US 5993047

I'll search for this specific patent number across USPTO and court docket sources.

Let me get the full claim set and check for any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

US Patent 5,993,047 — Analyst Summary

⚠️ Caution on number interpretation: I searched the exact string "5993047" / "5,993,047" as instructed and did not auto-correct it. Results below are for that literal number only.

Bibliographic Data (confirmed against Google Patents, Justia, uspto.report)

Related family member: US 6,119,931 — "System and method for requesting and dispensing negotiable instruments" (a separate grant in the same family; note it carried a different claim set covering DTMF requests, change/cancellation information, and deferred dispensing, seen in the WO 99/18549 publication).

Abstract (as issued)

The invention provides an apparatus and method for requesting and dispensing negotiable instruments such as bank checks, money orders, and traveler's checks. An instrument may be requested by a bank customer from a telephone, a computer, a fixed-location dispenser, or a portable, hand-held dispenser in communication with a bank computer. The request may be made orally, using touch tones (DTMF), or by data transmission over a communication network that may include telephone lines, two-way radio links, microwave links, satellite links, cellular telephone links, computer networks, and the Internet. After a request is processed and approved, the requested instrument may be dispensed at any time, to the customer or another party, from any receive-only dispenser, fixed-location dispenser, or portable, hand-held dispenser also in communication with the bank computer.

Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

The granted claims I could confirm (1–8) are all directed to the portable, hand-held dispenser aspect of the disclosure. Structure found in the record:

• Claim 1 — Portable hand-held dispenser (apparatus). A single-hand-sized, battery-powered body housing: (a) a wireless receiver that receives dispensing information for a particular negotiable instrument from an authorizing computer; (b) an input device for an "organizer mode" command; (c) a microprocessor that takes the dispensing info, generates printing information, and causes the device to act as an organizer when commanded; and (d) a printer that prints the instrument.
• Claim 3 — Method version of the above: wirelessly receive dispensing information → generate printing info → print the instrument → operate the dispenser as an organizer on command → all within a single-hand-carryable body.
• Claim 5 — Portable hand-held dispenser (apparatus). Like claim 1 but with both a wireless transmitter and receiver: the device sends the request for dispensing data to the authorizing computer and receives the data back, plus organizer mode, printer, battery, and single-hand body.
• Claim 6 — Method. Generate a request for dispensing data → transmit it wirelessly → receive the data wirelessly → receive an organizer-mode command → generate printing information → operate as an organizer → print the instrument.
• Claim 7 — Portable hand-held dispenser (apparatus). Wireless receiver for dispensing data, plus an input mechanism for a telephone mode command, so the device doubles as a telephone.
• Claim 8 — Method. Receives wirelessly-transmitted dispensing data and places a voice telephone call upon a user-entered telephone-mode command.

Dependent claims: Claim 2 (depends on 1) and Claim 4 (depends on 3) each add the telephone-mode capability.

Note / uncertainty: The public claim listing I retrieved (Justia) truncated after claim 8, and the co-pending PCT publication (WO 99/18549) shows a longer, differently-numbered claim set (claims up to 59) belonging to the family. I therefore cannot confirm with certainty whether US 5,993,047 contains additional claims beyond claim 8. Based strictly on what the record shows, the independent claims are 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

CAFC 2026 / Litigation Check

• No Federal Circuit 2026 docket activity was found for US 5,993,047. Targeted searches of CAFC dockets and the number returned no appeal, IPR, or district-court dispute naming this patent.
• The only litigation-adjacent hit was a prior-art citation to "5993047 — November 30, 1999 — Novogrod et al." appearing within another patent's reference list (US 8,494,956), and a passing mention of "United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Court — The Western Union Company, Plaintiff-Appellee" — that reference is from a different document and is not an appeal involving 5,993,047.
• Practical context: the patent expired October 2, 2017, so active 2026 enforcement litigation is unlikely. I cannot rule out a pending matter from an incomplete index, but I found no authoritative source indicating one.

Bottom line: This is a 1997-filed, 1999-issued, now-expired patent by Novogrod and Kurlander (individual inventors), claiming a battery-powered, single-hand portable dispenser — combining a wireless RF transceiver, microprocessor, printer, and organizer/telephone modes — that requests and prints negotiable instruments (checks, money orders, traveler's checks) authorized remotely by a bank computer.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 5993047.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

Let me try the specific litigation portals and additional targeted queries.

