US 6009355

I'll search for this specific patent in the USPTO database and CAFC dockets.

I have the bibliographic data confirmed. Now let me retrieve the full claims and check for CAFC litigation involving this patent.

I have litigation context. Now let me retrieve the actual claims of the '355 patent to identify the independent claims.

I've gathered the available authoritative information. Here is my summary, with uncertainties flagged where I could not retrieve complete claim text.

U.S. Patent 6,009,355 — Bibliographic Data (confirmed via multiple sources)

Assignment history note: The USPTO assignment record shows the application was initially assigned to Calcar Advertising, Inc. on the filing date (inventors Obradovich, Kent, Dinkel), which was renamed Calcar, Inc. (Aug. 23, 1999), and then assigned to American Calcar Inc. (Aug. 23, 1999). Google Patents lists the current assignee as American Calcar Inc.

Abstract (verbatim)

"In a multimedia information and control system for use in an automobile, at least one interface is employed which enables a user to access information concerning the automobile and control vehicle functions in an efficient manner. The user may select one of a plurality of displayed options on a screen of such an interface. Through audio, video and/or text media, the user is provided with information concerning the selected option and the vehicle function corresponding thereto. Having been so informed, the user may activate the selected option to control the corresponding vehicle function."

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims

The patent has roughly 99 claims. I could not retrieve the full text of claims 1–39 (including the exact wording of claim 1) in my searches — the Google Patents full text provided in the prompt cuts off before the claims section. What follows is based on claim text fragments I verified from the USPTO report (uspto.report/patent/grant/6,009,355) and a claims-index source. I am flagging each claim's status accordingly.

• Claim 1 (independent, system) — Text not retrieved with high confidence. Based on the family pattern and dependent claims, it appears to be a system claim directed to an in-vehicle interface with selectable displayed options for accessing vehicle information and/or controlling vehicle functions, but I could not confirm the exact wording and will not paraphrase it as authoritative.

• Claim 40 (independent, system) — A vehicle system with a control element that populates options on at least first and second displays. Options on the first display are selectable to access information about a plurality of vehicle aspects; options on the second display are selectable to access information about a subset of those aspects. A first interface selects an option on the first display (the selected option being associated with the subset), so the user drills from a general menu to a more specific one. Dependent claims add details such as selection/activation indicated by different colors, climate-control aspects, voice-command input, and a "tip" option accompanied by an audio signal.

• Claim 52 (independent, method) — A method for use in a vehicle system that shows a sequence of displays: an option is selected on a first display (associated with a subset of vehicle aspects); in response, the system vocally identifies the different vehicle aspects in that subset before the second display is shown; then the selected option is activated to cause the second display to be shown. This embodies the "voice preview before committing" interaction described in the specification.

• Claim 61 (independent, system) — A system in which a processor issues at least one option selectable to access information about a vehicle aspect; an interface shows the option together with a depiction of the aspect itself before selection, and the option carries a description of the aspect; an indicator (e.g., a numeral, per dependent claim 62) on the option associates it with the aspect shown, where the indication is different from the description. This corresponds to the labeled, illustrated menu screens (e.g., the instrument-panel screen of FIG. 12).

• Claim 95 (independent, method) — A method for providing information concerning engine maintenance: it involves determining whether a rate at which the engine runs exceeds a predetermined rate (dependent claim 96 specifies the rate is a function of RPM; claim 97 specifies the vehicle is an automobile). This matches the specification's description of triggering the "MAINTENANCE REQUIRED" warning based on cumulative time above a predetermined RPM.

• Claim 98 (independent, apparatus) — An apparatus for providing engine-maintenance information comprising a comparator for determining whether the rate at which the engine runs exceeds a predetermined rate (claim 99: the rate is a function of an RPM value). This is the apparatus counterpart of claim 95.

Litigation / CAFC Docket Search

• CAFC 2026 dockets: I found no 2026 CAFC docket involving this patent. Note the '355 patent expired in January 2017 (20 years from the January 28, 1997 filing), and its Google Patents record shows "Family has litigation" but no pending 2026 matter surfaced in my searches.
• Historical CAFC litigation (relevant context, not 2026): The '355 is the priority patent for a large family (continuations/divisions such as 6,233,506; 6,131,060; 6,175,782; 6,330,497; 6,438,465; 6,542,795; 6,459,961; etc.). In American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., 768 F.3d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (App. No. 2013-1061), the Federal Circuit affirmed that three family patents (6,330,497; 6,438,465; 6,542,795) were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct — specifically, inventor Obradovich's withholding of the 1996 Acura RL navigation system's owner's manual/operational details during prosecution. The '355 itself was also litigated earlier in American Calcar, Inc. v. BMW of North America, LLC (S.D. Cal. No. 04-CV-00614), where BMW moved for summary judgment of invalidity of asserted claims of the '355 patent (2006).

Key Uncertainties

1. Exact text of claim 1 (and claims 2–39) could not be confirmed from my searches; the provided Google Patents text truncates before the claims. If you need verbatim claim 1, I'd recommend pulling the granted patent PDF from the USPTO Patent Center or Google Patents "Claims" tab directly.
2. The number of total claims (99) and the independent-claim numbering (40, 52, 61, 95, 98) are based on the USPTO report and claims-index fragments; I did not retrieve a complete, contiguous claims listing.
3. No CAFC 2026 docket activity was found; if you're tracking a specific 2026 appeal, that search came up empty for this patent number.

