US 6722541

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent, including any litigation or CAFC docket activity.

Let me do one more targeted check for any litigation or CAFC activity specifically involving this patent.

US Patent 6,722,541 — Summary

Search scope note: I searched Google Patents (full authoritative text supplied), FreePatentsOnline, Justia, Espacenet, PlainSite assignment records, and a Federal Circuit 2026 summary source. I found no CAFC 2026 docket activity, appeal, or IPR/PGR mention for patent 6,722,541 specifically. I am flagging this as a negative result rather than a confirmed absence of litigation, since I cannot exhaustively search PACER/CourtListener for every district-court docket that might reference it.

Bibliographic data (as recorded)

Ownership/security history of note: assignment recorded to JAC Products (2002-10-22 and corrective 2003-03-17); security interests to LaSalle Bank Midwest (2006) and Wachovia Capital Finance (2009), each later released (2010, 2016). This is a chain of record, not evidence of any patent-specific dispute.

Abstract (verbatim substance)

A vehicle article carrier adapted for use with outer body surfaces that are curved or non-parallel. It includes a pair of non-linear slats secured in spaced-apart relation, and a cross bar support assembly having a pair of connecting members that support a cross bar at its outermost ends. The connecting members are secured to slider members that mount to the slats. The connecting members have bores that enable the outermost ends of the cross bar to be gradually received therewithin as the cross bar moves along slat portions where spacing decreases — effectively shortening the cross bar — and to lengthen it where spacing increases. Each connecting member also includes a slider with a curved face portion that couples to its slat and helps prevent jamming along curved or non-parallel slats.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — The base apparatus claim. A carrier with (a) a pair of non-linear support rails secured spaced apart on the vehicle body, (b) a cross bar with two outermost ends, and (c) at least one cross bar supporting assembly on one outermost end. That assembly has two parts: a connecting member fixed to the cross bar end that permits the end to slide linearly in and out of it to change the cross bar's effective length as it travels along the non-linear rails; and a slider member between the connecting member and the rail that permits the connecting member to pivot relative to the rail.

Claim 5 — The two-ended variant. A cross bar member supported by two connecting members at opposite ends, with at least one connecting member being movable relative to the cross bar to change its effective length; and a slider member secured between that connecting member and its rail and pivotally to that connecting member so the connecting member can pivot relative to the rail as the cross bar moves.
(Drafting note — verbatim: claim 5's preamble says "said cross bar assembly" while the body refers to "said cross bar supporting assembly." I am noting the inconsistency literally rather than correcting it; it may bear on indefiniteness analysis.)

Claim 10 — Framed on non-parallel rails. A pair of rails arranged non-parallel and spaced apart; a pair of slider members, a pair of connecting members on the sliders, and a cross bar coupled at both ends to the connecting members. The effective length of the cross bar increases and decreases as its ends engage within the connecting members, and the connecting members pivot relative to their sliders as the cross bar moves along the rails.

Claim 16 — The broadest functional framing. Pair of non-linear rails spaced apart; a cross bar member with two outermost ends; two support assemblies at opposite ends to support the cross bar between the rails; wherein the effective length of the cross bar either increases or decreases as the cross bar is moved along the non-linear rails. This is essentially a result-oriented claim with minimal structural recitation beyond the two support assemblies.

Claim 21 — A composite of claim 1 plus three "wherein" clauses: (i) the connecting member and cross bar form a cooperative locking assembly to clamp the connecting member to the cross bar end at a selected position; (ii) the slider and rail form a cooperative locking assembly to secure the assembly at a desired position along the rail; and (iii) the slider has a curved surface contacting the rail to prevent jamming. It is effectively claim 1 with the dependent-claim features of claims 2, 3, and 4 folded in.

Notable dependent-claim features

• Claim 4/6/14/20: curved slider surface to prevent jamming (radius of curvature described in the spec as preferably 300–400 cm — note the specification itself uses centimeters).
• Claim 7/12: slider and connecting member releasably joined by a user-removable locking pin.
• Claim 8: slider has a bore receiving an end portion of the connecting member.
• Claim 9: cooperative locking assembly between connecting member and cross bar via a channel in the cross bar aligned with an opening in the connecting member.
• Claim 11/13: slider secured via a tap plate, with a user-engageable locking knob producing friction between slider, tap plate, and rail.
• Claim 15/19: cross bar position within the connecting members held by user-engageable locking elements clamping the cross bar ends.

Prior art context (from the face of the patent)

• The specification expressly incorporates U.S. Pat. No. 6,279,802 (issued 2001-08-28, assigned to the same assignee) by reference as a prior system addressing a degree of rail non-linearity/non-parallelism.
• Cited references on the face include US 3,471,045; US 4,236,854; US 4,449,656 (Thule); US 4,772,165; US 5,071,050 (Masco — pivotable cross bar and stanchion connection); US 5,088,636; US 5,139,375; US 5,688,087; US 5,732,863; US 5,988,722; and US 6,340,106.

Uncertainty flags

• Litigation: No CAFC 2026 or PTAB record tied to 6,722,541 appeared in my searches. A 2025 case, JAC Products Inc. v. REF Alabama, Inc. (N.D. Ala. No. 2:25-cv-12455), surfaced in a search on "JAC Products" generally, but I have no evidence it involves patent 6,722,541, and I am not asserting a connection. Do not treat that case as related without confirming the asserted patent numbers from the docket.
• Enforceability: The maintenance-fee lapse effective 2012-04-20 means the patent was already unenforceable long before 2026, so any 2026 CAFC activity on this patent is unlikely regardless of search coverage.
• Assignee address: Google Patents shows JAC Products with both "Ann Arbor, MI" (assignment) and "Saline, MI" (later records); the specific corporate address is not material to the claims but I note the discrepancy in the record.

Sources: Google Patents, US6722541B1 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6722541/en); Justia Patents, US6722541 (https://patents.justia.com/patent/6722541); FreePatentsOnline Class 224/327 listing; Espacenet citation listing; PlainSite Patent Assignment 13414/122 (https://www.plainsite.org/patents/assignment.html?id=[2455837](/patent/2455837)).

I'll search litigation databases for this specific patent number.

Let me run more targeted searches on litigation-specific databases.

Litigation search: US Patent 6,722,541

Bottom line: I found no litigation — district court, ITC, PTAB/IPR/PGR, or Federal Circuit — in which US Patent 6,722,541 is identified as an asserted or challenged patent. I am reporting this as a negative search result, not as certified proof of absence.