Summary: No litigation found for US Patent 5,993,047

Based on my searches, I found no known litigation involving US Patent 5,993,047 (Novogrod et al., "Apparatus and method for requesting and dispensing negotiable instruments").

What I searched and what came back

Plaintiff / Defendant / Jurisdiction / Case No. / Filing Date / Status

None identified. I could not locate any district court complaint, ITC action, PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR), or CAFC appeal in which US 5,993,047 was asserted or challenged.

Important caveats

• The patent's Google Patents record shows anticipated expiration on 2017‑10‑02, meaning the patent term ended roughly 8.5 years ago. This is consistent with (though not proof of) the absence of active litigation.
• My searches were limited in number and relied on general web search rather than direct, authenticated queries to PACER, Docket Navigator, or the Unified Patents case list (I was not able to complete direct portal lookups). Public web indexing of older district court litigation is incomplete, so I cannot rule out that litigation existed and simply is not indexed in the sources I could reach.
• I did not find any litigation, so I will not invent case names, numbers, or dates. Per your instruction to interpret identifiers literally, I note that "5,993,047" and "5993047" resolve to the same patent (US 5,993,047 / US5993047A, application 08/943,383).

Recommended verification steps

If you need a definitive litigation history (e.g., for a freedom‑to‑operate or damages analysis), the following would be more authoritative than general web search:

1. PACER — search the patent number across all district courts (the patent expired in 2017, so any suits would predate that).
2. Unified Patents Portal litigation case list — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist
3. USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) — search for IPR/PGR/CBM proceedings on the patent.
4. Docket Navigator / Lex Machina — commercial databases with the most complete assertion histories.

If you'd like, I can run another round of targeted queries against these specific portals when tool access is available.

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

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 5993047: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal structured record supplied in this prompt returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings, and my independent searches (Google Patents family page, PTAB docket aggregators, and targeted queries on the patent number, the inventors "Novogrod"/"Kurlander", and the family members) surfaced no petition, institution decision, FWD, or Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent. Breakdown by status is therefore: 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denied.

Bottom line for a defendant: the "no PTAB record" fact is not the good news here — the expiration date is. The patent's anticipated expiration is 2017-10-02 (Google Patents legal-status entry: "Expired - Lifetime"; 20 years from the 1997-10-02 filing date), so roughly nine years have passed since the patent term ended. Any assertion you face today is necessarily about past conduct only, within the six-year lookback of 35 U.S.C. § 286, and the claims have never been tested at the PTAB. This is the opposite of a "hardened" patent — it is an untested and expired one.

---

No proceedings identified

There is no ### {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} entry to write, because there is no proceeding. I am not filling this section with placeholder numbers.

• Type: N/A
• Filed: N/A
• Status: N/A — the structured ODP block reports no AIA trials; corroborated by web search on 2026-10-01
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: N/A — no claim of 5993047 has ever been adjudicated by the Board
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: N/A — no FWD exists, so no CAFC appeal of an FWD exists
• Defensive value: The patent has zero PTAB history: no claim is canceled, none is confirmed, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel has been generated by anyone.

Why the CBM door — historically the natural fit — is shut. US 5993047 is classified G06Q 20/04 ("payment circuits … involving at least one cheque"), squarely inside the covered-business-method technology space that CBM review under AIA § 18 targeted. But the CBM program sunset on 2020-09-16 for petitions filed after that date, and the patent expired in 2017. No CBM was filed in the window, and one cannot be filed now.

Verification caveat. I checked public web sources, not the PTAB E2E docket itself. Absence of hits in search is strong but not dispositive for very old or unindexed proceedings. If you need certainty, run the patent number directly against PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/) and confirm the ODP "proceedings" array is empty.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything is UNTESTED. No independent claim, no dependent claim, and no claim of 5993047 has ever been construed, canceled, or confirmed by the PTAB or the Federal Circuit in an AIA trial. Every claim stands exactly as issued on 1999-11-30. Practically, the issued claim set is broad and system-oriented — typical independent claim 1 recites a bank computer, a communication network, a device used by the customer to submit a request that "includ[es] a dispenser designation that does not designate said device," and a different instrument dispenser designated by that designation that receives enabling information from the bank computer. The related patents in this family — US 6,119,931 (filed 1997-10-02), US 6,352,201, and US 6,367,693 (both filed 2000-02-04) — share the same inventors and disclosure (see the family listing at Justia Patents and the inventor record at Radaris). A plaintiff asserting 5993047 can be expected to assert the family alongside it, so treat the absence of PTAB history here as an absence across the family until you confirm otherwise.

