US 6073675

I'll search for authoritative records on US 6,073,675, including any litigation or CAFC activity.

Let me run one more targeted check on litigation/docket records and the patent's current legal status.

US Patent 6,073,675 — Summary

Important caveat on method: I retrieved patent data via web search (Google Patents, EveryPatent, and general web). I do not have direct query access to USPTO PatentCenter, PTAB P-TACTS, PACER, or the CAFC docket, so my "no litigation found" statement is a search-based observation, not an authoritative docket check. Search results were consistent with the full patent text provided (which is treated as authoritative).

Bibliographic data

Legal status

Per Google Patents legal events, the patent lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees, effective 2008-06-13:

• 2003-11-18 — FPAY, 4-year fee paid
• 2007-12-24 — maintenance fee reminder mailed
• 2008-06-13 — LAPS, lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees
• 2008-07-14 — STCH, patent expired due to nonpayment under 37 CFR 1.362
• 2008-08-05 — FP, lapsed

Google lists status as "Expired – Fee Related." Note the record also carries a line "2019-03-26 Anticipated expiration," which reflects the nominal 20-year term from the 1999 filing date, not the actual date of lapse. The actual enforceable term ended early in 2008.

Litigation / docket check

My searches surfaced no district court action, IPR/PGR, PTAB proceeding, or CAFC appeal involving US 6,073,675. I cannot confirm a negative from an authoritative docket system, so treat this as "nothing found in search" rather than a certified clean docket.

Number-collision warning: Searching the bare string "6073675" also returns an unrelated JP 6073675 B2 (Japanese Patent No. 6073675, granted 2017-02-01, Toshiba Medical Systems, X-ray CT apparatus). That is a different jurisdiction and different invention and has no relation to US 6,073,675. I am not conflating them.

Abstract (as issued)

A window screen attachment apparatus and method for attaching a screen to a window frame. The apparatus includes a mesh screen with a rigid frame, a number of ferromagnetic cups and mating permanent magnets, and a gasket. Each cup is permanently attached to the screen frame at the surface or in a recess, and includes a depression with a flat floor and a perpendicular wall. The magnet is shaped to fit relatively snuggly into the depression. The cup is either a single piece of ferromagnetic material, separate floor and wall components, or a single floor component and a wall that is the sides of a recess in the screen frame. The magnets are attached to the window frame by an adhesive initially protected by a release layer. The gasket is a set of compressible strips that provides a barrier to items passing through the gap between the window and screen frames. The screen is attached by placing the magnets in the cups, removing the release layer, and pressing the adhesive against the window frame; the screen is removed by pulling it away from the magnets.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — Apparatus (magnet-on-window, ferrous-cup-on-screen architecture)

A removable screen-to-window attachment system, comprising:

• (a) a screen with a rigid screen frame;
• (b) multiple cups spaced around the screen frame and permanently attached to it, each cup having a depression with a substantially flat ferromagnetic floor and a substantially perpendicular wall;
• (c) multiple magnets, each shaped to mate snugly into a depression so its operational surface makes substantially full contact with the ferromagnetic floor, and each magnet carrying an adhesive layer on its opposite face plus a release layer over that adhesive;
• (d) the wall surrounding enough of the floor to substantially prevent the magnet from sliding laterally on the floor when in full contact;
• (e) multiple compressible gaskets permanently attached to the screen frame and running between each adjacent pair of cups;
• (f)–(h) functional language describing the intended use cycle: install by placing magnets in cups, peeling the release layers, and pressing the adhesive against the window frame; remove by pulling the screen (cups) off the magnets; reattach by aligning the cups over the magnets and letting magnetic attraction pull them together; and
• (i) the gaskets forming a barrier between window frame and screen frame when attached.

In short: the ferromagnetic cups live on the screen and the adhesive-backed magnets stay on the window, with the cup wall providing lateral self-alignment on reinstallation and separate gaskets (not the attachment hardware itself) providing the insect/weather barrier.

Claim 9 — Method (installing and using the same system)

A method for giving a window frame a removable screen, comprising:

• (a) providing the screen with rigid frame, spaced permanently attached cups (flat ferromagnetic floor, perpendicular wall), and compressible gaskets between adjacent cups;
• (b) providing the mating magnets (snug fit, full contact with the floor, wall preventing lateral movement, adhesive layer plus release layer);
• (c) placing the magnets into the mating cup depressions;
• (d) removing the release layer;
• (e) pressing the magnet adhesive layers against the window frame to attach the screen;
• (f) pulling the screen frame so the cups detach from the magnets (removal); and
• (g) aligning the cups with the magnets and letting magnetic attraction reattach the screen; and
• (h) the gaskets forming a barrier between window frame and screen frame when attached.

The method claim thus covers the "install once, then remove and re-seat at will" workflow, with the initial positioning/pressing step effectively defining where the magnets end up on the window frame (the specification notes the magnet positions will be a mirror image of the cup positions).

Dependent claims (brief)

Claims 2–8 (apparatus) and 10–16 (method) are parallel: single-piece ferromagnetic cup (2/10); independently formed floor and wall (3/11); wall extending completely around the floor (4/12); cup mounted on the surface of the screen frame (5/13); cup mounted in a recess in the screen frame (6/14); all depressions of substantially the same contour (7/15); and at least one depression of a different contour from the rest — i.e., a keying/polarity scheme so the screen fits in only one orientation (8/16).

Prior art cited on the face of the patent

• US 3,679,505 — Hinderaker et al. (Minnesota Mining & Mfg.), "Magnetic insect screen"
• US 4,409,758 — Dickerson et al. (Plaskolite), "Perimeter strip for magnetically attractable extruded plastic window system"
• US 4,972,896 — Roberts (Dennis E.), "Storm window and door covering apparatus"

The patent's stated points of novelty over this art: (1) separating the barrier function from the attachment devices (elongated magnetic strips in the prior art did double duty around the full periphery); and (2) using discrete cup/magnet units that work on rounded/oval windows without abutting short straight segments at odd angles.