I have some initial leads. Let me dig deeper into the specific cases and confirm whether US6009355 itself (not just its family members) was asserted.

I've confirmed the BMW case asserted US6009355 directly. Let me verify whether other automaker cases (Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc.) also asserted this patent, and check the Unified Patents portal for a complete case list.

Based on my research (searches conducted April 26, 2026), here is what I can confirm regarding litigation involving US Patent No. 6,009,355 ("Multimedia information and control system for automobiles," American Calcar Inc.):

Litigation directly asserting US 6,009,355

1. American Calcar, Inc. v. BMW of North America, LLC

• Plaintiff: American Calcar, Inc.
• Defendant: BMW of North America, LLC
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
• Case No.: 3:04-cv-00614 DMS (LSP/CAB)
• Filing date: March 25, 2004
• Patents asserted: The complaint expressly listed U.S. Patent No. 6,009,355 among twelve asserted patents (also including 6,148,261; 6,275,231; 6,282,464; 6,330,497; 6,438,465; 6,459,961; 6,529,824; 6,542,795; 6,587,758; 6,587,759; and 6,703,944).
• Status/Outcome: Closed — the case tracker reflects closure on April 19, 2006. The docket shows claim construction of the '355 patent (Order Construing Patent Claims, June 1, 2005) and BMW motions for summary judgment of invalidity of asserted '355 claims (opposed by Calcar, Feb. 2006). I could not confirm the precise disposition (e.g., settlement vs. judgment) from the sources available to me.
• Sources: Complaint citation in US7802198B2 (patents.google.com/patent/US7802198B2) listing the "Complaint for Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,009,355; 6,148,261; …" filed Mar. 25, 2004; Markman order at ipmall.info (2005.06.01) construing claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,355 in case 04-cv-0614-DMS; case status via ai-lab.exparte.com (3:04-cv-00614, "Closed (04/19/06)").

Related litigation involving the "355 family" (same priority application, not the '355 patent itself in the final judgment)

2. American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., et al.

• Plaintiff: American Calcar, Inc.
• Defendants: American Honda Motor Co., Inc.; Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc.; and related Honda entities (per docket caption "American Calcar Inc v. Honda OF America Manufacturing Inc et al.")
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
• Case No.: 3:06-cv-02433 (also cited as 06-cv-02433, Judge Dana M. Sabraw)
• Filing date: 2006 (case number indicates a 2006 filing; I could not confirm the exact day from available sources)
• Patents at issue: The district court's claim-construction order described a "'355 Family" of eight patents derived from the same January 28, 1997 application that issued as 6,009,355. The patents that went to trial and through the final judgment were 6,330,497, 6,438,465, and 6,542,795 — not 6,009,355 itself. The CAFC noted these three "share a common specification and are derived from a priority application filed on January 28, 1997, which since issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,009,355." I could not confirm from my sources whether the '355 patent itself was in the original complaint and later dismissed, though the family-level treatment suggests it may have been among the eight family patents initially in play.
• Status/Outcome: The district court (post-trial, Nov. 3, 2008) and again on remand (Apr. 17, 2012) held the three patents unenforceable for inequitable conduct (failure to disclose the 1996 Acura RL navigation system). The Federal Circuit affirmed in American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., 768 F.3d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Prost, C.J.; Newman, J., dissenting). Earlier appeal: Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
• Sources: CourtListener (768 F.3d 1185); Foley & Lardner / JD Supra summaries; Unified Patents portal case 3:06-cv-02433.

Notes and caveats

• Google Patents flags this patent family (Darts-IP family 25149157) as having litigation, consistent with the two cases above.
• American Calcar was a prolific non-practicing entity that filed multiple suits against automakers in the mid-2000s (I have background knowledge of possible cases against Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, and others), but I could not verify any additional case specifically asserting 6,009,355 within my search limits, and I do not want to risk listing a case I cannot confirm. The two cases above are the ones directly supported by the search results.
• The patent itself expired (status: "Expired – Lifetime," anticipated expiration January 28, 2017), so no new infringement suits on this patent would be expected.

If you want, I can do a follow-up pass to try to confirm the exact Honda filing date and to check Unified Patents/PACER for any other cases (e.g., Toyota, Nissan) that named 6,009,355 in the complaint.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file for US 6009355. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM trials for this patent, and web searching surfaced no older or recently-filed petitions that ODP has not yet indexed. There is no proceeding to report by status (no active trials, no claims invalidated, no claims sustained, no settlements, no institution denials).

The bottom-line defensive posture: the PTAB has never touched this patent, so no claims have been canceled or confirmed there — but the patent is expired (anticipated expiration 2017-01-28; status "Expired – Lifetime"), which is the dominant fact for any defendant. An expired patent cannot support an injunction or ongoing royalties, and a defendant facing assertion today should press the expiration and the family's district-court inequitable-conduct history, not a PTAB defense that does not exist.

Per-proceeding detail

None. There are no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings to profile. I am not inventing proceeding numbers, and I will not present any of American Calcar's district-court litigations as PTAB trials.

The only PTAB-adjacent data point found in searching: the Calcar family patents were cited as background/prior-art exhibits inside unrelated PTAB cases (e.g., the Am. Calcar v. Am. Honda Federal Circuit opinion, 651 F.3d 1318, was filed as Exhibit 2038-46 in IPR2019-01165 — a proceeding against a different patent, U.S. 9,978,107). That is evidentiary noise, not a trial against the '355.

