US 6367694

I'll search for information on this patent, including any 2026 CAFC activity.

Let me search specifically for litigation or CAFC docket activity involving this patent.

Summary — US Patent 6,367,694

Important caveat up front: I found no evidence of any 2026 CAFC (Federal Circuit) docket or appeal involving US 6,367,694. Searches of Federal Circuit 2026 opinion/PAE/amici material and general web results returned nothing tying this patent number to any 2026 appellate activity. I also found no litigation, PTAB/IPR, or reexamination proceeding involving this specific number. If a specific 2026 docket exists, I do not have authoritative confirmation of it — treat the absence of evidence as a gap, not a verified negative.

Bibliographic data

Continuity chain (authoritative, from the patent's Related Applications section): This is a continuation of application 09/153,832 (filed 1998-09-15, now US 5,979,753) which is itself a continuation of 08/706,579 (filed 1996-09-05, now US 5,825,002). Priority therefore traces to 1996-09-05.

Note a small discrepancy I will not auto-correct: the Unified Patents portal lists priority date 1996-09-04, application date 1999-11-08, and grant date 2002-04-08 — one day earlier on each than Google Patents. This is most likely a time-zone/date-normalization artifact in the portal, not a different patent. The full patent text (Google Patents) states 1996-09-05 / 1999-11-09 / 2002-04-09, and I use those here.

Abstract (as issued)

"The present invention relates to a data processing and retrieval system for use in a self-checkout system utilized in a retail facility. A plurality of customers are provided with a portable data collecting terminal having a bar code reader. Once the data is collected using the portable terminal, a record of the session is uploaded to a customer's data file upon the entry of an authorization code. In the event errors occur during data entry or in the entry of the authorization codes, a customer service desk is provided which assists the customer in completing the transaction."

Plain-language overview of each independent claim

Claim 1 — System (independent, apparatus). A retail self-checkout system for helping a customer buy goods, comprising four elements:

• (a) a central database holding customer files, each tied to customer transactions;
• (b) a computer that communicates an information message to the customer about the goods selected;
• (c) a communication network that transmits an identifier for each selected good to a "central host" and updates the customer file to include the selected goods; and
• (d) an automated payment device that collects the customer's preferred payment method, sends a payment request to an electronic fund transfer (EFT) system, receives an authorization code back from that EFT system, and records the transaction in the central database by updating the customer's file associated with the authorization code.
• Net effect: the customer file ends up reflecting both the goods selected and the customer's payment information.

Claim 5 — Method (independent). A method for assisting a customer in a retail facility, comprising:

• (a) issuing a customer card to each of multiple customers;
• (b) submitting the card to an entrance head and extracting customer data from it;
• (c) communicating that data to a central host and obtaining authorization to release a shopping terminal from a multiple-terminal dispensing device;
• (d) assigning a terminal to the customer at the entrance head;
• (e) identifying the assigned terminal on the entrance head's display with a customer-perceptible indicator near the assigned terminal;
• (f) collecting the customer's purchase information on the assigned terminal; and
• (g) completing the transaction via an automated payment scheme — obtaining a complete list of goods, obtaining authorization from an EFT system, and updating the customer files with the transaction and a record of the EFT payment.

Claim 6 — Method (independent). A method for completing a sales transaction using a bar code reading terminal, comprising:

• reading at least one bar code from a product with the bar code reading terminal;
• transmitting data representative of the bar code from the terminal to a transaction terminal and associating that data with a specific customer electronic account;
• generating a purchase request; and
• completing an electronic payment request for the purchased items based on an authorization and on information stored in the specific customer electronic account.

Dependent claims (for completeness)

• Claim 2 — depends on claim 1; limits the preferred payment method to debit.
• Claim 3 — depends on claim 1; limits the preferred payment method to credit.
• Claim 4 — depends on claim 1; adds an optical indicia reader (bar code scanner) so the customer scans unique optical-indicia labels on each selected good.

Observations on claim/specification alignment

The specification is heavily focused on security of data updates — terminal dispensing/locking, authorization codes (secret PIN or recognized customer card), an "account clear" field, a "non-authorized data storage bank," an unauthorized-return signal, and a customer-service desk. The issued independent claims, however, are drafted primarily around automated payment / EFT authorization and the redemption/identification of goods, with the "authorization code" appearing in claim 1 only as the key by which the central database file is updated. This mismatch between the disclosure's emphasis and the claim scope is a notable feature of the patent.

Cited/relevant art noted in the record (not auto-corrected)

• Dutch Patent Application No. 9002296 ("the '296 Application") and U.S. Pat. No. 5,468,942 to Oosterveen et al. — cited in the Background as prior self-checkout systems (consistent with the citation list, which shows NL9002296A and US5468942A, both assigned to Ahold Retail Services).
• Non-patent citation: Symbol Product Brochure, "LST3803 – Portable Personal Shopper," 4 pages.
• The patent is in the same family as US 5,825,002 A and US 5,979,753 A, and is cited by, among others, US 7,725,326 B1 (Symbol Technologies, priority 1996-09-05).

Source

• Google Patents, US6367694B1 — https://patents.google.com/patent/US6367694B1/en
• Third-party portal (secondary, date fields shown for comparison): https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-6367694-B1

Uncertainty statement: Everything above is grounded in the full patent text supplied and the Google Patents page. I could not corroborate any 2026 CAFC docket, district-court suit, IPR, or reexamination for 6,367,694; I did not fabricate one. Given the patent's Expired – Lifetime status since 2016, active 2026 appellate litigation over this number would be unusual, but I cannot rule it out from the searches performed.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 6367694 across patent litigation databases.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

Litigation Search Report — U.S. Patent No. 6367694

Prepared for: Docket review / patent portfolio diligence
Patent: U.S. Patent No. 6367694 B1 — "Device and method for secure data updates in a self-checkout system"
Assignee of record (current): Symbol Technologies LLC (originally Symbol Technologies, Inc.); parent company listed as Zebra Technologies Corp.
Priority date: 1996-09-05 | Filing date: 1999-11-09 | Grant date: 2002-04-09 | Expiration: 2016-09-05

---

Bottom line

No litigation specifically asserting U.S. Patent No. 6367694 could be identified. Based on the sources searched, there is no record of a district court infringement action, ITC Section 337 investigation, or Federal Circuit appeal in which 6367694 was a patent-in-suit.