Uncertainty notes

• Ownership: the record shows no corporate assignee; the patent appears individually owned (Thomas F. Dannaher). Assignment records exist in USPTO Assignment but I could not retrieve their contents, so any later transfer is unverified.
• No litigation found, but this is not a substitute for a PACER/P-TACTS/docket check.
• Figures 1–8 and reference numerals (10, 12, 14, 18, 20, 22, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68) are defined in the specification but the figure images themselves were not machine-readable in my retrieval.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 6073675.

Let me try more targeted searches on litigation databases and by the patent holder.

Findings: Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 6,073,675

No litigation (or other adversarial proceeding) involving U.S. Patent No. 6,073,675 is known. Despite searching the types of sources you identified, I found no district court case, CAFC appeal, ITC action, or post-grant proceeding (IPR/PGR) asserting or challenging this patent.

What the search results show

Multiple searches targeting the exact number — including "6073675 litigation," "6073675" patent lawsuit infringement case, and "Self installable and simply removable window screen" patent litigation PACER — returned only:

• The patent's own Google Patents page (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6073675A](/patent/US6073675A)/en)
• An EveryPatent mirror (http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat6073675.html)
• Unrelated hits on the same string: JP Patent No. 6073675 B2 (a Toshiba Medical Systems X-ray CT patent), a Lithuanian business-registry notice, and a Chinese stock-trading page

None of these is litigation involving the US patent.

Note on the one near-miss

One result touched a different patent — an insect-screen case discussing a "‘612 patent" (Andersen) and a "‘770 patent" (Newell v. Kenney, 864 F.2d 757) — but neither involves US 6,073,675. I am flagging these only to make clear they were reviewed and excluded, not to suggest any connection.

Per your instruction not to return similar numbers, I have excluded JP 6073675 B2 and all other same-string, non-US-patent-6,073,675 hits.

Why "no litigation" is the expected result

Two data points from the authoritative record make the absence of litigation plausible:

1. No assignee with litigation incentives. The patent is recorded as owned by an Individual (inventor Thomas F. Dannaher) — not an operating company or NPE. Its Google Patents record lists no assignment to a corporate entity.
2. Short life and early lapse. Maintenance fees were paid once (2003), the patent lapsed for nonpayment under 37 CFR 1.362 with an effective date of 2008-06-13, and the legal status is Expired – Fee Related. It was enforceable for only about eight years, and was never asserted before it lapsed.

Limitations / confidence

• I was unable to query PACER or the Unified Patents litigation caselist directly (the search tool does not authenticate to those portals), so this conclusion rests on public web-search evidence plus the patent's own file history rather than a PACER docket pull. General web coverage of patent litigation is not exhaustive, so an obscure or very old suit could theoretically be missed.
• My confidence that there is no well-known, reported U.S. litigation on the '675 patent is high. My confidence that there is literally zero litigation of any kind (e.g., an unreported state-court or settled action) is moderate, not absolute.

To confirm definitively, the authoritative checks would be: (a) PACER Docket Search for "Dannaher" as plaintiff or the patent number in the "Cause" field; (b) the Unified Patents litigation caselist at https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist; and (c) a CAFC opinion search at https://cafc.uscourts.gov. If you can supply a PACER login or an RPX/Unified export, I can verify against those dockets directly.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings on file. The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) structured record — the canonical list supplied for this analysis — contains 0 IPRs, 0 PGRs, and 0 CBM reviews for US 6,073,675: nothing active, nothing with claims invalidated, nothing with claims sustained, nothing settled, and no institution denials, because no petition was ever filed.

Breakdown by status: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0.

Bottom-line defensive posture: there is no PTAB record to lean on — neither a claim-canceling FWD you can cite, nor a patent-owner win that hardens the claims. That is a weaker posture than "claims 1–5 have been canceled," and a stronger one than "the patent survived two IPRs." The reason it is stronger lies entirely outside the PTAB: per Google Patents legal events, the patent lapsed for nonpayment of maintenance fees effective 2008-06-13 (LAPS 2008-06-13; STCH 2008-07-14; FP 2008-08-05). The real defense against this patent today is the maintenance-fee lapse, not an invalidity judgment.

No AIA trial proceeding exists — no proceeding-by-proceeding entries follow

Because the canonical structured block is empty, I will not fabricate proceeding numbers, panels, institution dates, or FWDs. There is no IPR20XX-#####, no petitioner, no APJ panel, no institution decision, and no Final Written Decision to report for US 6,073,675. Everything below is the absence analysis plus what it means, not invented detail.

Why the absence is expected here — and why it is not a "clean patent" signal:

• Post-Grant Review was never available. PGR reaches only patents with an effective filing date on or after 2013-03-16. US 6,073,675 was filed 1999-03-26 (no earlier priority claimed). PGR jurisdiction never attached.
• CBM review was theoretically available (2012-09-16 to 2020-09-16) but practically moot. The patent had already lapsed in 2008, so there was no live monetization to attack — and the claims (mechanical screen-mounting hardware, E06B 9/52) would have struggled to qualify as a "covered business method patent" given the technological-invention exclusion and the Federal Circuit's narrowing in Unwired Planet v. Google.
• IPR was available (AIA IPR provisions have applied to any patent, whenever issued, since 2012-09-16), but no one filed. An expired patent can still be IPR'd, but the rational petitioner files only when there is a live assertion or back-damages exposure. None materialized.

My searches corroborate the ODP record. Targeted queries for the patent number plus "IPR," "inter partes review," "PTAB," "CBM," and "petition" returned nothing for US 6,073,675. Every "675 patent" hit in the results is a different patent — e.g., US 9,608,675 (Qualcomm/Intel, IPR2018-01340 and Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 2020-1589 (Fed. Cir. 2021-07-27)), US 8,325,675 (Nokia v. Huawei, IPR2017-00591), US 11,244,675 (Amazon v. SoundClear, IPR2025-00673), US 7,673,072 (IPR2017-01406), and various district-court "'675 patents." None of these involves Thomas F. Dannaher's window screen. I have not conflated them.

Federal Circuit: no appeal exists, because there was no Board decision to appeal. I also found no CAFC opinion, Rule 36 summary affirmance, or mandate touching this patent. Searches on the inventor/docket side (Dannaher window-screen litigation) returned nothing.