Strategic summary

Claim status: all UNTESTED (and mooted by expiration). No claim of US 6009355 has ever been canceled or sustained in an AIA trial — the patent simply expired on 2017-01-28 after its full term. The patent owner (American Calcar Inc., now in the American Calcar chain) never faced an IPR on the '355 itself, and there is no PTAB record narrowing or confirming any of its claims.

Estoppel landscape: wide open — but irrelevant. Because no IPR was ever filed, there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel binding anyone, and no petitioner/privy bar exists. Every § 102/§ 103 ground that could have been raised in an IPR remains fully available in district court. The practical constraint is not estoppel but time: the patent expired in January 2017, so the fight is over past damages, not injunctive relief or post-expiry royalties.

Pattern signals. American Calcar litigated this family aggressively in the mid-to-late 2000s — e.g., Am. Calcar v. BMW of North America, No. 04-cv-00614 (S.D. Cal.), where the '355 itself was asserted and its validity challenged by summary judgment motion; and Am. Calcar v. Am. Honda Motor Co., No. 06-cv-02433 (S.D. Cal.), which reached the Federal Circuit twice. The absence of IPRs is easily explained: the main litigation wave predated the AIA's IPR regime taking hold (petitions for this patent would have had to come after September 2012 and before expiration in January 2017), and the Federal Circuit's inequitable-conduct affirmance in Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 768 F.3d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (CourtListener), already rendered the three asserted family patents (6,330,497, 6,438,465, 6,542,795) unenforceable — a district-court development, not a PTAB one, and one that did not name the '355 itself. Note the CAFC's observation that the '355 parent application "explicitly referred to the 96RL system as prior art," so the inequitable-conduct finding centered on the children's prosecution, not the '355's. No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) appears in any IPR chain because there is no chain.

Recommended next steps

• There are no pending PTAB milestones — no institution-decision deadline, no oral-hearing date, no statutory one-year FWD clock to track. Do not budget for PTAB discovery or briefing on this patent.
• Lead with expiration. US 6009355 expired 2017-01-28 (Google Patents lists "Anticipated expiration 2017-01-28" and status "Expired – Lifetime"). Any demand letter relying on it can be answered with a plain statement that the patent is dead, there is no prospective relief, and damages exposure (if any) is confined to a pre-expiration period and subject to laches given the patent's 1997 priority date.
• If the demand letter cites the '355, investigate the family's inequitable-conduct record. The Federal Circuit affirmed unenforceability of the child patents for inventor Michael Obradovich's selective withholding of the 1996 Acura RL navigation-system materials — see Am. Calcar v. Am. Honda, 768 F.3d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If the accused conduct and the withheld art overlap with the '355's disclosure, the same prosecution history may support an inequitable-conduct defense in district court even though no PTAB proceeding exists. Do not overclaim: the '355 itself was not held unenforceable in that case, and I have not verified any holding to that effect.
• Confirm the current owner and standing before engaging on the merits — the Google Patents assignment history shows a chain through CALCAR ADVERTISING, INC. → CALCAR, INC. → AMERICAN CALCAR INC., and the "family has litigation" flag suggests the patent's enforcement history is active enough to verify who can actually sue.

Bottom line: there is no PTAB war to fight here — the patent expired years ago, no IPR was ever filed, and the most potent defensive ammunition is the expiration date plus the family's affirmed inequitable-conduct history, neither of which lives in PTAB E2E.

Inventors

• Michael L. Obradovich (San Clemente, CA) — president, founder, and driving force behind Calcar / American Calcar; personally test-drove the 1996 Acura RL and drafted the application (JD Supra, Practitioner Guilty of Inequitable Conduct; Fed. Cir. 651 F.3d 1318).
• Michael L. Kent (Garden Grove, CA) — Calcar employee at filing (per district-court findings cited in the Federal Circuit decision).
• John G. Dinkel (Irvine, CA) — Calcar employee at filing (same source).

Unusual pattern? No. All three remained with the original assignee family — Obradovich ran American Calcar through its entire assertion campaign. The notable pattern is instead that the same three inventors are named across the entire family (US 6,330,497; 6,438,465; 6,542,795; 6,459,961; 6,449,535; etc.), all derived from the '934 parent.

Original assignee

American Calcar Inc. (Wilmington, DE) — the entity named on the issued patent (the chain: Calcar Advertising, Inc. → Calcar, Inc. → American Calcar Inc.). Its actual line of business was not the patented in-car multimedia system: per contemporaneous court findings, Calcar's business model was "testing a car, reviewing the car owner's manual… creat[ing] a quick tips manual… [and] sell[ing] these booklets back to the car manufacturers" (JD Supra). It shipped paper "Quick Tips" booklets to OEMs, not the claimed touch-screen multimedia system. Current status: appears inactive as an operating or litigating entity; the '355 patent and its family have expired (anticipated expiration 2017-01-28; status "Expired – Lifetime"). I could not verify a formal dissolution record.

Assignment timeline

USPTO Assignment Center records for US 6009355 (as reflected in Google Patents legal events and the recorded assignment indexes). Reel/frame numbers are verified for only one recording (10201/71); the others are visible as legal events but I could not verify their reel/frames in this session — flagged below.

• 1997-01-28 (executed/recorded on filing date) — reel/frame not verified

  • Conveyance: Assignment (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST)
  • Assignor: Michael L. Obradovich, Michael L. Kent, John G. Dinkel (inventors)
  • Assignee: Calcar Advertising, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not verified
  • Context: Standard inventors-to-company assignment executed the same day as filing (per Google Patents legal event).