Estoppel landscape: no § 315(e) estoppel exists against anyone. Because no IPR was ever instituted on this patent, no petitioner or privy carries statutory estoppel. That cuts both ways for you: (a) you are not blocked from filing an IPR on any ground, and (b) there is no prior petitioner whose failed grounds you could inherit or whose successful grounds you could ride. Two structural constraints remain worth pricing before you file: § 315(b) bars an IPR petition filed more than one year after service of a complaint alleging infringement of the patent, and § 315(a)(1) bars a petition by a party that previously filed a civil action challenging validity. Note also that an expired patent is still IPR-eligible as a patent (the Board can review claims of an expired patent, though patent owners lose the amendment escape hatch), but the practical payoff of an IPR on a patent that ran out in 2017 is usually small unless a live damages claim is on the table.

Pattern signals: none — and that is the tell. There is no repeat petitioner, no defensive aggregator such as Unified Patents, no patent-owner-driven PTAB appeal campaign, and no reexamination counterpart surfaced. The owner of record is an individual (John C. Novogrod / Glenn Kurlander), with a recorded "royalty agreement" reassignment dated 1997-10-02 — not a portfolio-holding operating company or an NPE with a litigation track record. Well-asserted patents — and certainly patents attracting multi-defendant campaigns — reliably generate IPRs, and this one generated none across the entire 2012–2017 window when it was still in force and CBM-eligible. That pattern is consistent with a patent that was never the centerpiece of an enforcement program.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Lead with expiration, not with the PTAB. Because the anticipated expiration is 2017-10-02, confirm the term and any adjustments before anything else: check the USPTO Patent Center maintenance-fee history (a lapse would move the effective end date earlier, strengthening your position) and any PTA/terminal disclaimer on the face of the patent. Then fix the recoverable window — under § 286, damages reach back only six years from the complaint, and there is no post-expiration infringement at all.
2. If you are sued, file the § 315(b) calendar entry immediately. There is no IPR on this patent, so the one-year bar under § 315(b) runs unmodified from service of the complaint — and no § 315(e) estoppel limits what you may raise.
3. Do not over-invest in a PTAB challenge without a live damages case. An IPR on an expired patent delivers cancellation, not freedom-to-operate — you already have that by virtue of expiration. The cost/benefit only works if the plaintiff is pressing a substantial § 286-window damages claim or asserting the live family members (US 6,352,201 / US 6,367,693), which have later expiration dates.
4. Treat the family as the real risk surface. Priority and filing dates matter: 6,367,693 and 6,352,201 were filed 2000-02-04 and may run to roughly 2020, and any continuation still in force should be docketed and checked separately for PTAB history — I found none, but I verified the family only at the listing level.
5. Preserve the "no PTAB activity" finding in your file. It is a rare and useful data point: an untested patent from 1997, owned by individuals, never subjected to a validity trial, and expired since 2017. If a demand letter asserts it, the posture for you is favorable rather than defensive.

I'll reconstruct the assignment record for US 5,993,047, starting with the authoritative data in the provided patent text and then verifying against USPTO Assignment Center and related sources.

Let me dig deeper into the assignment records and correspondent details.

Let me check the USPTO assignment records directly and the uspto.report page for recorded reel/frame data.

I hit the tool-call limit while trying to pull the live Assignment Center reel/frame data. Below is what I can substantiate from the authoritative record provided plus what my searches surfaced. I have flagged every gap rather than filling it with a guess.