Strategic summary

Claim status — which claims are CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. All 16 claims — independent claims 1 and 9 and dependents 2–8 and 10–16 — are UNTESTED at the PTAB. Not one claim has been canceled, disclaimed, or confirmed through an AIA trial. So:

• CANCELED: none.
• SUSTAINED (by the Board): none. The claims have never been adjudicated by the PTAB.
• UNTESTED: claims 1–16, all of them.

If a demand letter cites claims 1–8 (the apparatus claim family) or claims 9–16 (the method family), you have no ready-made FWD to point to — there is no "the troll has no case because claim 1 is dead" shortcut here. The invalidity narrative must be built from the face-of-the-patent prior art (US 3,679,505 Hinderaker; US 4,409,758 Dickerson; US 4,972,896 Roberts) and the routine 1950s–1990s magnetic-window-covering art that the examiner already applied (US 2,595,833 / 2,639,751 / 2,717,036 / 3,016,952 / 3,000,016 / 3,805,872 / 5,090,469 / 5,097,886), or from the follow-on art that cites this patent.

Estoppel landscape — nothing is foreclosed. Because no petition was ever filed, § 315(e)(2) estoppel never attached to anyone. No petitioner, real party-in-interest, or privy is barred from raising any § 102/§ 103 ground. Practically, this cuts both ways: the entire prior-art universe remains available to a defendant (good), and you have no petitioner-side shield and cannot claim the benefit of someone else's successful IPR (bad). If you are a defendant weighing your own IPR, note that the § 315(b) one-year clock runs from service of the complaint — no earlier petition exists to change that calculus.

The dispositive fact is the lapse, not the PTAB record. The patent expired for failure to pay maintenance fees on 2008-06-13 and status is "Expired – Fee Related." Consequences for an accused infringer:

1. No direct or contributory infringement liability for acts after 2008-06-13. An expired patent cannot be infringed. Any assertion premised on current or recent sales is legally hollow — though be aware of the unpleasant fringe theory that a lapsed patent's right to sue for past infringement is not extinguished (see, e.g., WiAV Solutions LLC v. Mindspeed Techs., 741 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The remedy, if any, is strictly backward-looking damages.
2. Any surviving damages claim is boxed in by § 286 (six-year lookback from the complaint) — and the relevant window closed over a decade ago, making live recovery practically nil and raising laches/estoppel arguments under SCA Hygiene Prods. v. First Quality Baby Prods., 580 U.S. 328 (2017).
3. Reinstatement is gone. The § 41(c) petition-to-accept-late-payment window (24 months, with an unintentional-delay showing) ran out years ago. The patent cannot be revived into force.

Pattern signals — the "well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs" heuristic does not apply. This patent was never litigated, never saw a defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents, RPX, or similar in the chain), and never drew a petition. The patent owner (Thomas F. Dannaher, individually owned — no corporate assignee of record) did not pursue PTAB appeals, obviously, because there were no PTAB proceedings to appeal. The most telling signal is in the forward citations: 29+ third-party "Cited By" references (Quanex, Boulos/Alkhoury US 8,037,923 "Magnetically attachable window screen system," Tesa, Hecht, Ritescreen, etc.) show that the magnetic-window-screen space got crowded after this patent — but the follow-on patents are where PTAB activity concentrated, not this one. This patent is a dead-letter citation node, not a live assertion weapon.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant today:

1. Verify the lapse first, and make it your lead argument. Pull the status through USPTO PatentCenter and PTAB E2E and obtain the certified legal-events record. If the asserted conduct postdates 2008-06-13, the reply to the demand letter is short: the patent expired for nonpayment of maintenance fees on 2008-06-13 (STCH code: "PATENT EXPIRED DUE TO NONPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEES UNDER 37 CFR 1.362"), and a lapsed patent supports no forward-looking infringement claim. There is no PTAB FWD to cite — do not claim there is one.
2. If the plaintiff asserts only pre-2008 conduct, assess exposure under § 286's six-year bar and SCA Hygiene. This is a damages-limitation fight, not a validity fight, and it is nearly certain to be economically irrational for the patent owner to press.
3. If you nonetheless want an invalidity backstop, the full prior-art field is open because no § 315(e)(2) estoppel exists. Your best references are the examiner-cited pre-AIA magnetic-window-covering patents (Hinderaker US 3,679,505; Dickerson US 4,409,758; Roberts US 4,972,896) and the 1950s–60s magnetic screening art (Flaherty 2,595,833 / 2,639,751; Harris 2,717,036; Ridge 3,000,016; Shero 3,016,952; Lorber-Flinck 3,805,872; Bauer US 5,983,464). The strongest § 103 theory targets the "discrete ferromagnetic cup on the screen / adhesive magnet on the window / separate compressible gasket" combination — a combination the prior art teaches piecemeal.
4. Check for non-AIA validity precedent. Before relying on "no PTAB activity," also confirm there was no ex parte reexamination (the legal-events record shows none, but the only events listed are fee payments/lapse). A reexam certificate would change the claim set; the reviewed record shows none.

If you are the patent owner: the PTAB is not your problem — the 2008 lapse is. There is no proceeding to revive, no appeal pending, and no path to restoration of enforceable term.

Caveat on sources: the structured ODP block is authoritative and says "no AIA trial proceedings." My independent web searches (Google Patents, PTAB/PTACTS documents, CourtListener-style results) found none either, but I do not have authenticated, itemized query access to PTAB E2E's full docket index — so treat this as "nothing found in the canonical ODP list, corroborated by search," not as a personally certified docket check. No proceeding numbers have been invented.

I'll research the assignment record for US 6,073,675 before writing anything. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me probe the assignment records and inventor/assignee footprint more directly.

Method note and confidence caveat

I could not query USPTO Assignment Center directly (no live index access to assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / legacy EPAS reel-frame pages in this environment). The findings below rest on (a) the authoritative full patent text supplied, (b) Google Patents bibliographic/legal-event data, and (c) web searches for any assignment, litigation, or assignee footprint. The absence of recorded assignments is a search-based observation consistent across sources, not a certified reel-frame audit. Treat "no assignments found" as a strong but non-authoritative negative. Any reel/frame must be verified at the Assignment Center link in the Verdict section.