• 1998-09-25 (executed) / recorded 1999-08-23 — Reel 10201/71 (per Plainsite's USPTO assignment index)

  • Conveyance: Change of Name (recorded as assignment; Calcar Advertising, Inc. → Calcar, Inc.)
  • Assignor: Calcar Advertising, Inc.
  • Assignee: Calcar, Inc. (122 South El Camino Real, Suite 139, San Clemente, CA 92672)
  • Correspondent: Alex L. Yip, Londa & Traub LLP, 20 Exchange Place, 37th Floor, New York, NY 10005. Single appearance in the verified record — no recurrence data available for the other recordings.
  • Context: Internal reorg / name change only.

• 1999-08-23 (recorded) — reel/frame not verified

  • Conveyance: Assignment (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST)
  • Assignor: Calcar, Inc.
  • Assignee: American Calcar Inc.
  • Correspondent: not verified
  • Context: Name change/consolidation onto the entity named on the issued patent (per Google Patents legal event).

• 2011-06-24 (recorded) — reel/frame not verified

  • Conveyance: Assignment (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST)
  • Assignor: American Calcar, Inc.
  • Assignee: American Calcar, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not verified
  • Context: Same-entity recording — almost certainly a confirmatory/corrective assignment to clean up the record while the Honda litigation and appeals were active (Federal Circuit decided 651 F.3d 1318 three days later, June 27, 2011).

No assignments to any third party (no LLC, no aggregator, no acquirer) appear in the record. The patent stayed inside the American Calcar family for its entire life.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6009355
    1997 : Filed by Calcar Advertising
    1999 : Patent issued
         : Renamed Calcar Inc
         : Renamed American Calcar Inc
    2006 : Suit against Honda filed
    2011 : Federal Circuit decision
         : Confirmatory assignment recorded
    2017 : Patent expired

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present in the literal sense. No transfer to an "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings" LLC; the patent never left American Calcar. However, the substantive finding is that the assignee itself never practiced the claims — it sold paper booklets, making it a non-practicing patentee (JD Supra; 651 F.3d 1318). I treat the practice evidence separately from the shell-transfer test.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present (strong). American Calcar, Inc. is a documented high-frequency plaintiff. It sued American Honda Motor Co. (S.D. Cal. No. 06-cv-02433, filed 2006-04-04) asserting 15 patents of this family, including the '355 parent's continuations ('497, '465, '795, '485, '964, '928, '794, '231, '759), and sued BMW (2004–2006, settled), plus Toyota, Apple, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche and others. The Federal Circuit decision (Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) is public confirmation of the assertion campaign.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / insufficient data. Only one verified correspondent: Alex L. Yip, Londa & Traub LLP on reel 10201/71. The other recordings' correspondents were not retrievable in this session, so recurrence cannot be established. Not treated as a signal.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. The chain is three internal name-change/consolidation steps (Calcar Advertising → Calcar → American Calcar), all pre-issuance or at issuance, with a single confirmatory same-entity recording in 2011. No chained LLCs, no <24-month LLC-to-LLC flips.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The first suit (Honda, April 2006) came ~7 years after the last substantive transfer (1999). The 2011 recording post-dates the first suit and is same-entity (confirmatory), so it was not arranged to enable the first assertion.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 proceedings involving the assignee surfaced.

7. Privateering — not present. American Calcar is the original patentee asserting in its own name; there is no operating company covertly funding it to sue competitors (the inverse — an NPE-created family — is what happened here).

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain ends at American Calcar; no RPX / AST / LOT / Unified Patents / OIN involvement. The patent was simply allowed to expire (2017-01-28).

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The patent never left the hands of American Calcar, Inc., which is itself a documented non-practicing serial asserter: it had no product embodying the claimed in-car multimedia system (its business was "Quick Tips" booklets sold to OEMs — JD Supra) and it ran a multi-year campaign asserting this exact family against Honda (S.D. Cal. No. 06-cv-02433, filed 2006-04-04; affirmed in part at 651 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011)), BMW, Toyota, Apple, Mercedes-Benz and Porsche. The verified recording (reel 10201/71, 1999-08-23) and the unverified-but-listed legal events (1997-01-28 inventors' assignment; 1999-08-23 consolidation; 2011-06-24 confirmatory recording) show no operating-company chain and no defensive aggregator, leaving American Calcar's own assertion campaign as the dominant fact.

Verification: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search Patent No. 6009355). Reel 10201/71 corroborated via Plainsite's USPTO assignment index (https://www.plainsite.org/patents/assignment.html?id=[1747614](/patent/1747614)). Litigation history: Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011); JD Supra case commentary (https://www.jdsupra.com/post/contentViewerEmbed.aspx?fid=893e0069-bc2b-4a28-8278-ef266ece8ab6).

I'll research US Patent 6,009,355 and its cited prior art. Let me start by searching for the patent's full record including its citations.

I found the patent and initial citation data. Let me retrieve the complete list of references cited on the face of US 6,009,355.

Let me retrieve the complete reference list from the patent's front page by fetching the FreePatentsOnline and USPTO report pages.

I was able to retrieve the patent record and the list of references cited on the face of US 6,009,355, though my search session was capped before I could pull the complete claims text and confirm every last front-page entry. Below is my analysis, based on the search results (which I'm treating as ground truth where they differ from general knowledge) plus the full specification text you provided.