I want to be explicit about confidence: I could not positively confirm the absence of litigation, only the absence of any record of it in the sources I was able to search. Treat this as "no known litigation" rather than a certified clean bill.

---

What I searched and what I found

Important disambiguation note (per instructions, no auto-correction applied): Searches for the bare number "6367694" are heavily polluted by JP 6367694 B2, an unrelated Japanese patent. Any hit of that form should be disregarded for U.S. litigation purposes.

---

Related cases that are NOT litigation of 6367694 (do not cite as such)

These appeared in my searches and are sometimes confused with the '694 patent's family. They are provided only to rule them out:

• Symbol Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Lemelson Medical, Education & Research Foundation, LP — D. Nev. No. 99-CV-0397; Fed. Cir. Nos. 00-1583, 04-1451. Declaratory judgment involving Lemelson's patents (U.S. 4,338,626; 4,969,038; 5,119,190; etc.), not 6367694. Held unenforceable for prosecution laches. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/277/1361/[521296](/patent/521296)/
• Metrologic Instruments, Inc. v. Symbol Technologies, Inc., D.N.J. No. 05-2571 (license/royalty dispute; not an assertion of 6367694).
• Symbol Technologies ITC investigation on certain laser bar code scanners (Inv. No. 337-TA-…, USITC Pub. 4006, 2007) — asserted other Symbol patents, not 6367694. https://usitc.gov/publications/337/pub4006.pdf

Related family members (same specification/family — U.S. 5825002, U.S. 5979753) also did not yield identifiable litigation against U.S. 6367694.

---

Analytical observations (why the negative result is plausible)

1. Short effective life / early expiration. The patent expired 2016-09-05, capping the window in which it could be asserted. It is now expired, so no injunctive relief is available and only past damages could ever have been at stake.
2. Continuation status. 6367694 is the third member of a continuation chain (Ser. No. 08/706,579 → Ser. No. 09/153,832 → Ser. No. 09/436,170). The earlier family members issued first; if the family was ever enforced, assertions more likely targeted the earlier-issued claims.
3. Product-embodiment risk. The claims are directed to a self-checkout system with a centralized customer database and EFT payment. Under Alice/Mayo § 101 scrutiny post-2014, a patent of this vintage and subject matter would be a challenging assertion target, which may explain the absence of an NPE-driven campaign.
4. No NPE acquisition activity surfaced. Assignments recorded show only the original corporate chain (Symbol → Symbol Technologies LLC → Zebra-related security interests), with no transfer to a non-practicing entity, which is consistent with the absence of assertion litigation.

---

Recommendations to close the gap

Because public aggregators (Unified, Google Patents) are not exhaustive for older hardware/retail patents, I recommend confirming with:

1. PACER / CourtListener RECAP full-text docket search for "6,367,694" and "6367694" across all districts (my searches did not reach terminal PACER coverage).
2. Lex Machina / Docket Navigator / RPX Insight — patent-level assertion histories, which index complaints by patent number.
3. USITC EDIS search for Section 337 complaints naming the patent.
4. USPTO Patent Center / Assignment records for any post-grant challenges (IPR/PGR/CBM) — none were identified, and given the 2016 expiration, a CBM/IPR window would have closed.

---

Disclaimer

This is a good-faith search summary based on publicly available sources retrieved on the access date. It is not a legal opinion, not a freedom-to-operate or validity analysis, and should not be relied upon as a definitive statement that no litigation exists. A formal docket-level search through PACER and a commercial litigation database should be performed before any go/no-go reliance. If you want, I can draft the specific PACER/Lex Machina query strings for a paralegal to run.

PTAB / AIA Trial Landscape — US 6,367,694 B1

"Device and method for secure data updates in a self-checkout system"
Inventor: Thomas Roslak · Original assignee: Symbol Technologies, LLC (now Zebra Technologies Corp. family) · Priority: 1996-09-05 · Filed: 1999-11-09 · Granted: 2002-04-09 · Expired: 2016-09-05

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0. The canonical "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal) returns no IPRs, PGRs, or CBM reviews for US 6,367,694. Independent web searching surfaced nothing to the contrary: the Google Patents litigation/PTAB metadata for the '694 patent shows only ordinary reissue/assignment events, the Unified Patents portal entry for US-6367694-B1 shows no post-grant challenge, and PTAB petition documents that reference a "6367694" string in search results are unrelated (e.g., a Yahoo IPR on U.S. 9,762,636, and an Australian patent family member "AU 6367694"). No proceeding numbers exist to report, so none are invented here.

Bottom line for a defendant: there are no AIA trials on this patent to build a defense on — but you almost certainly don't need one. The '694 patent reached the end of its 20-year term on 2016-09-05 (the anticipated-expiration legal event on the face of the record) and is carried as "Expired – Lifetime." It cannot be asserted prospectively against current products; the only theoretical exposure is past-damages for conduct inside the pre-2016-09-05 window, and the six-year § 286 damages lookback plus laches-type delay arguments would gut most of even that. Any demand letter citing claims 1–6 of the '694 patent against present-day activity is legally hollow on its face. (For completeness: U.S. 5,825,002 and U.S. 5,979,753 are the same-family continuations with the identical 1996-09-05 priority and the same 2016 expiration; I found no PTAB activity on those either, but that is a search result, not an ODP confirmation.)

---

Per-proceeding detail

None. There is no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding to describe. Accordingly, the following fields are vacuous and are left unstated rather than fabricated: proceeding number, petitioner/patent-owner pairing, type, filing date, status, APJ panel, grounds (§ 102/§ 103/§ 112), institution decision, Final Written Decision, settlement, and Federal Circuit appeal. There is no FWD to link and no CAFC docket to report, because no trial was ever instituted.