Inventors

Pattern note (does not trigger the "inventor departure" flag): The absence of any corporate assignee is itself the relevant datum. If Dannaher had been under a standard employment invention-assignment obligation (as most corporate inventors are), we would expect to see either an assignment executed at filing or an assignment recorded before/at grant. Neither exists. That is consistent with a hobbyist / independent inventor filing outside any employment relationship, not with the "all inventors departed the original assignee within 12 months" pattern that precedes a portfolio fire-sale. There is no original assignee for anyone to have departed.

Name-collision warning (do not conflate): Searches surface a prolific, unrelated inventor named William D. Dannaher — 69+ patents, primarily assigned to Ethicon Endo-Surgery / Johnson & Johnson (surgical instruments), with addresses in Lancaster, Ohio and Suzhou, China. This is a different person (William D., not Thomas F.), a different technology field, and a different ownership profile (he routinely assigns to J&J). I found no evidence of any family, employment, or business relationship between Thomas F. Dannaher and William D. Dannaher, and I make no such inference. The same caution applies to the unrelated JP 6073675 B2 (Toshiba Medical Systems, X-ray CT) noted in the earlier summary.

Original assignee

None. US 6,073,675 issued to the inventor individually. Google Patents lists both Original Assignee = "Individual" and Current Assignee = "Individual" — i.e., there is no corporate assignee of record at grant and none on the current record.

Because there is no original assignee:

• Product embodying the claims: Not determinable and unlikely to have been commercialized at scale. No product, brand, catalog, or retail footprint tied to Thomas F. Dannaher or to US 6,073,675 was found. The invention (adhesive-backed magnets on the window, ferrous cup-receivers on the screen frame, with compressible gasket strips between cups) is the kind of low-cost DIY retrofit product typically sold by an individual inventor or licensed ad hoc, not manufactured by a named operating company.
• Primary line of business: N/A (individual).
• Current status: The individual patent right lapsed 2008-06-13 for nonpayment of maintenance fees (see legal events below). There is no corporate entity to be operating, acquired, dissolved, or in bankruptcy.

Assignment timeline

No recorded assignments were found for US 6,073,675.

Searches of Google Patents' assignment/legal-events data, general web, and USPTO-adjacent aggregators returned zero reel/frame records naming this patent — no Assignment, no Security Agreement, no Merger, no Change of Name, no License, no Release, and no Correction. Because reels/frames exist only for documents actually recorded with the USPTO, I have no reel/frame numbers to report, no assignor, no assignee, and no correspondent of record. I will not invent them.

Per the task instruction ("If the Assignment Center has no records for this patent, say so plainly and stop after this section"), the assignment timeline section terminates here. The remaining sections below are retained because the task's output format requires them and because the non-assignment legal events are relevant to the verdict.

Relevant non-assignment lifecycle events (Google Patents legal events — not assignment records):

• 1999-03-26 — Application 09/277,086 filed by Individual; priority date established.
• 2000-06-13 — Patent granted as US 6,073,675 A.
• 2003-11-18 — FPAY; 4-year maintenance fee paid.
• 2007-12-24 — REMI; maintenance-fee reminder mailed.
• 2008-06-13 — LAPS; lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees (effective date).
• 2008-07-14 — STCH; patent expired due to nonpayment under 37 CFR 1.362.
• 2008-08-05 — FP; lapsed.
• 2019-03-26 — "Anticipated expiration" line, reflecting the nominal 20-year term from filing — not the actual enforceable term, which ended in 2008.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6073675
    1999 : Filed by Thomas F Dannaher as individual
    2000 : Patent granted US 6073675 A
    2003 : First maintenance fee paid
    2008 : Lapsed for unpaid maintenance fee
         : Patent expired - no assignments recorded

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Framing caveat: with no recorded assignments at all, most of these signals are not merely "not present" — they are not applicable, because there is no transfer event to evaluate. I mark them accordingly rather than implying a clean bill of health from an absence of evidence.

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present / not applicable. No assignee entity of any kind appears in the chain, so there is no "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" LLC, no registered-agent address, and no single-purpose Delaware/Texas entity to cite. There is no reel/frame supporting a shell transfer.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present / not applicable. No current or prior assignee exists to compare against the Acacia / Marathon / IV / IPNav / Wi-LAN / Mosaid-Conversant / Vringo / Pendrell / Innovatio / MPHJ / Lumen View / Round Rock / Erich Spangenberg lists. The entire chain is a single individual, Thomas F. Dannaher.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present / not applicable. No assignment documents were recorded, so no correspondent of record exists (no attorney or agent name to capture or to test for recurrence). This is the one signal the task flagged as most diagnostic — it is simply unavailable here because nothing was ever recorded.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. There are no consecutive assignments, chained LLCs, or shared correspondent addresses, because there are no assignments at all.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No infringement suit naming this patent was found in search, and there is no assignment dated within 6 months (or any interval) before any suit. With no litigant and no transfer, the signal cannot arise.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. The patent was held by an individual, not a company; there is no Chapter 7/11 proceeding, no estate, and no sale of assets in bankruptcy. (Contrast the Kodak/Nortel/Polaroid archetypes.)

7. Privateering — not present. No operating company ever held or transferred this patent, so there is no parent to assert through a proxy NPE.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates by lapse for nonpayment of fees (2008-06-13), which neutralizes the patent by abandonment rather than by defensive aggregation.

Net read of the signals: zero NPE-pattern indicators, and — more fundamentally — zero assignments, which removes the mechanism by which every one of the listed signals would manifest.

Verdict

Insufficient data (the task's defined category for "no records, or only the original assignment").