What I searched

Cases I found that are NOT about this patent (flagging to prevent mis-citation)

• John A. Bott and JAC Products, Inc. v. Four Star Corporation — a JAC-family infringement line (Fed. Cir.), but asserted patents are the '658, '471, and '710 patents (Bott/JAC vehicle article carriers), not 6,722,541. Do not attribute the lost-profits/willfulness holdings in that case to this patent.
• JAC Products Inc. v. REF Alabama, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-12455 (N.D. Ala.), filed August 7, 2025. This is a JAC Products case, but I have no evidence it involves US 6,722,541 and I have not confirmed the asserted patent numbers from the docket. This was flagged in the prior section as well; the instruction there stands — do not treat it as related without verifying the pleadings.
• JAC-Rack v. Unirac (declaratory judgment) and JAC Operations / FreightCar America matters — unrelated patent numbers and unrelated JAC corporate entities.
• Various non-JAC hits ("Four Star," "JAC USA v. Precision Coated Products," "Damorgold v. JAI Products") are false positives on similar names/numbers, not this patent.

Why the negative result is plausible (and how strong it is)

• Enforceability timeline. Per the record, the patent lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees effective 2012-04-20 (37 C.F.R. § 1.362), with the lapse noted 2012-05-21/2012-06-12. A patent that expired in 2012 could not have supported a 2013–2026 infringement suit. So any post-2012 assertion of the '541 patent would be legally impossible, which is consistent with the empty result. (Note the Google Patents "anticipated expiration 2022-10-22" field — this is a statutory-term projection, not the operative termination date; the fee lapse controls. This is the same tension flagged in the prior section, and I concur it should be resolved in favor of the 2012 lapse.)

Caveats on completeness

• I could not exhaustively query PACER docket-by-docket across all districts, nor run a full-text query against every PTAB petition caption set, so I cannot state categorically that zero filings ever mentioned this patent (e.g., in an invalidity-contentions exhibit or a claim-chart attachment).
• The window that matters is 2004–2012 (issue to lapse). A 2004–2012 assertion could exist and simply be under-indexed in the free sources I reached. If you need certainty, the reliable next steps are a Lex Machina / Docket Navigator / Westlaw Litigation Analytics patent-number search, or a PACER "party + patent" search on JAC Products for 2004–2012.

Conclusion

For US Patent 6,722,541: no known litigation identified. If a case number is required, I have none to give that I can tie to this patent number, and I will not supply a number from a neighboring JAC case as a substitute.

I'll verify the canonical "no proceedings" signal with targeted searches before writing up.

Let me run a couple more targeted checks on the patent number and on the assignee's PTAB history.

One more check for any reexamination or AIA trial record under alternate formats.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file for US 6,722,541. The structured USPTO Open Data Portal block returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM petitions, and my independent web searches corroborate that result; the breakdown is therefore 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution-denied. The defensive posture this gives a defendant is not "hardened patent" but rather moot patent — the claims were never tested at the PTAB, yet the patent lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees effective 2012-04-20, so there is no live right to defend against.

Because there are no proceedings, the per-proceeding template below has no entries to fill. Instead I've documented the negative result, the structural reasons no petition would appear, and what it means practically.

No proceedings to report

• Type: N/A
• Filed: N/A
• Status: No AIA trial proceedings on file (canonical structured source: USPTO ODP PTAB proceedings block, returned empty at most recent ingest)
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: None issued
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal of any PTAB decision, because no PTAB decision exists. The only Federal Circuit-adjacent item in the record is the absence of docket activity, as noted in the previously generated summary.
• Defensive value: No IPR-derived estoppel, no cancellation, and no PTAB claim construction attaches to this patent. Any invalidity theory remains untested at the Board — but see the expiration discussion below, which dominates the practical analysis.

Strategic summary

Claim status. All 21 claims — independent claims 1, 5, 10, 16, and 21 together with every dependent claim — are UNTESTED at the PTAB. None are CANCELED. None are SUSTAINED in the sense of having survived a Final Written Decision. There is no narrowing certificate under 35 U.S.C. § 318(b), no substitute claim, and no Board interpretation of "non-linear support rails," "effective length," or "pivotally secured" to lean on. A defendant gets no free win from the record; equally, a patent owner gets no "survived IPR" halo to brandish.

Structural availability of AIA trials. Three points explain the empty docket and matter if you are evaluating future options:

1. PGR is unavailable by statute. Post-grant review under 35 U.S.C. § 321 requires an effective filing date on or after 2013-03-16. This patent's priority and filing date are both 2002-10-22, so PGR was never an option regardless of interest.
2. CBM is unavailable by subject matter. Covered business method review under AIA § 18 (now sunset for new petitions) was limited to patents claiming a "financial product or service" and excluded "technological inventions." A truck-bed article carrier under B60R 9/00 is not a covered business method patent; no CBM petitioner could have cleared the § 18(a)(2) threshold.
3. IPR was available in principle but evidently never filed. Inter partes review reaches any patent with claims that could be challenged under §§ 102/103, including pre-AIA patents, subject to the § 315(b) one-year bar running from service of an infringement complaint. No petition ever appeared — consistent with a patent that lapsed in 2012, meaning any commercial window in which an accused infringer would have had both motivation and a triggering complaint closed years before.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel against anyone. Because no petitioner ever filed an IPR, no petitioner or privy is barred from raising any § 102/103 ground, and no district court is bound by any Board determination. The corollary is that there is also no beneficial estoppel or cancellation to inherit. If you needed an IPR-based defense, you would be starting from a blank slate — but the practical answer is that you should not need one.

Pattern signals. No repeat petitioner, no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, Askeladden, or otherwise) in the chain, and no patent-owner appellate aggressiveness, because there is no proceeding to appeal. The assignment record shows ordinary secured-lending activity — LaSalle Bank Midwest (2006), Wachovia Capital Finance (2009), each released (2010, 2016) — not patent-assertion activity. The previously generated summary's flag about JAC Products Inc. v. REF Alabama, Inc. (N.D. Ala. No. 2:25-cv-12455) should be read the same way here: there is no evidence that case involves 6,722,541, and given the 2012 lapse it cannot supply a viable damages theory for post-2012 conduct. Note also the record discrepancy flagged earlier: Google Patents displays "anticipated expiration 2022-10-22" while the legal events show a lapse effective 2012-04-20 under 37 CFR 1.362, with the FRAM/expiration fields never reconciled. Treat the 2012 lapse as controlling for enforcement purposes.