Why the silence is expected (not a red flag about the patent)

• Timing. The AIA trial regime (IPR from 2012-09-16; CBM from 2012-09-16 to sunset 2020-09-16) largely post-dates this patent's commercially relevant enforcement life. The '694 patent issued 2002-04-09 and expired 2016-09-05 — the front half of its term predates the PTAB entirely, and by the time IPRs became routine it had roughly four years of term left.
• AIA trials were largely unnecessary. Its enforcement era coincided with the pre-AIA toolkit: ex parte reexamination, district-court invalidity, and ITC § 337 actions involving Symbol's bar-code scanner portfolio. Caution: I can confirm Symbol was the complainant in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-551 (Initial Determination, 2007-01-29, Certain Laser Bar Code Scanners and Scan Engines), but I cannot verify from the sources reviewed that the '694 patent was one of the asserted patents in that investigation, and I am not asserting it was.
• Expiration forecloses the incentive. Once a patent expires, an IPR can no longer deliver prospective market relief, so petitioners rationally stop filing. Zero PTAB filings against an expired 1996-priority patent is the normal outcome, not evidence of an unusually hardened patent.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: all six claims are UNTESTED at the PTAB — none canceled, none sustained. Claims 1–4 (the system claims: central database, computer for an information message, communication network updating a customer file, automated payment device communicating to an EFT system) and claims 5–6 (the method claims) have been construed only by the original examiner; there is no PTAB record of a claim-level validity holding. That is a statement about the absence of proceedings, not a statement that the claims are strong.

Estoppel landscape: § 315(e)(2) estoppel is not in play, because no petitioner ever reached a final written decision. There is no estoppel that would bar anyone, and conversely no adjudicated invalidity to lean on. A defendant does not need to navigate raised-or-reasonably-could-have-raised grounds — but that also means there is no IPR estoppel shortcut against the patent owner in co-pending litigation.

Practical posture beats the estoppel analysis. The controlling fact is not validity law but term: the patent expired 2016-09-05. Injunctive relief is off the table, marking/royalty theories are limited to pre-expiration conduct, and § 286 caps recoverable damages to the six years before filing of any complaint. Pre-suit delay beyond six years after public knowledge of the accused systems is a standard § 286 / laches posture. If a plaintiff asserts the '694 patent today, the first question is whether they can identify a live, non-time-barred damages theory at all — and it should be an early summary-judgment motion or a Rule 12 motion targeting the absence of a remediable cause of action.

Pattern signals: N/A. There is no repeat-petitioner pattern, no patent-owner appeal practice (no FWD to appeal), and no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents or RPX IPR) in the chain — Unified's portal carries the patent for informational purposes only, with no challenge logged.

---

Recommended next steps

1. No PTAB activity exists. State it plainly. There is no FWD to quote and no Federal Circuit disposition to cite. Do not represent otherwise to a client or a court.
2. Lead with the expiration date. Google Patents records the anticipated-expiration legal event as 2016-09-05; the Unified Patents portal lists expiration 2016-09-04 (a one-day time-zone/priority artifact). Either way, the term ended in September 2016, more than ten years ago as of today (2026-10-01).
3. If a live assertion appears, check the asserted patent number carefully. Demand letters in the self-checkout space frequently cite the Symbol/Zebra family; confirm whether the letter cites the expired '694, its expired siblings U.S. 5,825,002 / U.S. 5,979,753, or a later, live continuation or a different Zebra asset. The continuation chain matters — a later-issued member of the family could still be in force even though the '694 is not.
4. Preserve invalidity defenses regardless. If a plaintiff tries to reach back to pre-2016-09-05 conduct, the '694 art universe (U.S. 5,468,942 Oosterveen; NL 9002296; U.S. 4,071,740 Gogulski; U.S. 4,929,819 NCR; U.S. 5,397,882 Ahold; and the Symbol "LST3803 Portable Personal Shopper" brochure cited as a non-patent reference during prosecution) remains available in district court — § 315(e) estoppel does not bar it because no IPR was ever filed. But those grounds were never PTAB-tested, so their strength is unadjudicated.

Sources checked: the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (ODP, canonical); Google Patents US6367694B1 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6367694B1/en); Unified Patents portal entry (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-6367694-B1); PTAB/PTACTS petition documents surfaced in search (none referencing this patent as the challenged patent); USPTO PTAB E2E and CourtListener were not able to be reached for a docket-level confirmation of an absence, so the "zero" conclusion rests on the ODP block plus the negative web-search results above.

Confidence note: I am highly confident there is no AIA trial on this patent, because the ODP-derived block is empty and every independent search for "IPR/CBM/PGR + 6,367,694" returned unrelated documents. I am not able to confirm whether the underlying PTAB record for the sibling patents (5,825,002 / 5,979,753) is equally empty, and I have not verified the specific patents asserted in the 2007 Symbol ITC action.

I'll research the ownership chain, corporate events, and any correspondent/attorney-of-record details before drafting the report.

Ownership Reconstruction — U.S. Patent No. 6,367,694

Patent: US 6,367,694 B1 — "Device and method for secure data updates in a self-checkout system"
Application: 09/436,170 | Priority: 1996-09-05 | Filed: 1999-11-09 | Issued: 2002-04-09 | Expired: 2016-09-05

Source note / important limitation up front. The authoritative patent text I was given reproduces the Google Patents "Legal Events" ledger, which does carry the reel/frame numbers, conveyance type, assignor, assignee, recording date, and effective (execution) date for every recorded event. It does not carry the correspondent of record (the filing attorney/agent). That field lives only on the USPTO Assignment Center / Assignment Search record itself. I could not retrieve the correspondent names through the tools available to me, and I will not fabricate them — see "Correspondent gap" below. Everything else here is grounded in the reel/frame entries shown in the supplied full text, corroborated against SEC/Symbol corporate filings and the Google Patents family record.

---

Inventors

• Sole named inventor on the '694 patent.
• Employer is determinable with high confidence: Roslak was a prolific Symbol Technologies inventor across the 1996–2006 window — e.g., co-inventor on US 7,010,501 ("Personal shopping system," Symbol Technologies, Inc., filed 2000-01-25), US 6,837,436 ("Consumer interactive shopping system," Symbol), US 6,394,355 ("Hand-held acquisition device," Symbol), and a named inventor on WO 2006/105489 with Symbol Technologies, Inc. as applicant (2006).
• Unusual-pattern check — negative. There is no sign of the inventor departing the original assignee around filing. Roslak's inventor activity with Symbol continues at least a decade past the 1996 priority date, which is the opposite of the "inventors leave within 12 months → portfolio fire-sale" red flag. No finding here.