Justification: US 6,073,675 has no recorded post-issuance assignments whatsoever — Google Patents shows Original and Current Assignee both as "Individual," and no reel/frame entries, assignors, assignees, or correspondents could be found in any source consulted. The patent was filed 1999-03-26 and issued 2000-06-13 to sole inventor Thomas F. Dannaher personally, and it lapsed 2008-06-13 for nonpayment of maintenance fees (STCH expiry recorded 2008-07-14). There is no transfer, no licensee of record, no litigation, and consequently no basis to characterize the chain as NPE-driven or as defensive aggregation. Substantively this is an abandoned, individually owned, never-transferred patent — the profile most opposite to a patent-troll asset, but the rubric's NPE categories require concrete transfer/practice evidence, so the honest label is "Insufficient data."

Verification link (Assignment Center — search by patent number 6073675):
https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (legacy mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html)

Two items a human analyst should confirm directly against the Assignment Center, since I could not:

1. That no assignment was ever recorded (expected result given "Individual" assignee at grant and now).
2. Whether any recorded interest exists that Google Patents did not surface (e.g., an unindexed Security Agreement or License that would not change the assignee-of-record display). If such a record exists, revisit signals 1–3, since a correspondent name would then become available.

I'll verify the patent record and gather details on each cited reference. Let me run parallel searches.

Let me gather details on the remaining cited references.

Scope and method (read first)

I confirmed the target record as US 6,073,675 A ("Self installable and simply removable window screen," appl. 09/277,086, filed and priority 1999-03-26, granted 2000-06-13, inventor Thomas F. Dannaher). Every number below is reproduced exactly as it appears on the face of that patent; I have not normalized or "corrected" anything.

Two boundaries on this analysis, consistent with the earlier section:

• What counts as prior art here. The task is the backward citations — the 15 references listed under "Patent Citations" / "Citations" on the face of US 6,073,675. The "Cited By" entries (29-40 documents, e.g., the Ritescreen and Lippert items) are forward citations that postdate 2000 and are not prior art against this patent. I exclude them from the §102 analysis below.
• Number-collision discipline. As flagged in the prior section, the bare string "6073675" also resolves to JP 6073675 B2 (Toshiba Medical Systems, X-ray CT). It is unrelated, out of scope, and excluded. I am likewise not folding in similarly-numbered U.S. documents that are absent from the citation list (e.g., US 4,079,772, which surfaced incidentally in searching — it is not a citation of record for '675).

Statutory frame. US 6,073,675 was filed 1999-03-26, so it is a pre-AIA patent. Relevant subsections are §102(a), §102(b), and §102(e). All 15 cited U.S. patents issued before 1999-03-26 except two — US 5,983,464 (issued 1999-11-16) and US 5,992,498 (issued 1999-11-30) — which post-date the filing as publications but are available as §102(e) art from their 1997 filing dates.

Anticipation standard. §102 anticipation requires a single reference to disclose every element of the claim. Independent claim 1 (apparatus) and claim 9 (method) both require, in combination: (i) a rigid-framed screen; (ii) discrete cups spaced around and permanently attached to the screen frame, each with a depression having a flat ferromagnetic floor and a perpendicular wall; (iii) mating permanent magnets with an adhesive layer and release layer; (iv) the wall preventing lateral movement of the magnet; and (v) compressible gaskets permanently attached to the screen frame and extending between each adjacent pair of cups. As shown below, no cited reference discloses all of (i)-(v), so none is a clean §102 anticipation of claim 1 or 9; their real force is as §103 obviousness art.

The 15 cited references

Reference-by-reference analysis

Group A — Magnetically attached screens/covers (the core art)

6. US 3,679,505 — Hinderaker et al., "Magnetic insect screen" (Minnesota Mining & Mfg.), filed 1971-02-09, issued 1972-07-25. Most relevant cited reference. Discloses a method of mounting an insect screen over a vehicle window using two thin, flat, bendable magnetic strips, each bearing a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer covered by a release liner (silicone-treated paper). The first strip is adhered around the window frame; the screen is pressed onto the exposed adhesive; the second strip clamps the screen magnetically, forming a continuous magnetic framework around the entire periphery — which the reference states is what "prevents insects from entering." (US3679505)

• §102 mapping: Discloses, for claim 1, elements (a) screen and, in substance, (c) magnets + adhesive layer + release layer. It also announces the problem the '675 patent solves ("insects may get into the vehicle under the screen between the spaced magnets" — the strip form is used precisely so the attachment hardware is the barrier). It does not disclose (b) discrete cups with a flat ferromagnetic floor and perpendicular wall, (d) a wall resisting lateral movement, or (e) compressible gaskets between adjacent cups. Does not anticipate claim 1 or 9; it is strong §103 art on the "adhesive-backed magnet + release liner + screen" subcombination.

8. US 4,409,758 — Dickerson et al., "Perimeter strip for magnetically attractable extruded plastic window system" (Plaskolite), filed 1981-03-12, issued 1983-10-18. Cited by the '675 patent (and later cited as "X" art against claims in GB 2,579,605) for a perimeter magnetic strip carried on the window frame/extrusion rather than the screen. (GB2579605A)

• §102 mapping: Relevant to claim 1's placement of the magnetic member on the window frame and to the "elongated strip" branch of the art. No disclosure of ferromagnetic cups, cup walls, or inter-cup gaskets. No anticipation; §103 art on frame-side magnetic retention.

1. US 2,595,833 — Flaherty, "Screening for vehicles," filed 1951-05-11, issued 1952-05-06. Discloses an insect screen carrying a peripheral row of circular flat permanent magnets (in mesh pockets or on a marginal bar). For a non-magnetic window frame, the reference secures discrete pieces of magnetic material to the frame "by screws or tacks," and the screen is held by attraction between the screen-borne magnets and those frame pieces. (US2595833)

• §102 mapping: Notably relevant because it discloses discrete, spaced magnets and discrete ferromagnetic members on opposite sides — conceptually close to the '675 cup/magnet split. But the '675 cups require a depression with a perpendicular wall permanently attached to the screen frame, an adhesive layer on the magnet, a release layer, and gaskets between cups. Flaherty's frame pieces are screw/tack-mounted (no adhesive/release layer) and provide no lateral-movement wall. Does not anticipate claim 1 or 9; useful §103 art for the "spaced discrete magnetic elements rather than a continuous strip" idea.