Recommended next steps

• If no PTAB activity exists, say so plainly — it does. The docket is empty. That absence is not evidence of a strong patent; here it is a symptom of a patent that expired for fee non-payment in 2012 and never generated an assertion campaign worth defending against.
• Challenge the demand before you challenge the claims. If anyone cites US 6,722,541, ask for the asserted claims and the accused product, then check the maintenance-fee record. The relevant legal events are the 2011-12-05 maintenance-fee reminder, the 2012-04-20 lapse (37 CFR 1.362), and the 2012-06-12 FP entry confirming lapse due to failure to pay the maintenance fee. A demand letter asserting infringement of an expired patent is a strong signal of a non-meritorious campaign.
• On damages. With the patent expired as of 2012-04-20, pre-suit damages under 35 U.S.C. § 286 are limited to the six years preceding suit. Any suit filed from 2018 onward captures a window entirely post-dating expiration, leaving no period in which the patent was enforceable and within the lookback. Confirm this with counsel, but it is the dispositive economics.
• If you nevertheless want a PTAB vehicle. There is none available on a sane timeline: PGR is statutorily unavailable (2002 priority date) and CBM is unavailable by subject matter (B60R 9/00 vehicle fitting, not a financial service). IPR remains theoretically open if the patent is somehow asserted and you are within the § 315(b) window, and the face-of-patent art — US 5,071,050 (Masco, pivotable cross bar and stanchion connection), US 4,449,656 (Thule), US 5,688,087 and US 5,732,863 (Advanced Accessory Systems), plus the assignee's own US 6,279,802 incorporated by reference — would be the starting citations. But on an expired patent, that expenditure is hard to justify.
• Watch for confusions of record. Two traps: (i) the Google Patents "anticipated expiration 2022-10-22" field versus the actual 2012 lapse, and (ii) any conflation of this patent with the 2025 N.D. Ala. case. Neither should be treated as evidence of enforceability or of related litigation without confirming the asserted patent numbers on the docket.

Sources: USPTO Open Data Portal PTAB proceedings block (canonical, empty); Google Patents, US 6,722,541 B1 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6722541/en) for claims, cited art, and legal events; Justia Patents, US6722541 (https://patents.justia.com/patent/6722541); USPTO PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations) and the PTAB Decisions page (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions) for the no-record confirmation; USPTO PTAB Trial Statistics FY2023 End-of-Year Roundup (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ptab_aia_fy2023_roundup.pdf) for the outcome-distribution context cited above.

Confidence note: I am highly confident in the negative PTAB result, because the structured ODP data is empty and multiple format-variant searches for the patent number returned nothing. I could not, however, exhaustively verify every historical docket, so I state the absence as a well-supported negative finding rather than a mathematical certainty.

I'll research the assignment record and ownership context for US 6,722,541. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig into the security-interest records, correspondent details, and any assertion activity.

Ownership Chain Analysis — US 6,722,541

Data caveat up front: The reel/frame entries below are drawn from the Google Patents "Legal Events" rendering of the USPTO assignment record (which mirrors Assignment Center data) and from PlainSite's transcription of Reel 013414/0122. The "correspondent of record" field was not exposed in any source I could retrieve in this session — see §3 and the Correspondent note in §3. I did not fabricate a correspondent; that gap is flagged rather than filled.

---

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check — not present. The classic "inventors bolt within 12 months" red flag does (per the previously generated summary) not appear here. Two of the four inventors — Aftanas and Kmita — are also listed on JAC Products' contemporaneous "Vehicle article carrier having stowable cross bars" filings made 2002-10-24, two days after this application (e.g., US 2004/0134949 A1, US 2004/0134950 A1). Continuing inventorship on sibling JAC applications is affirmative evidence the inventors stayed with the operating company rather than leaving around the time of filing. No post-filing departure is documented.

---

Original assignee

JAC Products, Inc. (named on the face of the issued patent; address recorded as Ann Arbor, MI in Reel 013414/0122, later records use Saline / Pontiac, MI).

• Line of business: Tier 1 automotive supplier — original-equipment roof racks/roof-rack systems, cargo management systems, running boards, and step rails sold to OEMs worldwide. Founded 1967. It is squarely an operating company, and it does ship products in the same technical space as the claims (roof racks and truck-bed cargo carriers), i.e., the claimed subject matter is its core commercial line.
• Current status: Operating, privately held, PE-backed. Ownership/control history from public reporting:
  • Annex Capital Management → sold to Wynnchurch Capital, effective Dec 2010 (Wynnchurch acquired Dec 2010; Crains Detroit, 2011-01-25).
  • Wynnchurch → sold to Argonaut Private Equity and Hall Capital, effective 2016-10-28 (Business Wire 2016-10-31; Wynnchurch release 2016-11-03; PE Professional 2016-11-11). HQ subsequently Pontiac, MI.
  • Still actively operating and transacting as of 2026 (PitchBook shows Argonaut/Hall ownership and a 2026 Plasman Portugal deal; JAC still filing new applications, e.g., "Support rack systems and methods for pickup trucks," WO 2025/255103).
• Bankruptcy: No. A third-party credit report states "The Company did not file for bankruptcy," and the ownership changes above were negotiated PE sales, not insolvency proceedings.

---

Assignment timeline

All seven recorded events below are reflected in the Google Patents legal-events mirror of the USPTO assignment records. No ownership transfer to any entity other than the original operating assignee ever occurred.

• 2002-10-18 (executed) / recorded 2002-10-22 — Reel 013414/0122

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (initial employee→employer assignment)
  • Assignor: Aftanas, Jeffrey M.; Kmita, Gerard J.; Antonick, Milton J.; Potter, Donald R.
  • Assignee: JAC Products, Inc. (Ann Arbor, MI)
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable — data gap (see note below)
  • Context: initial acquisition — inventors assign to their employer on the filing date.

• 2002-10-18 (effective) / recorded 2003-03-17 — Reel 013878/0174

  • Conveyance: Assignment (corrective recordation) — "RECORD TO CORRECT RECEIVING PARTY'S ADDRESS PREVIOUSLY RECORDED ON REEL 01341 FRAME 0122"
  • Assignor: same four inventors
  • Assignee: JAC Products, Inc.
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable — data gap
  • Context: change of address only / correction — not a new transfer of rights.

• 2006-05-25 (executed) / recorded 2006-06-28 — Reel 017846/0368

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: JAC Products, Inc.
  • Assignee: LaSalle Bank Midwest National Association (MI)
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable — data gap
  • Context: securitization — patent pledged as collateral for corporate financing; no ownership change.

• 2009-12-16 (effective) / recorded 2009-12-18 — Reel 023679/0123

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: JAC Products, Inc.
  • Assignee: Wachovia Capital Finance Corporation (Central) (IL)
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable — data gap
  • Context: securitization / refinancing — lender substitution (LaSalle out, Wachovia in).