---

Original assignee

• Entity named on the issued patent: Symbol Technologies, Inc., Holtsville, New York (a public company, NYSE: SBL at the time of issuance in 2002).
  • Caveat: Google Patents' modern "Original Assignee" field displays "Symbol Technologies LLC." That is anachronistic — the LLC name did not exist until the 2015 change of name (Reel 036083/0640). The patent as issued named the Inc.
• Primary line of business: Automatic identification and data capture (AIDC) — hand-held bar code scanners, mobile/rugged computers, RFID, and retail self-shopping systems. The self-checkout subject matter of this patent aligns with that core business.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? The record indicates commercialization but I cannot map it claim-by-claim. The patent's sole non-patent citation is Symbol's own product brochure "LST3803 – Portable Personal Shopper" (4 pp.), and Symbol's later patents (US 6,837,436; US 7,010,501) describe commercial kiosk/cradle self-shopping systems. So Symbol plausibly practiced this space, but I flag that as unverified as to the specific claims.
• Current status: Operating, but consolidated. Symbol Technologies, Inc. was acquired by Motorola, Inc. in 2007 ($3.9B), became part of Motorola Solutions' Enterprise business, and that business (including Symbol) was acquired by Zebra Technologies Corp. in October 2014 ($3.45B). In April 2015 Symbol Technologies, Inc. changed its name to Symbol Technologies, LLC, now a Zebra subsidiary. No bankruptcy — Symbol was acquired as a going concern.
  • Note: the patent never moved at the patent-record level during the Motorola or Zebra deals, because those were stock/asset acquisitions of the entity itself; the patent stayed inside the same legal entity throughout.

---

Assignment timeline

All entries are recorded events appearing in the supplied record. Format: executed (effective) / recorded — Reel/Frame. Correspondent is listed as "not available in source" for each — see the gap note after the table.

2004-12-29 (executed) / 2005-01-05 (recorded) — Reel 016116/0203

• Conveyance: Security Interest (Security Agreement/Guarantee & Collateral Agreement)
• Assignor: Symbol Technologies, Inc.
• Assignee: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (as Administrative and Collateral Agent)
• Correspondent: not available in source.
• Context: Securitization — collateral grant securing Symbol's Credit Agreement dated December 29, 2004 (a going-concern financing, not a sale).

2010-12-03 (recorded) / effective 2006-09-01 — Reel 025441/0228

• Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
• Assignor: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
• Assignee: Symbol Technologies, Inc.
• Correspondent: not available in source.
• Context: Lien release — the prior security interest is discharged (consistent with Symbol paying off / refinancing the 2004 facility). Note the ~4-year gap between the 2006 effective date and the 2010 recording.

2012-05-29 (recorded) / executed 1996-09-05 — Reel 028280/0419

• Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' (Inventor's) Interest
• Assignor: Roslak, Thomas (sole inventor)
• Assignee: Symbol Technologies, Inc.
• Correspondent: not available in source.
• Context: Confirmatory / late-recorded inventor assignment — executed at filing in 1996 but not recorded until 2012 (16 years later, a decade after issuance). This is a chain-of-title cleanup, most plausibly done to perfect standing/ownership ahead of the 2014 Zebra transaction. This is the single most notable anomaly in the record.

2014-10-27 (executed) / 2014-10-31 (recorded) — Reel 034114/0270

• Conveyance: Security Agreement
• Assignors: ZIH Corp.; Laser Band, LLC; Zebra Enterprise Solutions Corp.; Symbol Technologies, Inc.; and others
• Assignee: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc., as Collateral Agent
• Correspondent: not available in source.
• Context: Securitization — the debt collateral package backing Zebra's $3.45B acquisition of Motorola Solutions' enterprise business (announced 2014-04-15, closed October 2014). A group lien grant across the Zebra corporate family, not an ownership transfer.

2015-04-10 (executed) / 2015-07-08 (recorded) — Reel 036083/0640

• Conveyance: Change of Name
• Assignor: Symbol Technologies, Inc.
• Assignee: Symbol Technologies, LLC
• Correspondent: not available in source.
• Context: Internal reorganization / change of name only — same legal entity, no change in beneficial ownership.

2015-07-21 (executed) / 2015-08-17 (recorded) — Reel 036371/0738

• Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
• Assignor: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc.
• Assignee: Symbol Technologies, Inc. (post-rename, the LLC obligor group)
• Correspondent: not available in source.
• Context: Lien release — the 2014 Morgan Stanley security interest is discharged (refinancing of the Zebra acquisition debt). Ownership confirmed back to the Symbol/Zebra entity.

Correspondent gap (explicit)

I retrieved zero correspondent-of-record names. The supplied source (Google Patents legal events) omits that field, and my searches did not surface the underlying reel/frame PDFs that would name the filing attorney. Because the repeat-correspondent signal is the single strongest NPE tell and I cannot populate it, I have marked that one signal unclear rather than inferring. To close it, pull each reel/frame above from the Assignment Center (search by patent number):

• USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Legacy Assignment Search — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html

Look specifically for the attorney/firm in the "Correspondent" box on Reels 016116/0203, 025441/0228, 028280/0419, 034114/0270, 036083/0640, 036371/0738. If the same corporate-securities/patent-prosecution firm recurs across the lien recordings, it simply confirms routine corporate-finance housekeeping (my expectation) — it would not be an NPE tell, because none of these assignees is an asserter.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6367694
    1996 : Roslak assigns rights to Symbol
    1998 : First continuation filed
    1999 : Second continuation filed
    2002 : Patent 6367694 granted
    2004 : Security interest to JPMorgan Chase
    2006 : JPMorgan security interest released
    2007 : Motorola acquires Symbol Technologies
    2012 : 1996 inventor assignment recorded
    2014 : Zebra buys Motorola enterprise
         : Morgan Stanley security agreement
    2015 : Symbol Technologies Inc renamed LLC
         : Morgan Stanley lien released
    2016 : Patent expires

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

---

Verdict

Insufficient data — as an NPE determination only.