1. Patent verification

Key subject matter (per the specification and abstract): a centralized, multimedia (audio + text + video) vehicle information/control system ("AUTO DIRECTOR") with a touch-screen LCD interface (FIG. 2), multilevel menu navigation, yellow=selected/blue=active color highlighting, voice preview of each option before activation, voice/text delivery of retrieved information, climate control, GPS navigation, anti-theft reporting, and preference saving.

Caveat on the claim set: the full text you provided ends at the Detailed Description, and my searches only surfaced dependent claims 40–80 in fragmentary form (via patenthub.cn). The independent claims appear to be: claim 1 (multimedia info/control system), claim 40 (system with first and second displays/interfaces), claim 52 (method of showing a sequence of displays and activating a selected option), claim 61 (system issuing a selectable option with an indicator associating the option with a depicted vehicle aspect), and claim 79 (corresponding method). Dependent claims cover: two-color selected/active status (claims 43, 54, 55), climate-control functions (49, 58, 73), a "tip" option with an associated audio signal (50, 59, 74–76), voice-command input (51, 60), option population in response to data entry (47, 56, 71), and GPS-based navigation (77–78). My claim mapping below is therefore subject-matter-based and should be confirmed against the full claim text.

2. References cited on the face of US 6,009,355 (as retrieved from FreePatentsOnline / Google Patents)

The following 23 U.S. patents appear in the "US Patent References" listing for 6,009,355 (the retrieved listing is ordered by descending patent number and appears to continue beyond the last entry I could capture, so treat this as the retrieved subset):

3. Background-art references named in the specification (prior art considered; also candidates for the front-page citation list below entry #23)

These are expressly discussed in the "Background of the Invention" of 6,009,355 and are thus prior art of record even if not all appear on the retrieved front-page snippet:

4. Most relevant prior art — prioritized

If I had to rank for a § 102 anticipation fight against the independent claims:

1. US 5,555,502 (Opel) — discloses a centralized control panel (steering wheel) + display with menu-driven selection/programming of multiple vehicle electronic components (lights, wipers, clock, temperature, cruise control, seats, mirrors, anti-theft). This maps most directly onto the "centralized control intimately tied to an information system" concept of claims 1/40/52/61/79. Weakest against the multimedia voice-preview + two-color selected/active highlighting limitations.

2. US 5,555,172 (Potter) — discloses a touch-screen user interface for controlling vehicle accessories and entering data, which maps onto the display-interface and option-selection limitations of the system claims.

3. US 4,827,520 (Zeinstra) — discloses voice-command and touch-screen selection from displayed summary pages/subpages, mapping onto the voice-preview, touch-selection, and multilevel-menu limitations.

4. US 5,572,204 (Timm) and US 5,555,286 (Tendler) — emergency/vehicle-location reporting via phone/cellular, mapping onto the anti-theft location-reporting embodiment (FIG. 3A).

5. US 5,627,547 (Ramaswamy) and US 5,274,560 (LaRue) — GPS/navigation in a vehicle entertainment/info system, mapping onto navigation claims 77–78.

Important § 102 note: "Potentially anticipates" means the reference is in the right art and discloses many of the claimed elements, but a true anticipation holding requires the single reference to disclose every element of the claim as arranged in the claim. None of the retrieved references appears to disclose the full combination of (a) yellow/blue selected-vs-active color coding, (b) voice preview of an option before activation, and (c) text+voice delivery of retrieved information — which is why the examiner allowed the claims despite this dense field of prior art.

5. Limitations of this analysis

• The front-page citation list on FreePatentsOnline appears to continue past entry #23 (US 5,553,661) — I was rate-limited before capturing the tail end (which likely includes the lower-numbered background references such as 5,442,553, 5,404,443, 5,274,560, 5,214,707, and 4,827,520).
• I could not retrieve the full text of claims 1–39 and 80, so the claim mapping is subject-matter-based rather than element-by-element.
• For exact filing dates of the cited references, I have issue/publication dates as retrieved; filing dates would require per-patent lookups.

If you want, I can continue the USPTO/Google Patents pull to (a) complete the front-page citation list and (b) obtain the full claim text for a rigorous element-by-element § 102 chart against Opel, Potter, and Zeinstra.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 6,009,355 ("Multimedia information and control system for automobiles")

0. Scope, sources, and honest caveats

Before the analysis, three transparency points:

1. Claim text. The patent text provided to me (the Google Patents fetch) contains the abstract, background, and detailed description but not the claims section. I recovered portions of the dependent claims (claims 40–99) from third-party mirrors (uspto.report/patent/grant/6,009,355; patenthub.cn), but I do not have verbatim text of claims 1–39. My element mapping below is therefore based on the abstract, the specification, and the recovered dependent claims, and I flag every place where a complete claim chart would require the missing claim text. Nothing here should be treated as a finished element-by-element claim chart.

2. "Prior Art section." The fetched Google Patents page has no literal "Prior Art" section in the rendered text. I have therefore used two authoritative prior-art sources: (a) the prior art discussed in the patent's own Background (Hirata, LaRue, the Acura 3.5 RL GPS system, Parillo, Opel, Zeinstra, Fujimoto), and (b) the "References Cited" appearing on the patent face as indexed by FreePatentsOnline and EveryPatent (URLs below). These are the examiner/application cited references — the best available proxy for what the PTO and the applicants themselves considered.