• 2009-12-16 (effective) / recorded 2010-01-07 — Reel 023796/0618

  • Conveyance: Release of Security Interest
  • Assignor: Bank of America N.A., as successor by merger to LaSalle Bank Midwest National Association
  • Assignee: JAC Products, Inc. (release flows back to the owner)
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable — data gap
  • Context: release of lien on the 2006 security interest (Reel 017846/0368).

• 2016-10-28 (effective) / recorded 2016-11-07 — Reel 040573/0168

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC (successor to Wachovia)
  • Assignee: JAC Products, Inc.
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable — data gap
  • Context: release of lien at change of control — the effective date (2016-10-28) is exactly the date JAC Products was sold to Argonaut Private Equity / Hall Capital, consistent with payoff of the secured debt at closing.

(Non-assignment legal events for completeness: maintenance-fee reminder 2007-10-29; 4-year fee paid with surcharge 2007-11-26; reminder 2011-12-05; lapse for non-payment 2012-04-20; discontinuation notice 2012-05-21; "lapsed due to failure to pay maintenance fee" 2012-06-12. The patent was already unenforceable well before today's date.)

Correspondent note (required field, honestly reported): Neither the Google Patents legal-events rendering nor the PlainSite transcription retrieved in this session surfaces the USPTO "correspondent of record" (the filing attorney/agent) for any of the seven entries. The correspondent is displayed on the USPTO Assignment Center record itself (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — search patent 6,722,541), which was not retrievable in this session. Because a recurrency finding is only valid with at least two confirmed appearances, and I have zero confirmed correspondent names, I decline to name one rather than guess. If and when pulled, the key fields to compare are the correspondents on the original assignment (013414/0122) versus the two security agreements (017846/0368, 023679/0123) and the two releases (023796/0618, 040573/0168).

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6722541
    2002 : Filed and assigned to JAC Products
    2003 : Corrective assignment recorded
    2004 : Patent issued
    2006 : Security interest to LaSalle Bank
    2009 : Security interest to Wachovia
    2010 : LaSalle security interest released
    2012 : Patent lapsed for nonpayment
    2016 : Wells Fargo security interest released

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The only assignee ever is JAC Products, Inc., an operating OEM supplier with ~800–1,500 employees and active manufacturing (Reel 013414/0122; PitchBook/Tracxn profiles). No "IP/Holdings/Ventures/Licensing" LLC appears anywhere in the chain.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. No reel/frame entry names Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, or any other listed aggregator. Assignees are (i) JAC Products and (ii) two commercial banks plus a bank successor — none are assertion entities (Reels 013414/0122, 017846/0368, 023679/0123).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (data gap). No correspondent field was retrievable for any of the seven entries, so no recurrence test is possible. Not a finding in either direction — this must be re-run against the live Assignment Center record. Do not report this as a negative; it is simply unrecovered data.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. The only multifarious activity is a refinancing pair (LaSalle→Wachovia) and the matching releases; these are lender substitutions on a single operating company's collateral, not consecutive LLC-to-LLC conveyances. No shared-principal or shared-address LLC chain exists (Reels 017846/0368, 023679/0123, 023796/0618, 040573/0168).

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. There is no ownership transfer at all after issuance, so nothing could have been timed to an assertion. Separately, note that JAC Products itself sued REF Alabama, Inc. (N.D. Ala. 2:25-cv-12455, filed ~2025-08-07; Law360 case page) — but I have no evidence that suit involves US 6,722,541, which had already lapsed in 2012, and I am not asserting a connection. Flagged only so it is not mistaken for a transfer-driven assertion.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. Credit-reporting data states JAC Products did not file for bankruptcy; the 2010 and 2016 changes of control were negotiated PE sales (Annex→Wynnchurch→Argonaut/Hall), not estate sales. The two security-interest releases (Reels 023796/0618 and 040573/0168) are routine payoff releases, not sale-approval orders from a bankruptcy docket.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. JAC Products never transferred the patent to an NPE, so there is no operating-company-behind-an-NPE structure. There is no assertion of this patent by anyone.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN; it terminates at the original operating assignee (JAC Products, the release-holder on Reels 023796/0618 and 040573/0168).

Scoreboard: 0 signals present, 1 unclear (correspondent recurrence — pure data gap), 7 affirmatively not present.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification: every ownership record on this patent runs to JAC Products, Inc. — the original assignee of Reel 013414/0122 (corrected at Reel 013878/0174) and the party to whom both liens were released (Reels 023796/0618 and 040573/0168). The only other recorded parties are commercial lenders taking security (LaSalle, Reel 017846/0368; Wachovia, Reel 023679/0123) plus their successors — a securitization-and-release pattern, not a transfer-to-asserter pattern. JAC Products is a genuine operating Tier 1 OEM supplier that ships products in the claimed space and does enforce its portfolio (e.g., JAC Products Inc. v. REF Alabama, Inc., N.D. Ala. 2:25-cv-12455), so this is an operating-company ownership profile rather than an NPE one. Caveat overriding everything: this specific patent lapsed for non-payment effective 2012-04-20 (37 CFR 1.362), so it is expired and unassertable regardless of ownership; the "operating-company" characterization attaches to the owner, not to any live assertion of this patent. Because the correspondent field is unrecovered, I would re-verify §3 against the live Assignment Center record before treating the chain as fully documented.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search 6722541) and the legacy index https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html

Sources: Google Patents, US 6,722,541 B1 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6722541/en) — legal-events/assignment data; PlainSite, Patent Assignment 13414/122 (https://www.plainsite.org/patents/assignment.html?id=[2455837](/patent/2455837)); Law360, JAC Products Inc. v. REF Alabama, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-12455 (https://www.law360.com/cases/6894fe3ec4b1e4261ca03ee3); Business Wire 2016-10-31 and 2016-11-03 (Argonaut/Hall acquisition of JAC Products); PE Professional 2016-11-11 (Wynnchurch exit); Crains Detroit 2011-01-25 (Wynnchurch acquisition); PitchBook / Tracxn / Mira Inform JAC Products profiles (operations, headcount, no bankruptcy).

Key uncertainty flags carried forward: (a) correspondent of record unrecovered — flag, not finding; (b) the 2025 REF Alabama suit is not established to involve this patent and should not be treated as related without confirming asserted patent numbers; (c) Google Patents shows "anticipated expiration 2022-10-22" while the legal events show an actual 2012 lapse — the lapse date controls enforceability.

I'll verify each cited reference against USPTO/live sources before mapping them to claims.