I am choosing this label deliberately and with a caveat: the taxonomy's definitions do not contain a clean "operating-company-owned, never asserted" bucket (that slot is reserved for an operating company actively suing competitors, and the "Defensive / non-asserting" slot is reserved for a chain ending at a defensive aggregator). Neither applies. Affirmatively, the record is sufficient and unambiguous and shows the opposite of an NPE chain: ownership stayed inside the original operating-company family across Reels 016116/0203, 025441/0228, 028280/0419, 034114/0270, 036083/0640, and 036371/0738, with the only non-family assignees being bank collateral agents; there is no licensing-LLC transfer, no known asserter, and no identified assertion litigation, and the patent expired 2016-09-05.

Bottom line: no NPE/troll-pattern is supported by the evidence. The notable findings are (a) a 1996-executed inventor assignment not recorded until 2012 (Reel 028280/0419) — a chain-of-title cleanup, and (b) two rounds of acquisition-driven securitization (JPMorgan 2004; Morgan Stanley 2014) that encumbered but never conveyed ownership.

Verification link (Assignment Center by patent number): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 6367694) — use it to pull the correspondent of record filling the signal-3 gap above.

I'll research this systematically. Let me start with targeted searches on the patent number and its cited references.

I have the citation records. Let me verify the most technically relevant references to characterize them accurately.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 6,367,694 B1

"Device and method for secure data updates in a self-checkout system"
Inventor: Thomas Roslak · App. No. 09/436,170 · Filed 1999-11-09 · Priority 1996-09-05 · Granted 2002-04-09 · Status: Expired – Lifetime (2016-09-05)

Note on search execution: I confirmed the record for the exact number 6,367,694 (U.S.) via Google Patents and the Unified Patents portal; the reference list reproduced below is taken verbatim from the authoritative full patent text (Google Patents "Patent Citations," 48 entries). I also hit the tool step-limit mid-way through verification of individual secondary references, so descriptions for the less-relevant entries are grounded in the citation titles/assignees plus the specification's own characterization rather than in each reference's full text. I flag that where it matters.

Disambiguation (per your literal-ID rule): Searches for the bare string "6367694" are polluted by JP 6367694 B2 (Hyundai Motor — hybrid-vehicle transmission), an unrelated document. It is not U.S. 6,367,694 and must not be cited.

---

A. Legal framework and critical dates (pre-AIA § 102 governs)

Because the effective U.S. filing date traces to 1996-09-05 (parent application 08/706,579), this patent is governed by pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102. The controlling dates are:

How I applied the statute to each reference:

• § 102(b) — reference published/patented before 1995-09-05.
• § 102(a) — reference published/patented before the invention date; catches publications between 1995-09-05 and ~1996-09-05.
• § 102(e) — U.S. patent whose U.S. filing date precedes 1996-09-05 but which published on/after that date.
• Not § 102 art — references filed/published after 1996-09-05, and same-inventor/same-family documents (§ 102(e) requires "by another").

Important structural caveat on "anticipation": No single reference below appears to disclose every element of independent claims 1, 5, or 6 (particularly the combined EFT-authorization + central-file-update + terminal-dispensing features). Most of these are therefore realistically § 103 obviousness references used alone or in combination, not clean § 102 anticipation. I state "potentially anticipates" only where a reference maps onto the majority of a claim's elements, and I say so explicitly.

---

B. Master table — all 48 cited patent references

Columns: Cite · Priority/Filing · Publication · Description · § 102 basis · Claims potentially affected

(Citations 41–43 and 45–47 are the "noise" entries typical of an IDS/citation list: Japanese mechanical/electrical arts and post-dating documents. They carry no § 102 weight against claims 1–6.)

Non-patent citation: Symbol Product Brochure, "LST3803 – Portable Personal Shopper," 4 pages — § 102(b) printed publication if publicly distributed before 1995-09-05 (its exact distribution date is not established from the record I retrieved — this needs a library/archive date check). Potentially relevant to claims 5 and 6.

---

C. The most relevant references — element-level analysis

1. NL 9002296 A (Albert Heijn B.V.) — the single closest reference

Priority 1990-10-22 · Published 1992-05-18 · § 102(b)

The Background itself names this as the "'296 Application" and describes it as disclosing a self-service system in which authorized customers are issued a scanner, maintain a product list in scanner memory, download at a dispenser, and receive a printed receipt. Its European counterpart (EP 0 681 273 A1 / B1, Heijn B.V.) was confirmed in my search to disclose: scanner issuance upon presentation of an identity card; a readout station; electronic payment via a payment/identity card with a PIN code; and an egress gate opened on payment. (Family: NL 191499 B/C.)

• Claim 5 (a)–(g): strongest single-reference candidate — customer card/identity card (b), scanner dispensing (c–d), purchase collection (f), and automated electronic payment with card + PIN (g). Element (e) ("customer-perceptible indicator near the assigned terminal") is the weakest mapping and may not be disclosed.
• Claim 1: maps onto (a) customer data on a central computer, (c) uploading selected goods, and (d) payment-card authorization; the "reliability coding" noted in the citation title bears on the authorization-code element.
• Claim 6: bar-code reading → readout/computer → associated account → electronic payment.

This is the reference an examiner would lead with. If NL 9002296 alone does not fully anticipate claim 5, it is the primary reference against which the dispensing/identification claim elements were likely allowed only in combination.

2. US 5,468,942 A (Oosterveen et al., Ahold Retail Services) — the "Oosterveen Patent"

Priority 1994-04-18 · Published 1995-11-21 · § 102(a) + § 102(e)

Confirmed from the reference text: a dispensing device with a rack of scanner holders accessible from two sides, an identification device (card reader + card-insertion slot, optional PIN keypad), a display device (LCD/screen), an identifying mark (e.g., designations "A, B, C") on sections of the rack, and clearing of a specific scanner for a specific customer. The rack serves as both dispenser and receiver.

• Claim 5(b)–(e): near-textbook mapping — entrance-head/card reader (b), central authorization and release of a shopping terminal from a multiple-terminal dispensing device (c), assignment (d), and a customer-perceptible indicator in the vicinity of the assigned terminal (e) via the visible section markings/display. This is the clearest disclosure of claim 5(e) among all cited art.
• Claim 5(f)–(g): (f) collecting purchases is disclosed; (g)'s EFT step is not disclosed in 5,468,942 → claim 5 as a whole is not anticipated by this reference alone.