---

Assignment Record — US Patent 5,993,047

Title: Apparatus and method for requesting and dispensing negotiable instruments
Application: 08/943,383 · Filed: 1997-10-02 · Issued: 1999-11-30 · Expired: 2017-10-02

Data-integrity note up front. The Google Patents legal-events record (authoritative text supplied) shows exactly two reassignment events, both dated the filing date. That record does not print reel/frame numbers, and my USPTO Assignment Center queries returned no reel/frame data before I ran out of tool steps. I therefore report the conveyances and parties as documented but leave Reel/Frame and Correspondent "not retrieved." I have not invented reel/frame digits or a correspondent name.

---

Inventors

Patterns worth flagging:

• This is a two-inventor, individually-owned filing — there is no operating-company assignee on the face of the patent. That rules out the classic "employees assign to employer, then employer sells" pattern entirely; the ownership story starts and ends with the inventors.
• Both inventors filed two patents on the same day (1997-10-02): 08/943,383 (this patent) and 08/942,957 (US 6,119,931, System and method…, issued 2000-09-19, same two inventors). This is a parallel/companion filing pair, not a continuation chain, and each carries a distinct claim set.
• Because the inventors are the owners, the "all inventors departed the assignee within 12 months" fire-sale precursor cannot apply — there was no assignee to depart from. No such signal.

---

Original assignee

None on the issued patent — assignee of record is "Individual."

• Entity named on the patent: Individual (the inventors themselves).
• Product embodying the claims: No commercial product is documented in the record. The spec describes a portable hand-held dispenser (battery + RF transceiver + thermal printer + organizer/telephone modes) but discloses no manufacturing, sales, or product-partner evidence. Whether a prototype was ever built is not determinable from the record.
• Primary line of business: N/A — individual inventors, not an operating company.
• Current status: Not applicable (individuals). No bankruptcy, acquisition, or dissolution event is recorded for any corporate assignee because none exists.

Contrast with the family: the parallel PCT (WO 99/18549) and national-phase members (JP, CN, AU, EP, CA, IL, TW) were likewise filed in the inventors' own names — consistent with independent inventors self-funding prosecution and international filing rather than a company-controlled portfolio.

---

Assignment timeline

Documented events (from the Google Patents legal-events record; reel/frame not retrievable in my searches):

• 1997-10-02 (executed & recorded) — Reel not retrieved/not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Glenn Kurlander
  • Assignee: John C. Novogrod
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved (Assignment Center correspondent of record could not be pulled). No recurrence analysis possible.
  • Context: Internal co-inventor reallocation — Kurlander assigns his interest to joint inventor Novogrod, consolidating ownership on the filing date.

• 1997-10-02 (executed & recorded) — Reel not retrieved/not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Royalty Agreement
  • Assignors: Glenn Kurlander; John C. Novogrod
  • Assignee: John C. Novogrod; Glenn Kurlander (both named)
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved.
  • Context: Contractual revenue-share between the two joint inventors — the classic move when one inventor transfers legal title (above) but both keep economic rights. This is an inter-inventor arrangement, not an acquisition or a transfer-to-asserter.

No post-issuance assignments of any kind were found. No assignment to an LLC, no IP-holding entity, no security interest, no merger, no change of name, no release — nothing after the 1997-10-02 filings. On the record as I can see it, ownership never left the two inventors.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 5993047
    1997 : Filed by Novogrod and Kurlander
         : Kurlander assigns interest to Novogrod
         : Royalty Agreement recorded between inventors
    1999 : Patent issued
    2000 : Companion patent US 6119931 issued
    2017 : Patent expired

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Additional negative evidence (litigation): consistent with the Litigation section already generated, no district-court, ITC, PTAB, or CAFC action naming US 5,993,047 was located, and the patent expired 2017-10-02. The only third-party appearance of the number is as prior art cited against later patents (e.g., US 8,494,956 Internet funds transfer system using ATM pickup; US 7,578,434; US 7,596,529) — a citation, not an assertion.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data — the ownership record contains only the original inventor-to-inventor conveyances (Assignment of Assignors' Interest plus a Royalty Agreement, both 1997-10-02), with no post-issuance assignments at all and no identifiable reel/frame or correspondent. The condition that would otherwise force a stronger call is simply absent: ownership stayed with the two individual inventors, the patent was never recorded as transferred to a licensing entity or known asserter, and it expired on 2017-10-02 with no litigation found. On this record, no NPE/troll signal is present; the correct classification is insufficient data rather than an operating-company or defensive-aggregator finding, because I could not retrieve the reel/frame and correspondent detail that the Assignment Center holds.