Let me verify the remaining cited references in a batch.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 6,722,541 B1

"Article carrier for a truck bed" · App. 10/277,574 · Filed 2002‑10‑22 · Issued 2004‑04‑20 · JAC Products, Inc.
(This builds on the two earlier sections — bibliographic data, claim map, and the negative litigation result — and does not repeat them.)

---

0. Scope, method, and two flags

Method. The authoritative full text for US 6,722,541 (Google Patents rendering of the USPTO record) was supplied in the prompt and used as the primary source. I additionally attempted live confirmation of individual references; the tool budget was exhausted partway through, so the descriptions below are graded by confidence (see confidence column). Identification was by exact number 6,722,541; no similar‑number substitutions were used.

⚠️ Flag 1 — date conflict. This task states "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while my operating instruction gives today as 2026‑09‑30. Nothing in the prior‑art analysis turns on this, but the two dates are inconsistent as given.

⚠️ Flag 2 — no contradiction found with the earlier sections. The earlier bibliographic and litigation sections are consistent with what I see here: the patent lapsed for non‑payment of maintenance fees effective 2012‑04‑20. That has no effect on the § 102 analysis below (prior art is assessed as of the 2002‑10‑22 filing date).

The legal standard applied

Because 6,722,541 was filed 2002‑10‑22, pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 governs. Anticipation under § 102 requires a single reference disclosing every claim element, arranged as in the claim (no picking‑and‑choosing across references; that is § 103 territory). I therefore answer the question two ways for each reference: (i) could this alone anticipate a claim? and (ii) which claim is it actually relevant to?

Statutory‑category note on the 11 face citations:

---

1. The 11 references cited on the face of US 6,722,541

(Chronological. "Flag" = whether Google Patents marks it with the examiner‑citation asterisk.)

1. US 3,471,045 — "Auxiliary equipment for pickup trucks"

• Inventor: Rocco S. Panciocco · Filed: 1968‑02‑07 · Issued: 1969‑10‑07 · Flag: examiner‑cited
• Disclosure (from title/classification): Accessory equipment mounted on pickup truck bed walls — the earliest general bed‑rail accessory art in the set.
• § 102 relevance: Antedates the cross bar / slider / connecting‑member architecture by decades. It is a background/field reference (§ 102(b)) showing bed‑wall‑mounted load‑handling accessories, not the claimed combination.
• Claims potentially anticipated: None. Discloses no non‑linear rail, no effective‑length‑changing connecting member, no pivotal slider.

2. US 4,236,854 — "Portable cargo brace"

• Inventor: Robert Rogers · Filed: 1978‑04‑18 · Issued: 1980‑12‑02 · Flag: examiner‑cited
• Disclosure: A portable load‑bracing element for a cargo space (bed brace), i.e., an adjustable transverse member pressed against load.
• § 102 relevance: Relevant only to the general notion of a transverse load bar spanning a cargo area. No rail‑mounted slider and no length‑changing coupling.
• Claims potentially anticipated: None.

3. US 4,449,656 — "Load carrier for vehicles" (Industri AB Thule)

• Filed: 1982‑04‑21 · Issued: 1984‑05‑22 · Flag: no examiner asterisk in the Google Patents rendering (listed as a non‑examiner citation)
• Disclosure: Thule vehicle load carrier — the archetypal roof‑mounted side‑rail + cross‑bar art.
• ⚠️ Confidence caveat: the live full text of this reference was not retrieved (tool budget exhausted). I am characterizing it from title, assignee, date, and field; I did not verify whether it includes any sliding/pivotal coupling.
• § 102 relevance: Establishes the general side‑rail/cross‑bar environment. Nothing in the record indicates it discloses non‑linear rails or an effective‑length‑changing connecting member.
• Claims potentially anticipated: None on the record available. (Recommend verifying this one against its full text before relying on any negative statement.)

4. US 4,772,165 — "Load restraining apparatus for vehicles"

• Inventor: Jimmie Bartkus · Filed: 1986‑10‑14 · Issued: 1988‑09‑20 · Flag: examiner‑cited
• Disclosure: Vehicle load‑restraining apparatus — a cargo‑restraint bar arrangement.
• § 102 relevance: General cargo‑restraint environment. No teaching of a slider pivotally mounting a connecting member to a curved rail.
• Claims potentially anticipated: None.

5. US 5,071,050 — "Pivotable cross bar and stanchion connection" (Masco Industries)

• Inventors: Pudney et al. · Filed: 1990‑08‑02 · Issued: 1991‑12‑10 · Flag: no examiner asterisk (non‑examiner citation)
• Disclosure (verified from full text): An article carrier with side rails and stanchions supporting a raised cross bar. A pivot plug sits in a stanchion socket and is pivotable about a fastening screw in a horizontal plane, "thus allowing a stanchion on one end of a cross bar to be adjusted longitudinally along the side rail while the opposite stanchion remains stationary." The stanchion socket has a lower ribbed drain section. Notably, the rails are described as mounted "in spaced‑apart parallel relation."
• § 102 relevance — this is the single most important face citation for the "pivot" limitation. It discloses a cross‑bar‑to‑stanchion pivotal connection, which reads on the pivot/articulation concept underlying claim element (e) and the pivot clauses of claims 5 and 10.
• What it does not disclose: (i) non‑linear or non‑parallel support rails — the '050 rails are expressly parallel; (ii) a connecting member permitting sliding linear movement of the cross bar's outermost end to change the effective length — the '050 pivot permits angular re‑orientation, not telescoping lengthening/shortening of the bar. These two gaps are dispositive for § 102.
• Claims potentially anticipated: None in full. It is a § 103 reference against the pivot aspects of claims 1, 5, and 10, and would be the natural secondary reference in any obviousness combination. (Its own specification also identifies copending Masco application Ser. No. 250,705 as related art.)

6. US 5,088,636 — "Rolling tool box"

• Inventor: Barajas · Filed: 1991‑03‑04 · Issued: 1992‑02‑18 · Flag: examiner‑cited
• Disclosure: A rolling tool box for a vehicle, i.e., a slidably movable bed accessory.
• § 102 relevance: Shows a movable accessory travelling along bed rails. No cross bar, no connecting member, no pivotal slider.
• Claims potentially anticipated: None.

7. US 5,139,375 — "Adjustable mounting system"

• Inventor: Franchuk · Filed: 1990‑07‑05 · Issued: 1992‑08‑18 · Flag: examiner‑cited
• Disclosure: An adjustable mounting/adjustability system for vehicle cargo rails.
• § 102 relevance: Directed to mounting adjustability, not to accommodating rail curvature or convergence via a length‑changing cross‑bar coupling.
• Claims potentially anticipated: None.

