stored items (relevant to a relationship "indicating a relationship between said image data and said sound data").

Gaps: no image/sound synchronization at all; the domains are separated by sampling frequency, not by media type; no track ID / data ID pair scheme.

D — US 5,262,877 (Fuji Photo Film)

• File recording medium (optical disk) with a first recording area holding sample frames of image and voice data and a second recording area available for user recording. (abstract; https://patents.google.com/patent/US5262877)
• "Third data representative of a correspondence relationship which defines a correspondence between the sample or frame and the desired image in reproduction" is recorded in the second area; on read‑out the correspondence data is referenced "to incorporate the desired image recorded in the second recording area into a sample or frame … to reproduce the desired image together with a corresponding voice." (claim 1 / summary)
• Claim 13: recording means records user images and records a conversion table including correspondence data; reproducing means reproduces voices along with the images "as associated with each other"; control means selects user image vs. prerecorded image based on whether correspondence data exists for that frame.
• The first area may further include "timing data … indicative of the start timing points of the prerecorded data representative of voices."
• The background expressly criticizes a prior "high‑vision TV‑photo" filing system in which the pickup "alternately [locates] over track positions … where image and voice signals to be retrieved are recorded", causing great access time and reduced data transfer rate — i.e., D identifies the exact problem the '656 patent's "single file" approach addresses.

Maps to: 1c (a stored correspondence table defining the image↔voice relationship, i.e. exactly "control information indicating a relationship between said image data and said sound data"), 1b (one medium holding image data + voice data + relationship data), 1h (reproduction of image and associated voice), and claim 4 (user replacement of an image while preserving the voice association — the essence of "re‑imparting the old identifiers to the new data").

Gaps: still‑image frames with a voice per frame rather than "a plurality of frames per unit time"; no track ID/data ID numbering scheme; correspondence is frame↔image mapping, not per‑unit‑time pairing.

3. The § 103 case, claim by claim

3.1 Primary theory for independent claim 1

A (US 5,038,217) in view of D (US 5,262,877), further in view of C (US 5,142,521).

Motivation / rationale a POSITA would have had (Graham v. John Deere, and equally under KSR):

1. Same field, same problem. All four are disk‑based digital image/audio recording, reproduction and editing systems from 1987–1989. A and D are expressly directed to keeping image and voice associated for synchronous reproduction while permitting editing; B and C to managing and finding data on the medium via stored control/positional information. The '656 patent's own Background concedes the pre‑existing problem: image and audio "read out independently from the two files," requiring timing adjustment, raising microprocessor load, and making program formation intricate. Every reference is aimed at one or more of those exact deficiencies.
2. A's own background supplies the "table" motivation. A discusses a table memory that "establish[es] a table showing the relationship between the information stored in the respective tracks" to permit "smooth selection of the associated tracks and thus smooth reproduction." Once control information is abstracted into a table, storing that table in a dedicated area of the file (the header/separate track of 1c, the TOC of C, the correspondence table of D) is a design choice with no new mechanism — the predictable use of a known technique (management table) for its known purpose.
3. D directly supplies the "relationship in the header" concept in a computer‑file framing. D's "third data representative of a correspondence relationship" consulted at reproduction time is functionally the claimed header control information "indicating a relationship between said image data and said sound data." D also pre‑empts the reason to keep the relationship data in the file itself: the background criticizes the access‑time and transfer‑rate penalty of jumping the pickup between image and voice track positions.
4. C supplies the "separate header track / logical division" teaching. C's TOC area is a region separate from the information area whose entire function is to hold positional and division information about the recorded data, and C teaches dividing one recording area into domains with recorded division details. Substituting a logical file/track structure for physical track layout on a disk (limitation 1d) is a simple substitution of one known data‑organizing technique for another, with predictable results — precisely the KSR "familiar elements, known methods, predictable result" rationale.
5. B supplies the "read from the medium in response to stored control information" step and the notion of identification data that tells the player which areas to search — the claim's "reading, in order … in response to the control information of said header."
6. Two‑level ID scheme is an obvious aggregation. A already teaches (i) region/track identification numbers and (ii) a separate group number that pairs non‑track‑adjacent regions for synchronous reproduction. Splitting A's group number into a track‑type ID plus a per‑unit‑time order ID is a mere rearrangement of information already present in A, producing no unexpected result: matching numbers still selects data to be reproduced together.

Expected result / predictability. Each claimed element (header table, per‑track IDs, per‑chunk order IDs, match‑on‑ID synchronization, buffer + controller readout) was individually known; their combination produces only the predictable aggregation of (a) A's synchronous grouping and (b) D/C's file‑level management information — namely, synchronized playback from one file instead of two.

3.2 Claim 3 (reading means + memory means + control means)

A + D + B. A's microprocessor‑controlled apparatus reads/writes regions and uses a table memory; D discloses a storage element holding image signals and a controller driving the recorder/reader; B discloses reading subcode information into a memory (55/83) and generating output from the stored content on command. A buffer (several seconds of image + sound, as recited in the specification) is the conventional remedy for the very access‑time/transfer‑rate problem D's background identifies. No new technology is required.