2. US 2,639,751 — Flaherty, "Cover for vehicles," filed 1950-09-07, issued 1953-05-26. Companion vehicle-cover patent in the same family as ref. 1; directed to a magnetically held cover for vehicle openings. §102: cumulative with ref. 1; no cup/wall/gasket disclosure. No anticipation.

5. US 3,000,016 — Ridge, "Magnetic securing means," filed 1960-03-03, issued 1961-09-19. A generic magnetic securing/fastening patent. On its title and classification alone it speaks to the bare concept of magnetic securement; I could not retrieve its full text in this session, so I will not assert specific structural disclosure. §102: treat as background/general magnetic-fastener art unless the full text is pulled; on the present record it does not anticipate claim 1 or 9.

7. US 3,805,872 — Lorber-Flinck Co., "Magnetically attached cover," filed 1972-07-20, issued 1974-04-23. Magnetically attached cover for a window/opening; like refs. 1-2 and 6 it reflects the magnetically-retained-covering genus. Full text not retrieved. §102: no cup/wall/gasket disclosure shown; cumulative. No anticipation.

10. US 4,802,523 — Scholten, "Blanket shade for window frame," filed 1983-07-13, issued 1989-02-07. Blanket/insulating-shade held to a window frame magnetically; the Scholten line uses a magnetized strip on the frame and a magnetizable/ferromagnetic sealing strip on the shade to seal the shade to the frame. §102 mapping: relevant to the ferromagnetic-material-containing member on the covering side as a mating element (compare '675 element (c)/(b)), but again as a continuous peripheral strip, not discrete cups with walls, and with no inter-cup compressible gaskets. No anticipation; §103 art.

9. US 4,419,982 — Eckels, "Magnetic edge seal for solar collector film," filed 1982-05-10, issued 1983-12-13. Magnetic edge-seal for holding a film to a ferromagnetic surface — a sealing rather than discrete-fastener approach. §102: background on magnetic edge sealing/barrier; no cup architecture. No anticipation.

13. US 5,097,886 — Moyet Ortiz, "Environmental barrier," filed 1990-08-01, issued 1992-03-24. Environmental barrier for a window opening (magnetic and/or mechanical retention of a flexible barrier sheet). §102: background on the barrier function; supports the '675 patent's stated premise that early devices made the attachment hardware do barrier duty. No anticipation.

Group B — Vehicle/temporary screens (closest to the "removable screen" concept)

3. US 2,717,036 — Harris, "Automobile window screen," filed 1952-11-04, issued 1955-09-06. Temporary automobile window screen, magnetic/mechanical retention. Full text not retrieved.

4. US 3,016,952 — Shero, "Automobile window screen," filed 1959-01-21, issued 1962-01-16. Temporary automobile window screen; magnetic holding. Full text not retrieved.

15. US 5,992,498 — Boston, "Removable vehicle window security screen system," filed 1997-06-05, issued 1999-11-30. A removable and re-installable window screen system for vehicles — directly on point for the remove/reattach functionality of '675 claims 1(f)-(h) and 9(f)-(g), and available as §102(e) art from its 1997 filing date. It does not disclose the ferromagnetic-cup-with-wall + gasket-between-cups architecture. No anticipation; §102(e)/§103 art on removability/reinstallation.

Group C — Fasteners and seal/securement structures

11. US 4,972,896 — Roberts, "Storm window and door covering apparatus," filed 1989-09-11, issued 1990-11-27. Expressly discussed in US 6,073,675's Background. Uses an adhesive-backed frame strip plus a complementary channel-and-projection securement pair (first strip 12 with ellipsoidal channel 14; second strip 13 with projection 15; adhesive strip 16 to the window frame) to hold a flexible membrane. It is the "elongated snap-in device" the '675 patent criticizes for making the attachment device carry the barrier function and for performing poorly on rounded windows. (US4972896)

• §102 mapping: Relevant to the '675 background and to the general "adhesive strip applied to the frame" step (claim 9(e)). It employs an elongated channel rather than a discrete ferromagnetic cup with a flat floor/perpendicular wall, and no inter-cup gaskets. Does not anticipate claim 1 or 9. It is the principal §103 reference against which the '675 novelty story (discrete cups + separate gaskets + self-aligning wall) is told.

14. US 5,983,464 — Bauer, "Magnetic fastener," filed 1997-12-16, issued 1999-11-16. Potentially the most structurally relevant fastener reference, and the only cited reference whose subject matter is a magnetic fastener per se (USPC Y10T24/32, the same magnetic-fastener class assigned to '675). A fastener that mates a magnet to a ferromagnetic keeper is the genus the '675 "cup + magnet" belongs to. Available as §102(e) art from 1997-12-16. I could not retrieve its full text here, so I will not assert it discloses the specific "depression with perpendicular wall permanently attached to a screen frame plus inter-cup gasket" combination — on the present record, no anticipation of claim 1 or 9, but it should be pulled in full if a validity opinion is being prepared, because a magnetic fastener with a recessed/keeper geometry could bear directly on claims 1(b)-(d) and 2-6.

12. US 5,090,469 — Boulanger, "Window screen apparatus and method for making," filed 1990-01-08, issued 1992-02-25. Window screen apparatus/method-of-making patent; relevant to screen-frame construction and gasketing rather than to magnetic attachment. Full text not retrieved. §102: no cup/magnet architecture shown; §103 background on screen-frame construction.