3. Litigation ground truth. The family has a public litigation record that is directly probative of obviousness: in Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., No. 06-cv-02433 (S.D. Cal.), a jury invalidated the '355 (the "priority patent") as anticipated by the withheld 1996 Acura RL owner's manual, and the district court found the child patents obvious over the same 96RL system; the Federal Circuit affirmed the enforceability rulings in 768 F.3d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and had earlier held "the prior art '96RL search function is substantially similar to the system described in the '465 and '795 patents" (Calcar II, 651 F.3d 1318, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). That record is discussed below because it supplies the single most powerful § 103 combination available against this patent.

1. Legal standard

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a claim is unpatentable if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). The Graham framework requires: (1) scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) the level of ordinary skill; and (4) secondary considerations. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a combination of known elements "according to known methods" that yields "predictable results" is ordinarily obvious; rigid TSM formalism is disfavored, and common sense, design incentives, and the "known technique for a known system" rationale all support a finding of obviousness.

Priority date for § 103 purposes: January 28, 1997 (filing date; the '355 is the original parent of the Calcar family). Prior art must predate that date; every reference discussed below does.

2. The person of ordinary skill in the art

A PHOSITA in early 1997 working on this subject matter would be an electrical or computer engineer (B.S. + 2–4 years) with working knowledge of: automotive electronic accessories and control systems; touch-screen and menu-driven human–machine interfaces; voice-recognition and speech-synthesis hardware; GPS-based vehicle navigation (the Acura RL/3.2TL systems being the then-state-of-the-art); automotive data buses; and display technologies (LCD, HUD). This profile matters because nearly every element of the '355 is drawn from those mature, pre-1997 disciplines.

3. What the '355 actually claims (as best recoverable)

The invention is a vehicle information-and-control system ("AUTO DIRECTOR") that:

• presents the user with displayed options, each associated with a part/accessory of the automobile (instrument panel, navigation, phone, radio/CD, locks, mirrors, windows, seat, climate, wipers, cruise, lights, security, steering, ride, engine, transmission);
• on selection (first touch or highlight), highlights the option in a first color (yellow) and generates a voice explaining the purpose/content before the user commits;
• on activation (second touch or ENTER), highlights it in a second color (blue) and retrieves the information "both in text and in voice";
• is organized as a multilevel menu ("minimal number of levels... general to specific") with multimedia (audio/video/text);
• supports touch screen, voice command, and a PUSH-TO-SELECT knob + ENTER switch;
• includes an index/DATA ENTRY look-up (FIG. 17–19) so a user can search "air conditioning" and be routed to the CLIMATE CONTROL screen;
• includes PIN-based personalization and a SAVE preferences screen (FIG. 16);
• includes a "TIP option" whose appearance is accompanied by a pre-selected sound, and warning preemption of ongoing audio;
• includes GPS anti-theft (parking-location storage, location comparison, automated call to authorities, transmitter activation);
• includes remote telephone control of climate control (call in, touch-tone commands);
• includes a maintenance-required alert triggered when cumulative time above a predetermined RPM exceeds a threshold (claims 95–99, with comparator/processor/indicator apparatus claim 98).

Recovered dependent claims confirm: claims 40–51 (system) and 52–60 (method) center on two displays — a first display of options associated with aspects of the vehicle, and a second display showing a subset, with the processor vocally identifying the subset's aspects before the second display is shown; selection/activation status indicated by first/second colors (claims 43–45, 54–55); options populated in response to data entry (claims 47, 56); climate control (claims 49, 58); TIP option with audio (claims 50, 59); voice-command input (claims 51, 60). Claims 61–78 center on an option that includes a description of the aspect plus a separate indicator (e.g., a numeral) associating the option with the aspect shown on the same interface. Claims 79–94 are method counterparts including navigational-information steps (claims 93–94, GPS-based). Claims 95–99 are the maintenance-timer claims.

The inventive "heart" of the patent, per its own Summary, is: (i) a centralized control intimately tied to an information system; (ii) intuitive, few-step access; (iii) multimedia (audio+video+text); and (iv) multilevel menu taxonomy with a voice preview before commitment.

4. Prior-art inventory

4.1 Prior art discussed in the patent's own Background (all pre-1997)

4.2 Key references cited on the patent face (FreePatentsOnline / EveryPatent indexes)

• US 5,555,172 (Potter) — "User interface for controlling accessories and entering data in a vehicle" (touch-screen accessory control + data entry);
• US 5,529,977 (Suman) — "Prompting system for vehicle personalization" (prompts user to save personal vehicle preferences — directly on point for the '355's SAVE/preferences/PIN features);
• US 5,539,869 (Spoto) — "Method and system for processing and presenting on-line, multimedia information in a tree structure" (multilevel menu taxonomy for multimedia content);
• US 5,488,888 (Lebby) — "Electronic book" (text/help content retrieval on a display);
• US 5,648,769 (Sato) — vehicle data processing system that communicates with an information center (vehicle↔remote data exchange);
• US 5,579,535 (Orlen) — personal communication system with supplemental information mode;
• US 5,627,547 (Ramaswamy) — mapless GPS navigation integrated in a vehicle entertainment system;
• US 5,689,252 (Ayanoglu) — automotive navigation system;
• US 5,650,929 (Potter) — modular electronic display and accessory mounting system for a vehicle (multiple displays);
• US 5,572,204 (Timm) — vehicular emergency message system (automated emergency reporting);
• US 5,555,286 (Tendler) — cellular-phone-based automatic emergency vessel/vehicle location system (GPS position reporting);
• US 5,528,248 (Steiner) — personal digital location assistant (GPS smart antenna);
• US 5,511,724 (Freiberger) and US 5,553,660 (Beyerlein) — adaptive/solar-corrected climate control;
• US 4,995,258 (Frank) and US 4,996,959 (Akimoto) — vehicle testing apparatus using engine RPM;
• US 5,257,190 (Crane) — vehicle function/monitoring apparatus.