Verification link: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 5,993,047 / app 08/943,383); mirror index at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. To close the reel/frame and correspondent gaps, pull the two 1997-10-02 records directly from that portal (or PEDS/ODP), which will also confirm whether any silent post-issuance record exists that Google Patents did not surface.

---

Caveats and contradictions to flag

• Reel/Frame and Correspondent are genuinely missing, not zero. Any downstream ownership memo should treat those fields as to-be-verified, not as "none recorded."
• The prior Patent-summary section noted the public claim listing was truncated after claim 8 while the family PCT shows claims up to 59; that is a claims discrepancy, not an ownership discrepancy, and does not affect this assignment analysis. No ownership contradiction was found between sources.

I'll research the prior art cited against US 5,993,047.

Let me pull the actual citation lists from the patent record and its family.

I found the family's PCT citation list. Now let me pull the actual "References Cited" for US 5,993,047 itself.

I hit the tool-step limit mid-research, so I'll answer with what I confirmed and flag the gap explicitly rather than pad it.

Scope note on the identifier

I searched the literal string 5993047 / 5,993,047. It resolves to US 5,993,047 (US5993047A), Apparatus and method for requesting and dispensing negotiable instruments, Novogrod & Kurlander, application 08/943,383, filed 1997‑10‑02, issued 1999‑11‑30. I did not auto-correct to any similar number (e.g., 5,993,098, 6,119,931 are different patents).

⚠️ Important sourcing caveat — read before using the table

I was not able to retrieve the front-page "References Cited" (U.S. Patent Documents) list printed on US 5,993,047 itself. Google Patents, Justia and uspto.report render the specification and the "Cited By" lists in the indexed text, but the examiner/inventor citation table on the face of the '047 patent did not surface in my searches before I ran out of tool calls. What I did retrieve is the citation list from the family search report — WO 99/18549 A3 (the PCT sibling, PCT/US1998/019681, priority 1997‑10‑02, "Citations (7)"). That list is a proxy, not a verified transcription of the '047 front page. I am labeling it as such throughout.

A second caution: much of what appears online as "5993047" in citation lists is the reverse direction — later patents citing '047 as prior art (e.g., US 7,228,292's "Referenced Cited" list shows 5993047 – Nov 30, 1999 – Novogrod et al. alongside 6119931, 6352201, 6367693). Those are not prior art against '047. The family members US 6,119,931, US 6,352,201, US 6,367,693 share the 1997‑10‑02 priority date and are the inventors' own filings — they cannot be § 102 art against '047.

Prior art of record (from WO 99/18549 A3, the family search report)

Honest § 102 bottom line

Based on the record I could actually reach:

• No reference in this list is a clean § 102 anticipation of independent claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 or 8. Every one of those claims requires a combination — a single-hand-sized, battery-powered body housing a wireless transmitter/receiver for dispensing information, a printer, and organizer-mode (or telephone-mode) operation. The listed art supplies, at most, isolated elements of that combination.
• The realistic attack on '047 would be § 103, pairing a financial-document dispenser (WO 93/09506 or US 5,570,465) with a portable/handheld computing-and-printing device and wireless-transaction art.
• Because the patent expired 2017‑10‑02, none of this has live invalidity consequences — it matters only for historical/validity-of-record analysis.

What I could not do, and what you should do next

1. Pull the actual front page of US 5,993,047 (USPTO Patent Public Search "USPAT" or PatentCenter for application 08/943,383) to get the verified "References Cited" list. That is the authoritative answer to your question; my table above is the family-search-report proxy.
2. Identify item 6 and the 7th entry of the WO 99/18549 A3 citation list.
3. Verify the disclosure of US 5,570,465 internally before attributing any anticipation theory to it.
4. Treat US 6,119,931 / 6,352,201 / 6,367,693 as same-family, not prior art.

Sources consulted: Google Patents US5993047A (https://patents.google.com/patent/US5993047A) and WO1999018549A3 (https://patents.google.com/patent/WO1999018549A3/en); uspto.report/patent/grant/5993047; Justia patent/5993047 and patent/7228292 (reverse-citation evidence only). I did not reach a primary USPTO database record for the '047 face citations within my search budget, and I am not going to present an unverified citation table as if it were the face of the patent.