Bottom line

• No cited reference anticipates independent claim 1 or claim 9 under §102: none discloses the full combination of (i) discrete ferromagnetic cups with a flat floor and perpendicular wall permanently attached to the screen frame, (ii) magnets with adhesive + release layers, (iii) the wall resisting lateral movement, and (iv) compressible gaskets between each adjacent pair of cups. The dependent claims 2-8/10-16 (single-piece cup; independent floor and wall; wall encircling the floor; surface vs. recess mounting; same vs. keyed contours) are narrower still and find no single-reference anticipation.
• Most relevant art, ranked: US 3,679,505 (Hinderaker/3M) — adhesive-backed magnetic strips + release liner + screen, and the admission that spaced magnets leak between them; US 2,595,833 (Flaherty) — discrete magnets on the screen mating with discrete ferromagnetic members added to a non-magnetic frame; US 4,972,896 (Roberts) — the examiner-cited elongated securement device the patent distinguishes; then US 5,983,464 (Bauer, magnetic fastener) and US 5,992,498 (Boston, removable screen), both §102(e) art.
• Antecedents like US 3,000,016, US 3,805,872, US 4,419,982, US 2,717,036, US 3,016,952, US 4,802,523, US 4,409,758, US 5,090,469 and US 5,097,886 are cumulative genus/background art establishing magnetic window coverings, magnetic edge seals, and screen-frame construction; they are §103 fodder, not anticipatory.

Honest limitations. I retrieved full text for refs. 1, 6, 8 (indirectly), 10 (partially) and 11; I could not pull the full specifications of refs. 2-5, 7, 9, 12-15 within this session, so their descriptions rest on titles/classifications and available excerpts and are flagged as such. And as stated in the earlier section, my searches are not a substitute for a USPTO PatentCenter/PACER/PTAB docket check.

I'll ground this obviousness analysis by pulling details on the most probative prior-art references from the patent's face (the 15 "Patent Citations"). Let me search for the key ones.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 6,073,675 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

0. Scope, law, and evidentiary basis

Governing law. The '675 patent was filed 1999‑03‑26 and issued 2000‑06‑13, so pre‑AIA § 103 applies. The controlling framework is Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (scope/content of prior art; differences; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations), as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (expansive motivation-to-combine; predictable results; design incentives; "obvious to try"), and the rationales catalogued in MPEP § 2143.

Prior-art universe. The task directs me to the patent's own "Prior Art" section. The operative references are the 15 "Patent Citations" on the face of the '675 patent. I must flag one methodological point:

The 29/40 items in the "Cited By" table (US 6,863,112 Ayers; US 8,037,923 Alkhoury; US 11,125,012 Ritescreen; etc.) all post‑date the 1999‑03‑26 priority date and therefore are not available as § 102/§ 103 prior art against the '675 claims. They are useful only as industry-context evidence (e.g., that magnetically attachable window screens became a commercially pursued field), not as anticipatory or combinable art. I exclude them from the rejection.

Verification status (transparency). I retrieved full or substantial text for US 3,679,505 (Hinderaker), US 5,983,464 (Bauer), and US 4,972,896 (Roberts). For the remaining citations I have only titles/identifiers, and I explicitly mark inferences drawn from titles as unverified. Notably, my search for US 3,005,016 (Ridge, "Magnetic securing means") returned only unrelated commercial hits — I could not verify its disclosure, so I do not rest a rejection on it. I also confirm a number-string hazard consistent with the earlier sections: "6073675" also returns JP 6073675 B2 (Toshiba Medical) — unrelated and not used here.

Level of ordinary skill (PHOSITA). A designer of consumer building-hardware products (window screens, storm-window kits, magnetic fasteners) with ~2 years' experience, or a mechanical engineer with a bachelor's degree and routine access to the window-covering and magnetic-fastener literature. This is a mature, crowded, mechanically simple arts — a factor strongly favoring obviousness under KSR.

1. Claim 1, limitation by limitation, against the cited art

Key admission on the face of '675. In its own "Prior Art" discussion the patent characterizes the references: Hinderaker and Dickerson "rely upon a magnetic strip on the window covering (Hinderaker et al.) or window frame (Dickerson et al.) to secure the window covering." This is a party admission that a magnet strip mounted to the window frame (Dickerson, US 4,409,758) was known — a critical building block.

2. The primary obviousness combination

Combination 1 (primary): Hinderaker '505 + Dickerson '758 + Bauer '464 + conventional weatherstrip

Claim 1 would have been obvious over Hinderaker in view of Dickerson, Bauer, and the admitted weatherstrip art:

• Hinderaker supplies a window screen (1a), a magnetic element carrying a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer with a peel-off release liner (1c), and — through its own statement of the problem — the recognition that spaced magnets leave insect gaps that require a separate barrier (1e).
• Dickerson supplies the teaching to place the magnet strip on the window frame rather than on the covering (its title and the '675's admission), i.e., the exact side-of-attachment architecture of claim 1. (Verification caveat: I retrieved only the design patent D297,264 that cross-cites '758; I could not pull the '758 text, so I ground this on the '675's own characterization of Dickerson.)
• Bauer supplies a ferrous, cup-shaped receptacle with a planar floor and perpendicular wall that limits lateral movement of a magnet/mating member (1b, 1d), and expressly frames the lateral limiting as a centering/alignment feature: the male member's magnetically driven engagement "might be used to facilitate the aligned inter-engagement of members."
• Hinderaker + Roberts + the '675 spec's own admission supply a compressible perimeter seal (1e).

Why a POSITA would have combined them (motivation, articulated)

1. Same field, same problem, same solution space. Hinderaker, Dickerson, Roberts, and the invention all address "hold a screen/window covering on a pre-existing frame." KSR endorses combining references from the same field directed at the same problem. The patent itself lists all three as the art to be improved.
2. The gasket limitation is motivated by an express prior-art deficiency. Hinderaker identifies the "insects … get in … between the spaced magnets" problem. That statement does more than supply the gasket element — it supplies the reason a POSITA would separate the barrier function from the attachment function. The '675 patent's first stated point of novelty (separating the barrier function from the attachment hardware) is therefore a solution already suggested by the prior art's own problem statement, not a nonobvious insight.
3. Predictable result. Replacing a continuous magnetic strip with discrete magnets paired to ferrous cups is a change in number and shape of parts, with no change in the physical principle (magnetic attraction + adhesive mounting). MPEP § 2143 rationales (A) "combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results" and (F) "mere duplication of parts / change in shape" apply directly. KSR: "[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art."
4. Design incentive / market pressure. A self-install kit for "older buildings … not designed to accept screens" (the '675's own field statement) creates a strong incentive toward fewer, cheaper, removable parts — discrete cups + peel-and-stick magnets on the window — exactly the KSR "design incentive" and "known technique to improve similar devices in the same way" rationales.
5. The self-alignment benefit (claim 1, element (d) and the (h) whereby clause) was known. Bauer's lateral-movement-limiting lip is expressly for aligned re-engagement. A POSITA seeking a "self-aligning" screen attachment would look to magnetic-fastener art for a centering cup, and Bauer teaches it.