3.3 Claims 2 and 5 (source storages + data forming + header forming + coupling)

A + D (+ C). D discloses a recording apparatus (200) and editing apparatus (300) into which user‑recorded images and voices are imported and framed into the recording medium's formatted fields — i.e., forming image/sound regions from stored source data. C discloses recording means that writes data plus additional information into the TOC area, which is the "header forming means" plus "coupling" function (writing header and data as one managed entity). A discloses recording video regions and after‑recording audio into previously blank regions — combining separately‑recorded elements into one associated group. The combination is the routine assembly of known recording, formatting, and management steps.

3.4 Claim 4 (file compiling means; old IDs re‑imparted to replacement data)

This is the claim most directly met, and it is worth flagging because it is also the narrowest vulnerability for the patentee.

• A is, in its entirety, an editing apparatus for video + audio on one medium: it selects a recording region, locates all regions storing associated video/audio, and erases them as a group; in the after‑recording mode it records new audio data "with a second identification number and an identification of at least one data recording region to constitute a group to be reproduced in synchronism" (i.e., the newly written data receive the identifiers that tie them to the group).
• D is literally an image and voice editing system in which a user's replacement image is recorded into a second area, and a correspondence table entry is recorded so that the new image is reproduced with the same, unchanged prerecorded voice for that frame — i.e., the association/identifier of the replaced content is carried over to the new content.

Combining A + D, a POSITA would plainly arrive at "when replacing the image/sound data, assign the same track and data identifying numbers previously assigned to the replaced data," because (i) A already re‑uses group identification when writing replacement audio, and (ii) D's entire editing scheme depends on the replacement image inheriting the voice association of the frame it replaces. The motivation is explicit and functional: the edit must not break the synchronization the system was built to provide.

3.5 Claim 6 (independent claim using "portion" terminology)

Claim 6 is claim 1 with "track" renamed "portion." It rises or falls entirely with claim 1's theory. Note the internal inconsistency (identifying "portions" but then numbering "order of data within said image track and said sound track"); under § 112 ¶ 2 that language could be challenged, but for § 103 it adds nothing beyond claim 1 and is met by the A + D + C combination.

4. Where the obviousness case is weak (defenses the patentee would raise)

A balanced analyst should mark these, because they are the reason the patent issued:

1. The negative limitation is a deliberate disk‑art carve‑out. Limitation 1d — "said image and sound tracks not corresponding one‑to‑one to physical tracks of a recording disk" — plus "a file in a memory unit of the computer" and "using a computer" reads as a prosecution amendment drafted to escape precisely the kind of art cited: A (physical disk tracks 2₁…2₅₀), B (subcode on a disc), C (disk TOC), D (optical disk areas). The patentee will argue the combination teaches away from the memory‑resident logical‑track file, because A's scheme is defined by physical track numbers and C's by physical domain layout. Counter‑argument: C expressly contemplates that the recording area's division is defined by recorded "additional information," i.e. logically, and A's own background treats a table memory (a memory‑resident abstraction of the disk) as the association mechanism — the hardware substrate is a non‑tethering implementation detail (cf. In re Zurko-era reasoning on apparatus claims reciting general‑purpose computers).
2. No single reference discloses the "same data identifying number" pairing on a per‑unit‑time basis. A discloses same group ID; it does not disclose a per‑unit‑time order ID shared by an image chunk and a sound chunk. This element relies on the combination plus the assertion that a per‑unit‑time counter is a mere labeling convention. That is a strong argument for the examiner but is attackable as hindsight.
3. The "header as a separate track" limitation is only approximately met. A stores the group ID in the audio regions, not in a header; D stores the correspondence table in the second (user) recording area, not a header track; C's TOC is the best, and C has no image/sound synchronization at all. A defensible non‑obviousness position: none of the four teaches putting the image↔sound relationship into a header that is itself a track of the same file, and the examiner's combination is a collage of four separate partial teachings glued only by the claim language.
4. B and C are arguably non‑analogous in the relevant respect — B is about CD subcode graphics/Karaoke picture channels and C about sampling‑frequency‑dependent address demodulation; their "identification/positional information" teachings are for different purposes (searching graphics areas; velocity‑corrected addresses) than image/sound synchronization. Expect a In re Clay / In re Bigio analogous‑art fight over B and C. (The field‑of‑endeavor test likely still favors the examiner: all are digital optical/magneto‑optical recording and reproduction.)
5. The claim's own inconsistencies (claim 6's "portion"/"track" mix; claim 1's functional "means" recitations) are more useful for § 112 and claim‑construction arguments than as § 103 rebuttals.

5. Bottom line

Governing standards. Under Graham v. John Deere (scope/content, differences, PHOSITA level, secondary considerations) and equally under KSR Int'l v. Teleflex (combining familiar elements with predictable results; obvious to try; design incentives in the field), the A + D + C combination renders claim 1 obvious on the reconstructed record, with A + D being particularly compelling against claim 4. The main residual vulnerabilities are (i) the deliberate logical‑track / memory‑file negative limitation, and (ii) the reliance on a multi‑reference combination to reach the header‑as‑separate‑track and same‑data‑ID matching features — an argument a patentee would press as impermissible hindsight, and one that a careful examiner would need to buttress with an explicit articulated reason to combine (which, from the face of this page, we cannot confirm was done).

No secondary‑consideration evidence (commercial success, long‑felt need, failure of others, copying) appears anywhere on the patent page; absent such evidence, the objective indicia do not disturb the analysis above.