3. US 5,535,407 A (Oki Electric) — central-file update architecture

Priority 1989-05-30 · Published 1996-07-09 · § 102(e)

Confirmed: host computer with a ledger file of customer data; POS terminals → store controller → host; remote updating means (real-time transaction message up to host), local updating means (sub-ledger updated locally), batch updating means (sub-ledger returned to host to update the ledger); black-list screening; credit-balance checks.

• Claim 1(a): central database with customer files tied to transactions — disclosed.
• Claim 1(c): communication network transmitting transaction/goods data to a central host and updating the customer file — disclosed in substance.
• Claim 1(d): payment authorization against a host ledger is disclosed, but the specific "electronic fund transfer system" returning an authorization code framing is a labeling question; § 102(e) anticipation of claim 1 as a whole is doubtful because claim 1 requires the goods-selection + EFT combination.

4. NL9002296 companion — EP 0 681 273 A1/B1 (Heijn B.V.)

Not one of the 48 listed citations for '694, but it is the European family member of NL 9002296 and (per my search) expressly claims "electronic payment… without intervention of store personnel," "payment card… bank card, Giro card, credit card or customer card," "PIN code associated with the payment card," and an automatically opened passage. It is highly probative for claim 1(d) and claim 5(g) and should be treated as companion art to NL 9002296 even though the '694 citation list does not list it.

5. US 5,637,847 A (Mitsubishi Denki)

Priority 1994-03-10 · Published 1997-06-10 · § 102(e)
"Automated shopping basket system with accounting and article tracking functions." Discloses automated accounting of scanned articles. Relevant to claims 1(c), 5(f), 6 (article tracking → accounting), but the customer-file and EFT elements are only partly addressed.

6. US 5,354,974 A (Base 10 Systems) — EFT/ATM element

Priority 1992-11-24 · Published 1994-10-11 · § 102(b)
"Automatic teller system and method." Most directly probative of the automated payment device / EFT authorization element of claim 1(d), and supporting art for claims 5(g) and 6. Alone, it does not reach the self-checkout/scanner elements.

7. US 5,397,882 A (Ahold Retail Services) — spot-check/authorization

Priority 1993-05-14 · Published 1995-03-14 · § 102(b)
"Method for spot checking a client in a self-service store." Bears on the authorization/verification aspects (the "recognized authorization code" concept) underlying claim 5(c) and the secure-update theme of the specification.

8. US 5,412,193 A (Symbol Technologies)

Priority 1988-05-11 · Published 1995-05-02 · § 102(b)
"Mobile point-of-sale supermarket checkout system." Assignee's own earlier portable-POS architecture — relevant to claims 1 and 6 (mobile terminal → transaction/central host).

9. US 4,940,116 A (Checkrobot) and US 4,929,819 A (NCR)

§ 102(b) (1990-07-10 and 1990-05-29)
"Unattended checkout system and method" and "customer-performed article scanning in self-service shopping." Classic self-checkout/unattended-checkout art — background-level references for claims 5 and 6; neither addresses a dispensed portable terminal with an authorization-code-gated data update.

10. US 5,778,348 A (Pitney Bowes), US 5,621,812 A (Credit Verification), US 5,689,650 A (McClelland)

§ 102(e) — all disclose remote/centralized update of a customer or rating file from a remote facility. Relevant only to the "update the customer file" limitation of claim 1(a)/(c); none touches self-checkout scanning or store dispensing.

---

D. Summary of anticipation exposure by claim

---

E. Uncertainty and caveats

1. § 102(e) "by another" requirement: US 5,825,002 A (#44) is the same-inventor family parent and US 5,804,807 A (#45) is a common-assignee Symbol patent filed after the priority date — neither is § 102 prior art against 6,367,694. The citation list nevertheless contains them (typical of a family-wide IDS).
2. I could not independently verify every reference's full disclosure (tool step-limit reached mid-verification). Descriptions for entries #1–#43 rely on the citation titles/assignees plus the specification's own Background characterizations. The highly relevant items (NL 9002296, US 5,468,942, US 5,535,407, US 5,637,847, US 5,354,974) were corroborated against actual reference text where retrieved.
3. Category labels. A citation appearing in the "Cited By" list does not mean the examiner relied on it substantively; many are background/§ 102(b) art. The labels in column "§ 102 basis" are my statutory classification, not an examiner's.
4. Date discrepancy flagged earlier and not auto-corrected: Unified Patents shows priority 1996-09-04 / filing 1999-11-08 / grant 2002-04-08 (one day earlier on each). I used the authoritative patent-text dates (1996-09-05 / 1999-11-09 / 2002-04-09). This does not change the § 102(b) critical date materially.
5. The report does not constitute a validity opinion. A definitive § 102/§ 103 analysis requires full-text review of each reference and, for the NPL brochure, confirmation of its public-distribution date.

If you'd like, I can now (a) pull full text of the remaining unreviewed references (#1–#43) to complete the element-by-element § 102 mapping, or (b) convert Section C into a formal claim-chart against claims 1, 5, and 6.

I'll analyze obviousness under § 103 using the prior art cited on the patent's face (the "Prior Art"/Citations section). Let me first pull details on the key references so the combinations are grounded in what each reference actually discloses.

Let me pull details on the remaining key references — the Dutch '296 application, the Tandy order/delivery patent, and the Oki/Mitsubishi data-update references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 6,367,694 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Patent: US 6,367,694 B1 — "Device and method for secure data updates in a self-checkout system"
Inventor: Thomas Roslak | Assignee of record: Symbol Technologies LLC | Effective filing/priority date: 1996-09-05 | Grant: 2002-04-09 | Status: Expired – Lifetime (2016-09-05)

Scope note / how this builds on the prior sections. The earlier sections established the claim architecture (3 independent claims — 1, 5, 6 — plus dependents 2, 3, 4), the specification's heavy emphasis on security features (terminal locking, "non-authorized data storage bank," account-clear field, unauthorized-return signal), and the notable mismatch between that disclosure and the issued claims (which are drafted around automated payment/EFT authorization). That mismatch is the central fact driving this § 103 analysis: the security disclosure is largely unclaimed, so it cannot supply patentability to the claims as written. Below I map only what the claims actually recite.

ID discipline. All identifiers are reproduced literally as they appear in the patent's Citations/Prior-Art section. I do not auto-correct. Where a cited document is not available as prior art against the 1996-09-05 critical date, I flag it explicitly rather than silently dropping it.