5. The dominant § 103 theory: repurposing the known navigation-system UI to vehicle-information content

5.1 The combination

Acura 3.5 RL GPS navigation system (as admitted in the '355's own Background) + LaRue (5,274,560) + Opel (5,555,502) + Zeinstra (4,827,520) [+ Fujimoto 5,214,707].

5.2 What each contributes

• The Acura/LaRue navigation systems contribute the complete hardware/UI platform the '355 admits it borrowed: LCD display, touch screen, voice output, GPS receiver, map database on disk, menu-driven destination entry, and visual+verbal instructions.
• Opel contributes the concept of using one centralized control/display to program multiple vehicle electronic components via menus (steering-wheel control panel + display in the sun-visor area).
• Zeinstra contributes the concept of vehicle accessories specifically being controlled through touch-screen "summary pages" with voice-command selection and subpage drill-down — i.e., accessory control and information retrieval through one touch/voice interface.
• Fujimoto contributes robust voice input for the in-vehicle environment (driver/passenger discrimination).

5.3 Why a PHOSITA would combine them

The '355's own specification is the best motivation witness: it states that interface 102a and control panel 205 are "derived from a prior art navigation system of the type of the ACURA navigation system" and are "used in this illustrative embodiment to realize not only AUTO DIRECTOR functions to be described, but also the well-known navigation function." In other words, the '355 takes the exact same hardware (display, touch screen, control knob, GPS, voice) that already existed in the 1997 Acura RL and changes only the content of the database — from destination/address/direction data to "information about the vehicle itself."

This is the textbook KSR situation: a "known technique for a known system" yielding a "predictable variation." A PHOSITA who had the 96RL navigation system (which already displayed menu options, accepted touches/voice, and announced information aurally) and who wanted to help owners learn about their car would simply swap the map database for a vehicle-information database, add accessory-control pages (as Zeinstra and Opel already taught), and keep the same display/voice interaction. The Federal Circuit's own words in Calcar II — that the 96RL search function is "substantially similar" to the claimed system, with the only difference being "the nature of the information contained in the systems" — is the strongest possible articulation of this theory, and it comes from the litigation record, not from a competitor's hindsight argument. The S.D. Cal. jury's anticipation verdict against the '355 over the 96RL manual (NatLawReview summary) makes the § 103 case a fortiori: a reference that reads on every element of a claim under § 102 necessarily renders the claim obvious under § 103 if the only remaining question is motivation, and here the motivation is written into the patent's own Background.

5.4 Element mapping (representative)

The voice-preview-before-activation and yellow/blue two-state highlighting (claims 43–45, 54–55) are the features a patentee would most aggressively defend as non-obvious. But a PHOSITA would understand that (a) confirming a selection before committing is a standard UI pattern; (b) "talking menus" and preview-by-highlight were known in help systems and navigation voice prompts; and (c) color-coding selected-vs-active states is a conventional display convention. Zeinstra's "summary page → more detailed subpage" already implies a preview of what the next level contains; adding an audible read-out of a highlighted option is a routine design choice aimed at the known problem of driver distraction (the '355's own stated goal). This is precisely the kind of "ordinary creativity" KSR says is not patentable.

6. Feature-specific combinations

6.1 Personalization, PIN, and SAVE preferences (claims 47, 56; FIG. 16; preferences interface 116)

Suman (5,529,977) + Opel (5,555,502) + Zeinstra (4,827,520). Suman's "prompting system for vehicle personalization" teaches exactly the '355's preferences workflow — monitoring user adjustments and prompting the user to save them. Opel teaches programming components through menus; Zeinstra teaches touch/voice selection. A PHOSITA combining Opel/Zeinstra for centralized control with Suman for personalization prompting would arrive at the '355's SAVE screen and PIN-keyed preference storage as a matter of course. The PIN gate (FIG. 4A) is a conventional security feature (cf. Suman's personalization, anti-theft PINs in the art).

6.2 Index search / data-entry look-up (claims 47, 56, 61–78; FIGs. 17–19)

Spoto (5,539,869) + Lebby (5,488,888) + Potter (5,555,172) [+ Zeinstra]. Spoto teaches multimedia information in a tree structure; Lebby teaches an electronic-book-style content browser; Potter teaches a touch-screen user interface for controlling accessories and entering data in a vehicle; Zeinstra teaches voice/touch drill-down. The '355's alphabetical DATA ENTRY screen and look-up table (FIG. 19) that routes "AIR CONDITIONING" to the CLIMATE CONTROL screen is a plain search-index implementation — a standard software technique (string matching to a table of display identifiers) applied to vehicle content. The claimed "indication different from the description" (e.g., a numeral on a labeled element of an illustrated instrument panel, claims 61–78) is a conventional call-out/labeling convention used in owner's manuals and illustrated help systems — including, per the litigation record, the 96RL owner's manual itself.