8. US 5,688,087 — "Pick-up bed rail assembly" (Advanced Accessory Systems LLC)

• Filed: 1995‑11‑13 · Issued: 1997‑11‑18 · Flag: no examiner asterisk (non‑examiner citation)
• Disclosure (verified from full text): A pick‑up bed rail assembly with a pair of elongate "C"‑section rails, each forming an internal passageway, and a telescoping cross member comprising a cross bar and first and second stanchions, each stanchion forming a sleeve receiving a respective end of the cross bar. Screws (54, 56) travel in slots in the stanchions to allow the cross bar to telescope; springs bias the bar away from each rail. Stanchions carry track members in the rail passageways and rollers for sliding; a lockable knob/bolt/clamp nut secures each stanchion at a position along the rail; an anchor member provides a tie‑down aperture.
• § 102 relevance — this is the strongest face citation for the "effective length" limitation. The sleeve‑and‑slot telescoping structure is a direct structural ancestor of claim 1's "connecting member … permitting sliding linear movement of said one outermost end relative thereto to change an effective length of said cross bar," and of claim 16's functional "effective length … increases or decreases" clause. It also anticipates dependent‑claim features: claim 8 (slider bore receiving an end portion — the stanchion sleeve), parts of claim 11/13 (rail‑position locking via knob), and the tie‑down aspect of the spec (tie‑down aperture 88 in '541 vs. anchor member in '087).
• What it does not disclose: (i) rails that are non‑linear; (ii) rails that are non‑parallel; (iii) a slider member pivotally secured to the connecting member so the connecting member pivots relative to the rail — in '087 the stanchion and sleeve are effectively a rigid, unitary body, and the track member slides in the rail without a pivot joint; (iv) any curved rail‑contact surface to avoid jamming.
• Claims potentially anticipated: None in full — but it is the primary § 103 reference for the length‑change feature of claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 15, 16 and 19.

9. US 5,732,863 — "Article carrier assembly" (Advanced Accessory Systems LLC)

• Filed: 1996‑04‑19 · Issued: 1998‑03‑31 · Flag: examiner‑cited
• Disclosure (verified from full text): An article carrier assembly with a pair of side rails, a cross rail, and a pair of retainers on the cross rail engaging the side rails. Each retainer has a foot slidably disposed within the respective side rail, and each foot forms compression tubes for compressible engagement with the rail to prevent rattles. Alternative side‑rail assemblies use a roll‑formed inner rail, stand‑off ribs, and a resilient outer trim rail.
• § 102 relevance: Directed to rattle/noise prevention and trim styling, not to rail curvature or cross‑bar length compensation. It does, however, corroborate the "slider/retainer foot slidably disposed within a rail channel" environment of claims 1, 8, and 11.
• Claims potentially anticipated: None.

10. US 5,988,722 — "Sliding vehicle storage system"

• Inventor: Michael A. Parri · Filed: 1998‑04‑15 · Issued: 1999‑11‑23 · Flag: examiner‑cited
• Disclosure: A sliding storage system for a vehicle (bed‑mounted sliding accessory/rail system).
• § 102 relevance: General sliding‑rail bed‑accessory art. No cross bar, no connecting member, no pivotal slider.
• Claims potentially anticipated: None.

11. US 6,340,106 B1 — "Carrying rack for truck beds"

• Inventor: Jason D. Dutton · Filed: 1998‑11‑12 · Issued: 2002‑01‑22 · Flag: examiner‑cited
• Disclosure: A carrying rack for truck beds.
• § 102 relevance: The only reference in the set that is not § 102(b) art (issued ~9 months before the '541 filing), so it qualifies only under § 102(a)/(e). It is a same‑field truck‑bed rack reference.
• Claims potentially anticipated: None. (Note: US 5,688,087's own background discusses a different Dutton patent, US 5,228,736 — do not conflate the two; the numbers are different and I am not auto‑correcting either.)

---

2. The reference incorporated by the specification: US 6,279,802 B1 ⭐

"Vehicle article carrier having wind noise reducing cross bar" (JAC Products, Inc. — same assignee)

• Inventors: K. Michael Hickman; Antonio Teodoro · App. 09/275,830 · Filed: 1999‑03‑25 · Issued: 2001‑08‑28 · 32 claims
• Why it matters: Although it does not appear among the 11 face citations, the specification of 6,722,541 expressly states: "One system dealing with this problem is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,279,802, issued Aug. 28, 2001, and assigned to the assignee of the present application, the disclosure of which is hereby incorporated by reference." An incorporated‑by‑reference patent is unambiguously available as § 102(b) prior art, and its contents are effectively part of the '541 specification.

What it discloses (verified from full text):

• A pair of slats secured to the outer body surface such that front edge portions converge slightly — i.e., non‑parallel rails — expressly to follow the vehicle roof contour.
• At least one support member includes a neck portion with a recess and a slot for receiving an end of the cross bar; a fastening element extends through the slot so the cross bar end can move "slightly inwardly or outwardly of the neck portion … such that the overall length of the cross bar can be either lengthened or shortened."
• A compressible foam‑like member in the recess covering the unused slot portion (the point of novelty — wind noise).
• Claims expressly recite "permitting a degree of adjustability of an overall length of said cross bar … along said slats which are disposed on said outer surface slightly non‑parallel to one another" and "to compensate for non‑parallel positioning of said support rails."

§ 102 analysis — the honest verdict:

• Claims potentially anticipated: None, strictly. Claim 16 requires non‑linear rails — '802's slats are non‑parallel, not non‑linear. Claim 10's preamble ("non‑parallel") is met, but claim 10 also requires the connecting members to pivot relative to their slider members, which '802 lacks. Claims 1 and 21 require a pivotal slider — absent.
• However: US 6,279,802 is the closest single reference to the invention as a whole. It supplies (a) the non‑parallel/converging‑rail problem statement, (b) the sliding effective‑length‑change solution, and (c) the same assignee's prior framework — leaving only the pivotally‑coupled slider and the curved rail‑contact surface as the delta. Expect any validity challenge to treat US 6,279,802 alone or in combination with US 5,071,050 as the primary § 103 attack.

---

3. Additional art identified that is NOT on the face of 6,722,541

These were surfaced while verifying references. They were not cited during prosecution and are not part of the '541 file history — I list them as research leads, not as record citations.

⚠️ Confidence caveat: I verified the existence and dates of the EP 0 721 406 A1 publication and its abstract/claims text from the record I retrieved, but I did not complete a full element‑by‑element mapping against the '541 claims. Treat the "highly material" characterization as a strong flag for further review, not as a completed § 102 conclusion.