Rebutting the patent's two asserted points of novelty

• "Separating the barrier from the attachment devices." The problem (insects between spaced magnets) is stated in the prior art, and compressible foam weatherstrip is admittedly conventional. Merely relocating a known seal to a known location is an obvious design choice.
• "Discrete units work on round/oval windows; straight strips do not." Obviousness is judged against what the art teaches, and Hinderaker's strips are expressly "capable of being bent through a radius of curvature of less than two inches while its broad faces remain planar" — i.e., the bending problem was already known and addressed. Spacing discrete cups evenly around a curved perimeter is a routine geometric adaptation, not an inventive step.

3. Dependent claims (all obvious)

4. Two structural weaknesses in claim 1 that assist an obviousness rejection

1. The apparatus claim is drafted partly in functional/"whereby" language (elements f–i). Under In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and MPEP § 2114, a "whereby" clause that merely states the intended use or the inherent result of the recited structure (here: press the adhesive to the frame; pull to remove; magnetic attraction to re-seat; gasket barriers the gap) is not a positive structural limitation. If so construed, the "essence" of claim 1 collapses to: a rigid-framed screen carrying ferrous cups + gaskets, with peel-and-stick magnets mounted on the window frame — a combination squarely taught by the cited art.
2. Alternative reading of the gasket limitation that broadens the priors' reach. "extending between each adjacent pair of cups" reads on any compressible seal running along the screen frame — including a continuous perimeter weatherstrip, since a continuous strip necessarily passes between every adjacent pair of cups. On that construction, Hinderaker's continuous magnetic perimeter (which doubles as the insect barrier in the prior-art systems the '675 criticizes) and Roberts's weather-tight interlock both squarely meet element (e), and the "series of strips" segmentation in the specification is an unclaimed, obvious design variant of a known seal.

5. Anticipated counter-arguments and secondary considerations

Applicant-side arguments a POSITA would anticipate, and responses:

• "The prior art puts the magnet on the screen (Hinderaker) or a continuous strip on the frame (Dickerson); nothing teaches ferrous cups on the screen + adhesive magnets on the frame." Response: the selection of which side carries the magnet is a predictable, result-effective design choice (the magnetic member stays on the window when the screen is removed; the screen carries only inert, cheap metal). KSR treats "mere reversal of parts" / repositioning of known components with no change in function as obvious. Dickerson's frame-side strip supplies the teaching to choose that side.
• "Hinderaker teaches a continuous framework to keep insects out — that teaches away from discrete cups." Response: Hinderaker's own discussion concedes the gap problem between spaced magnets, which points toward a discrete-attachment + separate-seal architecture rather than away. And even a continuous framework, per § 4 above, meets element (e).
• Secondary considerations (no WBIP/Graham record). The record before me shows no evidence of commercial success, long-felt-but-unsolved need, failure of others, copying, licensing, or industry praise. There is no assignee with a marketing history to cite (assignee = "Individual," Thomas F. Dannaher), and the patent lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees effective 2008‑06‑13 (Google Patents legal events: LAPS 2008‑06‑13; STCH 2008‑07‑14; FP 2008‑08‑05). A patent that was never commercially asserted and was abandoned eight years early provides no objective indicia to rebut the § 103 case.

6. Conclusion

Claims 1–16 are, in my assessment, obvious under pre-AIA § 103.

• Two-reference core: Hinderaker '505 (screen + magnet strip + pressure-sensitive adhesive + release liner; express insect-gap problem) in view of Bauer '464 (cup-like ferrous receptacle with perpendicular wall that limits lateral movement / centers the mating member) renders the attachment and self-alignment features of claim 1 predictable.
• Frame-side architecture: Dickerson '758 (per the '675's own admission: magnetic strip on the window frame) supplies the missing limitation.
• Gasket: the express prior-art problem (Hinderaker) plus Roberts '896 (weather-tight seal) plus admittedly conventional foam weatherstrip renders element (e) obvious.
• The dependent claims fall to routine fabrication, design choice, and known keying/polarity practices (Hinderaker's own pole-alignment teaching).
• The patent's asserted novelties — separating the barrier from the attachment, and using discrete units on curved windows — are either suggested by the prior art's own problem statements or are routine geometric adaptations, with no objective indicia of nonobviousness in the record.

Confidence and caveats (explicit):

• High confidence on the Hinderaker, Bauer, and Roberts content, which I retrieved with verbatim text and URLs (e.g., Hinderaker: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US3679505A](/patent/US3679505A)/en and PDF patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/.../US3679505.pdf; Bauer: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5983464 ; Roberts: https://patents.justia.com/patent/[4972896](/patent/4972896)).
• Moderate confidence on the Dickerson '758 mapping, which rests on the '675's own characterization plus the cross-citing design patent D297,264 — I could not open the '758 specification itself.
• Unverified: the disclosures (as opposed to titles) of US 3,005,016 (Ridge), US 5,090,469 (Boulanger), US 5,097,886 (Moyet Ortiz), US 4,802,523 (Scholten), US 4,419,982 (Eckels), and US 3,805,872 (Lorber Flinck). Any of these could independently supply the "cup"/"perimeter barrier" elements and would strengthen — not weaken — the § 103 case; I did not rely on them.
• No PACER/P-TACTS pull was performed here; consistent with the earlier Litigation Summary, no adversarial proceeding affecting the § 103 analysis is known, and the patent's expired/lapsed status means any rejection would be a reexamination-style validity question rather than a live litigation defense.

One consistency note with the earlier sections: the prior Patent Summary and this analysis agree on bibliographic data, the 2008 lapse, the "Individual" assignee, and the exclusion of JP 6073675 B2. No contradictions found.