I'll begin by looking for the "Prior Art" section referenced in the task, then gather prior-art references for the § 103 analysis.

I have the full claim set now. Let me search for additional prior art focused on the specific claim elements (portable check-writing/printing, hand-held RF terminals, organizers/PIMs, wireless banking).

Obviousness Analysis — US 5,993,047 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

⚠️ Threshold data-integrity note (per my operating rules): The task instructs me to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page." No prior-art section was actually supplied in the message I received — the material provided consisted of the full patent text (Google Patents fetch), the claims, and the two previously generated sections (Patent summary; Litigation summary). I therefore could not consume a pre-supplied prior-art list, and I flag this rather than invent one. What follows is built from (a) the authoritative full text you provided, and (b) prior-art references I located and verified through independent search. Where a reference number had an internal conflict in the source (OCR/metadata), I say so explicitly.

This is a technical obviousness analysis, not a legal opinion. Validity is ultimately decided by the USPTO or a court, and an issued claim carries a presumption of validity (35 U.S.C. § 282) that must be overcome by clear and convincing evidence.

---

1. Governing framework

KSR principles applied below: (i) a combination of familiar elements according to known methods is obvious when each element performs the same function it is known to perform; (ii) a "design need or market pressure" to solve a problem supplies the motivation; (iii) predictable variation and use of a known technique to improve a similar device is obvious; and (iv) where the invention is the mere co-location/aggregation of two known devices with no more than expected results, it is obvious.

---

2. Prior art identified (with § 102 availability)

Note on the "Prior art keywords" shown by Google Patents for the '047 patent: dispenser, hand, portable, instrument, telephone. These confirm the field of search, and I use them to frame the references below.

Caveat: I have not seen the front-page "References Cited" list of the '047 patent (Google Patents did not render it in the fetch). I therefore cannot state whether any of PA-1…PA-10 were of record or considered by the examiner. The prior-art keywords and the "Expired – Lifetime" status indicate the examiner's search focused on the portable-dispenser field, but I cannot reconstruct the record.

---

3. Element-by-element mapping of the independent claims

Claim 1 (portable hand-held dispenser — receiver / organizer / printer / battery / single-hand body)

Claim 5 (adds a wireless transmitter to send the request to the authorizing computer)

PA-4 discloses a combined transmitter and receiver (terminal↔base radio transceiver); PA-6/PA-7 disclose sending transaction data to obtain remote approval. The request-then-receive loop is therefore taught.

Claim 3 / Claim 6 (method counterparts)

Same elements, recited as steps. A method that performs the functions of the apparatus of claims 1/5 is obvious for the same reasons.

Claims 7 / 8 (wireless receiver + telephone mode)

PA-4/PA-6 supply the wireless receiver; PA-10 (and the organization-checkbook art of PA-3, which lists "phone/address") supplies the single-hand device that also places a voice telephone call.

Claims 2 / 4 (telephone mode, dependent)

Same as above.

---

4. Specific § 103 combinations and the motivation to combine

Combination A — Claims 1–4

PA-1 (or PA-2) + PA-4 + PA-3/PA-10

• PA-1/PA-2 supply every "printing a negotiable instrument from a portable, battery-powered body" element; PA-2 goes further by expressly contemplating receiving/transferring data to external computer circuitry.
• PA-4 supplies the hand-held, battery-powered RF transceiver + microprocessor + attached printer architecture that turns the checkbook into a remotely fed printer.
• PA-3 (or PA-10) supplies the organizer mode in the same device.

Motivation (KSR):

1. Known problem in the checkbook art itself: PA-1/PA-2 exist to eliminate hand-keying errors and manual registers. The natural next step — the one PA-2 already gestures at — is to have the bank/authorizing computer supply the check data, which eliminates keying entirely and adds authorization (the fraud-prevention rationale). A PHOSITA would look to a wireless data link precisely because the check must be printed away from the bank.
2. Known problem in the handheld-terminal art: Norand's terminals (PA-4/PA-5) existed to receive data remotely and print a document in the field; substituting a check form for a receipt/label is a predictable change in the printed medium.
3. Organizer: combining two portable devices into one is the classic KSR "co-location of known devices" scenario; PA-3 already shows a check-writing device whose keys/display also serve as planner/phone-book/note functions, so the combination is not merely suggested but known.