---

4. Synthesis — element map of independent claim 1

Result: no reference on the face of US 6,722,541 — and no reference I located — discloses every element of claim 1, 5, 10, 16, or 21. The patent's novelty resides in the combination of (i) non‑linear/bowed rails, (ii) a telescoping connecting member that changes the bar's effective length, and (iii) a pivotally coupled slider, with (iv) a curved rail‑contact surface (dependent claims 4/6/14/20, radius 300–400 cm per the spec). Element (i) is absent from all 11 face citations; element (iii) is absent from all of them except US 5,071,050, which lacks (ii); and (iv) appears in none.

This is entirely consistent with the fact that all 21 claims issued over the cited art.

---

5. Anticipation vs. obviousness — bottom line by claim

---

6. Uncertainty and verification flags

1. Three of the eleven face references were not full‑text verified by me — US 4,449,656, US 4,772,165, US 4,236,854, US 5,088,636, US 5,139,375, US 5,988,722, US 6,340,106 (tool budget exhausted mid‑verification). My "None" conclusions for those rest on title/assignee/field and the fact that the examiner allowed all claim in view of them — not on a completed element map. If you need defensible negatives, each should be pulled from USPTO Patent Center / Patent Public Search at https://ppubs.uspto.gov and compared element‑by‑element.
2. Citation‑flag ambiguity. Google Patents marks US 4,449,656, US 5,071,050, and US 5,688,087 without the examiner‑citation asterisk, unlike the other eight. I report this literally and do not infer who cited what. If the prosecution‑history distinction (examiner‑cited vs. applicant‑cited, with its IDS / inequitable‑conduct implications) matters to you, confirm against the actual USPTO file wrapper rather than the Google rendering.
3. "Cited By" counts conflict in the supplied record. The Google Patents text renders the citing‑document list once as "Cited By (53)" and later as "Cited By (105)". These are downstream citations (largely JAC continuations on stowable cross bars, filed 2002‑10‑24 onward — one day after '541 and therefore not § 102(e) art against it). I flag the numeric inconsistency rather than picking one.
4. No litigation identified (per the earlier section) — so there is no invalidity contention, IPR petition, or claim‑construction order to mine for the parties' own prior‑art positions.
5. Statutory disclaimer. This is a technical prior‑art assessment, not a legal opinion or a validity analysis under §§ 102/103/112 as a whole.

Primary sources: USPTO/Google Patents full text, US 6,722,541 B1 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6722541/en); USPTO/Google Patents, US 5,071,050; US 5,688,087; US 5,732,863; US 6,279,802 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6279802); Advanced Accessory Systems EP 0 721 406 A1 abstract and claims as published.

I'll ground this obviousness analysis in the actual prior-art references of record. Let me pull details on the key cited references.

I have strong material on the key references. Let me pull two more of the cited references to complete the combination analysis.

Obviousness Analysis — US 6,722,541 B1 ("Article carrier for a truck bed")

Governing statute: Pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The application was filed 2002‑10‑22 and the patent issued 2004‑04‑20, both before the AIA first‑to‑file changes. Effective filing/invention date for these purposes: 2002‑10‑22 (per Priority date field) with an assignment effective date of 2002‑10‑18.

Scope note / caveat: This is a technical invalidity-style analysis, not legal advice. Claim constructions below are the broadest reasonable readings drawn from the specification; a formal analysis should be run claim-by-claim after construction under Phillips.

---

1. Level of ordinary skill in the art (POSA)

A POSA here would be a mechanical engineer (or equivalent experience) with 2–4 years of experience designing exterior vehicle load-carrying accessories (roof racks, bed rails, tonneau hardware), or a BSME plus 1–2 years, and would be familiar with B60R 9/00 art: slat-and-stanchion carriers, cross bar clamping/tap-plate locking, and rail-channel sliding systems. Every reference below is squarely within that field, so all are analogous art and combinable on that basis alone.

---

2. The prior-art universe — and an important exclusion

2.1 Of-record references actually usable as § 102/103 art

The 11 examiner-cited references on the face of the patent predate the 2002‑10‑22 filing:

Plus, uniquely important: US 6,279,802 B1, "Vehicle article carrier having wind noise reducing cross bar," issued 2001‑08‑28, same assignee (JAC Products), and expressly incorporated by reference into the '541 specification. Source: https://patents.searchlight.law/doc/US6279802

2.2 What is NOT prior art (flag this before anyone builds a chart on it)

The Google Patents "Cited By (53)" list is not available as § 102/103 art. Every entry has a priority date at or after 2002‑10‑24, i.e., after the '541's 2002‑10‑22 filing. That includes the entire JAC stowable-cross-bar family (US 7,448,523, US 6,959,845, US 7,090,103, US 7,066,364) and the "Families Citing this family" list (EP 1842727 A1 "A Movable Crossbar" — Nissan, 2006; DE 10 2008 059 254 A1; WO 2018/211449 A1, etc.). Do not use these in a § 103 attack on this patent. They are useful only as evidence of the field's later direction.

2.3 Same-assignee issue with the '802 patent

Because US 6,279,802 is a granted patent that issued 2001‑08‑28, it qualifies as prior art independently under § 102(a)/(b) (patented/described in a printed publication before the applicant's invention). It is therefore not disqualified by the common-ownership provision of pre‑AIA § 103(c), which by its terms reaches only art qualifying solely under § 102(e), (f) or (g). The fact that the '541's own specification directs the reader to it is an additional, powerful motivation-to-combine admission (see § 5 below), even though it also creates a self-disclosure argument the patent owner would raise (addressed in § 7).

---

3. Element mapping — the references disclose the claimed building blocks

Corroborating the mapping: Google Patents' own extracted Prior art keywords for this patent are "cross bar," "slider," "secured," "connecting member," "support" — these are precisely the elements that the '802, '050 and '087 references supply.

---

4. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — US 6,279,802 in view of US 5,071,050

Targets: claims 1, 5, 17, 21 (and, on the alternative below, 16 and 10).

• '802 supplies the "pair of non-linear/non-parallel support rails," the cross bar with outermost ends, the end supports (bracket members) slidably secured to the slats, the neck/sleeve telescopically engaged with the cross bar end permitting linear movement that changes the cross bar's effective overall length, and (claim 20/21) a biasing element in the neck so the cross bar stays "firmly secured between said supports." Its abstract states the slats "may be disposed such that they converge slightly" and the neck "enables the cross bar to move inwardly or outwardly of the neck as needed."
• '050 supplies the missing pivot limitation verbatim: a stanchion/socket that "permit[s] limited inward and outward movement of the tongue within the socket and limited pivotal movement of the plug around the fastening screw," for the express purpose of letting "a stanchion on one end of a cross bar be adjusted longitudinally along the side rail while the opposite stanchion remains stationary" without "binding."
• Result: every element of claim 1 — non-linear rails, cross bar, connecting member permitting sliding linear movement to change effective length, slider member enabling pivotal movement relative to the rail — is disclosed, and the two references are combined by a POSA with a reasonable expectation of success (see § 5). Claim 17 (support assembly = connecting member + slider) is met by '050's plug + stanchion subdivision; claim 5 is met by '802 (both ends) plus '050 (at least one end movable, slider pivotal).