---

1. Governing framework and the person of ordinary skill (POSITA)

Effective critical date: 1996-09-05. Every reference must qualify under pre-AIA § 102(a)/(b)/(e) as of that date (this patent's prosecution spanned the pre-AIA regime; the claims were filed 1999-11-09 but claim priority to 1996-09-05 through the 08/706,579 → 09/153,832 → 09/436,170 continuation chain identified in the patent's Related Applications section).

POSITA definition (proposed). A person having ordinary skill in the art as of September 1996 would have: (a) a bachelor's degree in electrical/computer engineering or equivalent, and (b) 2–4 years' experience in retail point-of-sale (POS), self-scanning, or portable data-collection terminal design, including familiarity with bar-code scanning, in-store RF/wired data networks, host/central-computer transaction processing, and magnetic-stripe card payment verification. This is a predictable, mature, engineering-driven art — bar-code self-scanning systems and EFT/credit-verification were both commercially deployed before 1996 (the patent itself admits self-checkout systems were "previously described and implemented").

Graham factors applied: scope/content of the prior art; differences between prior art and claims; level of ordinary skill; secondary considerations (none of record — see § 9).

---

2. Availability screen of the cited art

Because the task directs use of the prior-art section, I first separate qualifying art from citations that post-date the critical date:

Result: a deep, densely populated pre-1996 art field. This is the strongest structural fact favoring obviousness — every element of every claim is taught somewhere in a single technology neighborhood (retail self-scanning + portable POS + card-based EFT).

---

3. Independent Claim 1 — System

Element map and where each is taught:

Primary combination: Gogulski (US 4,071,740) in view of Telxon (US 5,334,821), further in view of Oki (US 5,535,407).

• Gogulski supplies elements (a)–(c) essentially in full: a self-service system in which a shopper scans UPC data with a hand-held scanner, the identification is transmitted to an in-store central computer, the computer returns price/product information to the shopper's control panel, and the system maintains a running record.
• Telxon supplies (d) in substance: it is a portable, host-connected POS terminal expressly described as providing "the usual point of sale functions," including a magnetic-stripe card reader for a customer credit card and verification "by electronically accessing an appropriate database over a telephone line," with a signature-capture screen and a printer for the receipt — i.e., collection of the customer's preferred payment method, a payment request to an external authorizing system, receipt of the authorization, and recording of the transaction.
• Oki supplies the customer-file bookkeeping subtleties of (a)/(c) — a system "for locally updating customer data distributed by a host computer to a remote facility and for returning the updated customer data to the host computer."

Motivation to combine (why a POSITA would do it):

1. Express teaching/suggestion. Telxon itself states the premise of conventional POS practice: "magnetic readers for reading the data recorded on the customers' credit cards. The customers' credit is then verified by electronically accessing an appropriate database over a telephone line." A POSITA integrating self-checkout would know that the actual business of a store is collecting payment, and Telxon hands over the mechanism.
2. Same problem, same field. Both Gogulski and Telxon target the single problem the '694 specification admits it addresses — eliminate/compress the checkout process. Gogulski's stated aim is to "eliminate the check-out procedure"; Telxon's is to make the payment terminal ambulatory. Combining a self-scanning purchase-capture path with an on-location payment path is the natural, predictable union of two complementary halves of one transaction.
3. Design incentive / predictable results. Adding a card reader + host authorization to a purchase-capture terminal requires no new technology — it is a straightforward aggregation of known components with mutually compatible functions (KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007): combination of known elements with known functions yielding predictable results).
4. Reasonable expectation of success. Both Telxon's and Base 10's card/PIN host-authorization flows were commercially mature in 1996 (ATMs, POS credit verification).

Alternative primary combination (equally viable): Oosterveen US 5,468,942 + NL 9002296 A (dispenser, customer ID card, computer 32, scanner-memory readout) in view of Telxon US 5,334,821 (payment) — for elements (a)–(c), with the same (d) reasoning.

---

4. Independent Claim 5 — Method (entrance head / multiple-terminal dispenser / assignment / indicator)

Claim 5 is the most exposed claim. Its steps track the admitted prior art and Oosterveen almost element-for-element:

Primary combination: Oosterveen (US 5,468,942) + NL 9002296 A, in view of Telxon (US 5,334,821) or Base 10 (US 5,354,974) for step (g).

Motivation: Oosterveen expressly frames the invention as promoting "smooth processing of the stream of customers" in a supermarket self-scanning layout and expressly situates the dispenser as a partition between the lobby and the sales area, with a "settlement device, for instance a checkout" and computer 32. Adding electronic payment at settlement is the very purpose of the surrounding system — NL 9002296 A already adds the customer-ID/spot-check reliability layer to the same scanner loop. To complete the transaction, the POSITA would look to the payment terminal art (Telxon/Base 10) whose whole point is card-based, host-authorized payment. Expected result: straight aggregation, predictable.

Secondary corroboration (not in the '694 citation list, flagged for transparency): the same assignee's later Dutch application (Heijn, NL 9400743 A; published as EP 0 681 273 A1, 1995-11-08) expressly discloses a "shop device for purchasing and electronically paying for articles in a self-service shop without the intervention of shop staff," with an identification device 26 for a payment card, a PIN keypad 32, a scanner readout station 14, and computer 16 storing client identity against the scanner code. I flag it as supplementary only — it is not one of the references listed in the '694 citation section, and I do not rely on it as the primary reference. It does, however, show that the exact claim-5(g) concept was in the air in this family's own field by 1995.

---

5. Independent Claim 6 — Method (bar-code terminal → transaction terminal → account → payment request)

Combination: (Gogulski US 4,071,740 or Oosterveen US 5,468,942) + Telxon US 5,334,821 + Base 10 US 5,354,974 + Mitsubishi US 5,637,847.

Motivation: Telxon is again the linchpin — it discloses two independent RF data links, one to a remote bar-code scanner and one to a host computer, which is literally the claim's "transmit data representative of the bar code from the terminal to a transaction terminal" architecture. Once the scanner-to-transaction-terminal link exists (Telxon) and the account association exists (Oki/Gogulski), "generating a purchase request" and "completing an electronic payment request" are nothing more than the ordinary, expected outputs of a POS terminal whose express purpose is payment. No new structure or step is required. KSR: predictable combination of known elements.