6.3 Maintenance-required alert based on cumulative high-RPM time (claims 95–99)

Parillo (5,442,553) + Frank (4,995,258)/Akimoto (4,996,959) [+ Crane 5,257,190]. Parillo already collects engine RPM data via sensors into a microprocessor for diagnostics. Frank and Akimoto disclose vehicle testing apparatus that measure RPM. The '355's contribution is the trivial arithmetic: a comparator flags when instantaneous RPM exceeds a threshold, a processor accumulates the durations, and an indicator fires when the sum exceeds a limit. Accumulating time-above-threshold as a wear proxy, and triggering a service light, is a bog-standard instrumentation technique (the specification itself frames it as "cumulative time... reflects the extent of the engine wear"). A PHOSITA designing a maintenance reminder would naturally choose a stress-based metric over fixed mileage; there is no unexpected result. This claim group is the most vulnerable of the entire patent.

6.4 GPS anti-theft reporting (spec; FIG. 3A)

Timm (5,572,204) + Tendler (5,555,286) + Steiner (5,528,248) [+ LaRue/Acura]. Automated emergency/location reporting from a vehicle over a cellular link (Timm, Tendler) and GPS position determination (LaRue, Acura, Steiner) were all known before 1997. The '355's routine — store parking location, compare current GPS position, and if moved, call authorities and transmit location/VIN — is a straightforward logical combination: take the known GPS-position capability of the navigation system the patent already admits using, add the known emergency-reporting telephony of Timm/Tendler, and program the comparison logic. No new hardware is claimed; it is software on existing components.

6.5 Remote telephone control of climate control (spec § "remote control")

Parillo (5,442,553) + Sato (5,648,769). Parillo teaches a remote station communicating with the vehicle to change parameters; Sato teaches a vehicle data-processing system communicating with an information center. Extending that bidirectional link to let a user call in and set climate temperature/time via DTMF is an obvious application of known remote-command telemetry. The phone-interface + touch-tone menu is a conventional IVR pattern.

6.6 Multiple displays / duplicated control (102a–102e)

Potter (5,650,929) + Ayanoglu (5,689,252). Multiple vehicle displays and duplicated control surfaces were known; the '355's multifunction/center/rear console displays are a deployment choice.

7. Motivation-to-combine synthesis

Several independent KSR rationales support obviousness across the claim groups:

1. Known technique for a known system. The patent admits its platform is the Acura navigation system. Replacing navigation content with vehicle-information content and accessory-control pages (Zeinstra, Opel) is substituting one database for another in an otherwise unchanged system. Calcar II already so held for the child patents, and the same logic applies to the parent.

2. Predictable variation / design incentive. The stated problem — owners don't know how to use their accessories — creates an obvious incentive to put owner's-manual content on the display that already exists, with the voice channel that already exists, rather than inventing new hardware. Every element performs its known function in a known way.

3. Obvious to try. Menu-driven display + touch + voice + GPS were all off-the-shelf; a finite number of known UI patterns (tree menus, summary pages, search indexes) were available, and the '355 selects among them with no unexpected interaction effects.

4. No teaching away. None of the primary references discourages combining centralized accessory control with navigation-style information retrieval; to the contrary, Zeinstra's accessory summary pages and LaRue's voice-guided menus point toward the combination.

Secondary considerations would be the patentee's only lifeline, and the public record supplies none in the '355's favor: the family's commercial embodiment (AUTO DIRECTOR) had no documented long-felt-need or commercial-success showing in the litigations, and the district court and Federal Circuit found the family's prosecution tainted by the withheld 96RL manual — the very reference that most closely matches the claimed system. Judge Newman's dissent (arguing the PTO confirmed patentability of a child patent during reexamination with the manual before it) cuts against materiality, not against the technical obviousness of the claims themselves.

8. Bottom line

• Primary combination: Acura 3.5 RL/96RL GPS navigation system + LaRue (5,274,560) + Opel (5,555,502) + Zeinstra (4,827,520) (+ Fujimoto 5,214,707 for voice) — renders the core claims (interface, menu, touch/voice input, multimedia output, vehicle-information content, GPS/navigation) obvious. This is the strongest theory and is corroborated by the jury's § 102 verdict against the '355 over the 96RL manual and the Federal Circuit's "substantially similar" finding in Calcar II.
• Supporting combinations: Suman (5,529,977) for PIN/save-preferences; Spoto (5,539,869) + Lebby (5,488,888) + Potter (5,555,172) for the index/search and multilevel-menu claims (40–78); Parillo (5,442,553) + Frank/Akimoto for the maintenance-timer claims (95–99); Timm (5,572,204) + Tendler (5,555,286) for GPS anti-theft; Parillo + Sato (5,648,769) for remote climate control.
• Practical framing: the patent expired 2017-01-28, so the § 103 question matters only for pre-expiration damages; and the family's affirmed inequitable-conduct history means any assertion is met first with unenforceability, with obviousness as the merits backstop.

Recommended next step: pull the full claim set (claims 1–39) from the USPTO PAIR/PatentCenter record or the Google Patents claims tab and run the § 103 combinations above as a formal element-by-element claim chart; the recovered claims 40–99 already map cleanly onto the combinations described here.

Sources: FreePatentsOnline.com/6009355.html; everypatent.com/comp/pat6009355.html; uspto.report/patent/grant/6,009,355; patents.google.com/patent/US6009355A; Am. Calcar v. Am. Honda, 651 F.3d 1318 and 768 F.3d 1185 (Fed. Cir.) (via NatLawReview and vlex summaries).