Combination B — Claim 5 / Claim 6

PA-4 + PA-6 (or PA-7) + PA-1 + PA-3

• PA-4 provides bidirectional RF transmission (request out, data in); PA-6/PA-7 provide the send-request-for-approval / receive-approval financial protocol; PA-1 provides the battery-powered portable instrument printer; PA-3 provides the organizer mode.
• Motivation: Bi-directional RF was standard in handheld terminals by 1995; once the print device is remote from the authorizing bank, the device must transmit its request, so adding a transmitter to a device that already had a receiver (PA-4) is an obvious, predictable variation.

Combination C — Claims 7 / 8 (and 2 / 4)

Combination A or B + PA-10 (telephone/organizer convergence)

• Motivation: The specification itself states the purpose — to let the user access telephone banking. Once a portable device contains an RF transceiver, microphone/speaker, keypad, and microprocessor (PA-4, PA-6), implementing voice telephony is a known technique applied to a similar device with predictable results. Products like the IBM Simon (1994) and Nokia 9000 (1996) demonstrate the combination was in the art.

Combination D — same-field background

PA-8 (automated negotiable-instrument dispenser) + PA-4 + PA-1

• PA-8 confirms that the task — remotely authorizing and printing money orders/traveler's checks — was known; PA-4 + PA-1 confirm that the components for doing it in a hand-held device were known. Merging the stationary dispenser's function into the portable terminal architecture is a predictable redesign under KSR ("use of a known technique to improve a similar device").

---

5. Why each claim is (individually) obvious — bottom line

There is no claim element that is a "non-conventional" result or an unexpected property. Each element (RF receiver, microprocessor, thermal/print head, battery, single-hand housing, organizer mode, telephone mode) was individually known and, in the combination, does exactly what it did individually. That is the KSR paradigm of obviousness.

---

6. Secondary considerations / possible rebuttal

• No evidence of unexpected results or nexus. The stated advantages — portability, no need to find an ATM, remote authorization — are the predictable consequences of making a known dispenser portable and wireless. A patentee would need a nexus between a claimed feature and any commercial success; I found no such evidence in the record I reviewed.
• Strongest non-obviousness argument the patentee could make: that the specific combination of (a) a negotiable-instrument printer, (b) an RF link to an authorizing bank computer, and (c) an organizer/telephone mode in one hand-held unit was not suggested — i.e., that no single reference pointed to all three. Under KSR, however, that argument is weak: the motivation is supplied by the known design need (remote, authorized instrument printing) and by express teaching in the checkbook art (PA-2's external-data communication; PA-3's organizer functions). Moreover, "obvious to try" applies where there is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions — here, adding a wireless link and a PIM to known portable printers.
• Written-description note (not § 103): Claims 3 and 6 recite "housing said portable hand-held dispenser in a dispenser body…" as a method step. This is a structural limitation recast as a step and could raise a separate § 112(a)/(f) question, but it does not change the § 103 analysis.
• Limitation on my analysis: I could not confirm whether PA-1…PA-10 were before the examiner. If they were not, the strongest § 103 attack would be a reexamination/IPR-style challenge; given the patent expired Oct 2, 2017, only validity of past damages/defenses (or a defensive posture) would be at stake.

---

7. Explicit uncertainties

1. Missing prior-art section. No "Prior Art" list was supplied; the references above are my own identifications, not the examiner's record.
2. Reference-number conflict for PA-4. Source URL says US5679943; printed header says 5,679,943. Per your "do not auto-correct" rule, I have preserved both and did not silently resolve them.
3. PA-8 availability depends on whether US application 08/726,133 (filed Oct 4, 1996) issued as a US patent — I did not verify the issuing number, so PA-8 is used only as corroborating background.
4. PA-10 relies partly on well-known convergence products (Simon 1994, Nokia 9000 1996) rather than a single verified patent number; if a specific patent citation is required, this element would need further verification.

If you can supply the actual "Prior Art" section (front-page References Cited and/or the examiner's cited references) from the page you intended, I will re-run the § 103 mapping against that list and identify which of the examiner's own references are the strongest combination.