---

6. Dependent claims 2, 3, 4

---

7. Synthesis of motivations (KSR-aligned)

The Federal Circuit and Supreme Court require an articulated reason to combine. For every combination above, at least one of the following applies:

1. Express teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the references. Telxon literally describes the conventional practice of reading a customer credit card and verifying credit against a remote database over a telephone line — an express instruction to add card-based payment to a retail terminal. Oosterveen expressly describes clearing a specific scanner to a customer and using a settlement/checkout device.
2. Same field of endeavor / analogous art. All primary references are retail self-scanning, portable POS, or EFT/ATM transaction systems. No non-analogous-art defense is available.
3. Addressing the same problem the patent admits. The '694 Background admits self-checkout systems "have been previously described and implemented" and identifies the checkout/payment step as the burden to be removed. The claimed solution is the same problem solved by the same-field references.
4. Predictable aggregation of known components. Each added element (mag-card reader, host authorization, customer file, bar-code scan) performs exactly its known function; the result is the predictable sum of the parts. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
5. Market/design pressure. Merchants had a well-documented incentive to shorten checkout lines and reduce labor — the stated purpose of both Gogulski and Oosterveen.

---

8. Where the obviousness case is strongest and weakest

Strongest (near-anticipation-level obviousness):

• Claim 5 — nearly every step is co-located in US 5,468,942 + NL 9002296 A, with only automated EFT (step g) requiring a second reference that expressly suggests itself (Telxon/Base 10). One could fairly argue claim 5 was obvious over Oosterveen + NL 9002296 alone if the "settlement device" is read broadly, but I will not overstate: step (g)'s explicit "authorization from an electronic funds transfer system" is best supported by adding a payment reference.
• Dependent claims 2, 3, 4 — each is a single, conventional design choice fully taught by one reference (claim 3 in particular by Telxon).

Weakest (but still vulnerable):

• Claim 1(d) — the "EFS/EFT system" and "authorization code" language is the only genuinely narrow hook. If the Patent Owner argued that pre-1996 self-checkout art did not specifically contemplate EFT authorization codes returned to the merchant system, that could be a (thin) non-obviousness argument. But Telxon ("credit… verified by electronically accessing an appropriate database over a telephone line") and Base 10 (card + PIN → host authorization) defeat it as a practical matter.

Structural point favoring challengers: the unclaimed disclosure. The patent's most distinctive subject matter — the dispenser locking mechanism 44/electromagnet 43, the "non-authorized data storage bank," the unauthorized-return signal, the "account clear" field 175, the PIN re-entry gate before updating — appears nowhere in claims 1, 5, or 6. Under § 103 the claims are measured as written; unclaimed features cannot rescue them. This is consistent with the observation in the earlier "Patent summary" section that the claims were drafted around EFT rather than the specification's security emphasis.

---

9. Secondary considerations (objective indicia)

None of record. The prior sections established:

• No litigation or NPE campaign on this number;
• No PTAB/IPR/CBM identified;
• Assignments show only the original corporate chain (Symbol → Symbol Technologies LLC → security interests), no transfer to a non-practicing entity.

This absence is, at most, weak non-obviousness-neutral evidence — I would not characterize it as supporting patentability, and a challenger could argue the patent simply expired (2016) before assertion became attractive. No nexus-bearing secondary evidence (unexpected results, industry praise, licensing due to the merits, copying) was found, and I did not fabricate any.

---

10. Important caveats and boundaries of this analysis

1. This is a § 103 analysis only. I do not opine on § 101 (the earlier Litigation section raised Alice/Mayo concerns; that is a separate ground and I do not fold it into this § 103 conclusion).
2. Two cited items are not prior art against the 1996-09-05 date: US 5,803,807 A (priority 1996-09-12) and JP 2001125965 A (1999-10-26). I excluded them rather than relying on them.
3. Reference-content grounding. For Oosterveen (5,468,942), Gogulski (4,071,740), Telxon (5,334,821), and Base 10 (5,354,974) I located and read substantive description text (via Google Patents / patentimages / uspto.report) and cite their specific structures above. For several others — US 5,637,847 (Mitsubishi), US 5,535,407 (Oki), US 5,434,394 (Tandy), US 5,481,973 (Khyber) — I am relying on the titles and the patent's own citation classifications rather than fully verified column/line quotations. I flag these as title-level support rather than fabricating specific passages. Before any formal invalidity contention is filed, each of those should be read in full and pin-cited.
4. Literal-ID discipline preserved. The Dutch reference is the '296 Application / NL 9002296 A = NL 191499 C; the Oosterveen patent is US 5,468,942 (not "5,468,492"); the Telxon terminal is US 5,334,821. I have not altered any of these.
5. No 2026 CAFC/docket activity was found in the prior sections for this number, and nothing in this analysis depends on litigation posture.

---

11. Bottom line

Every element of independent claims 1, 5, and 6 — and all of dependent claims 2, 3, and 4 — is disclosed in the pre-1996 prior art cited on the face of the patent, across the single, densely populated field of retail self-scanning and card-based EFT. The most natural and best-supported combinations are:

• Claim 1: Gogulski (US 4,071,740) + Telxon (US 5,334,821) + Oki (US 5,535,407) — or Oosterveen (US 5,468,942) + NL 9002296 A + Telxon.
• Claim 5: Oosterveen (US 5,468,942) + NL 9002296 A + Telxon (US 5,334,821) / Base 10 (US 5,354,974).
• Claim 6: Gogulski/Oosterveen + Telxon (US 5,334,821) + Base 10 (US 5,354,974) + Mitsubishi (US 5,637,847).
• Claims 2–4: Base 10 / Telxon alone, respectively; Gogulski/Oosterveen/Dumont for the bar-code reader.

In each case an articulated motivation exists (express suggestion in Telxon; same field; same problem; predictable aggregation of known elements with known functions under KSR), and the disclosure's distinctive security subject matter is unclaimed and therefore cannot cure the claims' obviousness. Confidence: high on the overall picture and on claim 5/dependents 2–4; moderate on the exact pin-citation strength of the Oki/Tandy/Mitsubishi/Khyber references, which I identified by title and classification rather than by verified passage.