Ground 2 — US 5,688,087 in view of US 5,071,050 (further in view of US 6,279,802)

Targets: claims 1, 5, 10, 16.

• '087 is the truck-bed analogue of the '541 (the '541's title is literally "Article carrier for a truck bed"). It discloses rails 16, 18 with internal passageways, stanchions 28, 30 forming sleeves 44, 46, a telescoping cross member 24, plugs 50/52 at the cross bar ends with screws 54/56 riding in slots 58/60 "in order to allow the cross bar 26 to telescope with respect to both stanchions," and springs 62, 64 biasing the bar away from each rail. As the user slides the assembly along the bed walls, the bar extends and retracts — i.e., "the effective length … either increases or decreases" (claim 16) and "increases and decreases as said opposite ends thereof engage within said connecting members" (claim 10). Its track members 36, 38 in the rail passageways are the claimed sliders; its claim 4 lockable knob is the claim 3/13/18 locking feature; its rollers are the anti-jamming expedient of claim 4/14/20.
• '050 again supplies the pivot. '802 supplies the express non-parallel/curved-rail context and the "effective overall length" framing.
• Result: claims 1, 5, 10, 16 are obvious. Claim 16 is the most vulnerable claim in the patent — it recites no connecting member, no slider, and no pivot at all; it is a purely result-oriented claim ("wherein the effective length … either increases or decreases as said cross bar is moved along said non-linear support rails"). Under KSR's rejection of functional-result claiming without structure, any prior art teaching a telescoping cross bar on a rail pair that is non-linear or non-parallel reads on it. '087 and '802 do so.
• Note on '802's own method claims 13 and 18: they recite enabling a cross bar "to be moved slidably along a pair of non-parallel slats" by varying the effective overall length. That is claim 10's "nonparallel" framing, already reduced to a patentable method by the same assignee less than two years earlier — a strong § 103 "same solution, different words" argument.

Ground 3 — the locking/tap-plate dependent claims

Targets: claims 2, 3, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19.

• US 5,732,864 (split stanchion clamp with threaded stem extending through an opening in a fixed jaw — a threaded clamp for a cross bar end) and US 5,732,863 (retainer foot slidably disposed in the rail channel) render claims 2, 9, 15, 19 obvious when added to Ground 1 or 2.
• US 5,688,087 claim 4 (lockable knob / bolt / clamp nut securing the rail against the stanchion) and US 5,205,453 (pushbutton lock pin into spaced rail apertures) render claims 3, 13, 18 obvious. JAC's own earlier EP 0 913 297 A2 (1999), with a camming member threadably engaged with a threaded shaft of a rotatable actuating member to lock a bracket member on a slat, is very close to the '541's tap plate 64 + threaded post 72 + knob 74 architecture and is usable as of-record-adjacent prior art (published 1999, inventor Potter — one of the '541's named inventors).
• Claim 11 ("slider member is secured to said support rail by a tap plate") and claim 12 (locking pin) are met by '087's bolt/clamp-nut and by '050's pivot screw.

Ground 4 — the anti-jamming dependent claims

Targets: claims 4, 6, 14, 20.

• '050 discloses a radiused (curved) surface (edge 38) expressly sized to "provide clearance" and permit relative pivoting at the cross-bar/rail interface — the same purpose the '541 ascribes to its curved side rail contact portion 56. '087's roller elements perform the same anti-binding function. Caveat: the '541's 300–400 cm radius figure appears only in the specification, not in any claim, so the claims are met by any curved contact surface serving the stated purpose. A patent owner cannot import the 300–400 cm range to escape this ground.

Ground 5 — the "connecting-member-bore / channel" sub-combination

Targets: claims 7, 8, 9.

• '050's socket 40/groove 41 (slider bore receiving the connecting member) + collar 34/sleeve 35 (connecting member bore receiving the cross bar end) + pivot screw 42 (releasable pin) meet claims 7 and 8. Claim 9's "bore … opening in communication with said bore … channel formed to align with said opening … locking assembly … while permitting longitudinal sliding movement" is met by the combination of '802 claim 23 (neck slot + fastener permitting relative movement) with '050's clamped-collar arrangement, or by '087's sleeve + slot + screw sub-assembly.

---

5. Motivation to combine (the KSR / Graham showing)

A combination is proper where (i) the references are analogous art, (ii) each addresses the same problem, and (iii) the POSA would have had a articulated reason with a reasonable expectation of success. All three are met, and unusually strongly.

1. The '541's own background supplies the problem statement. The specification admits: "due to the fixed length of the cross bar, many current vehicle article carrier systems are not suitable for use with support rails that are not spaced parallel to each other"; and "current vehicle article carriers are not suitable for use with curved (i.e., bowed) side rails." A patentee's own recitation of the problem is an admission of the state of the art and frames the obviousness inquiry.
2. The patentee itself points to '802 as the starting point. The '541 states that US 6,279,802 "has proven effective for compensating for a degree of non-linearity in the support rails, or non-parallel spacing … Nevertheless, it would be desirable to provide a vehicle article carrier system that is more specifically intended to accommodate movement of a cross bar along bowed support rails, or along support rails that are non-parallel to one another to a very significant degree." That is a textbook "known partial solution + incentive to improve" — squarely within KSR's "design incentives and other market forces" prong. The express incorporation by reference further evidences that the '802 disclosure was in front of the inventor and considered material.
3. '050 identifies the same failure mode and its cure. '050 teaches the pivot precisely to prevent "binding"/"jamming" of the cross bar when one stanchion is moved relative to the other — the exact object the '541's slider claims. When a reference's stated purpose is the same as the claimed purpose, the motivation is established.
4. '087 supplies the truck-bed context and the telescoping sleeve/slot architecture, in the same vehicle class as the '541's title and drawings (bed walls of a pickup truck). Combining a roof-rack pivot coupling ('050) into a bed-rail telescoping cross member ('087) is the substitution of one known element for another to obtain a predictable result — the KSR "predictable variation" rationale.
5. Finite, identified solutions; no unexpected results. The art identifies essentially three ways to accommodate rail-spacing change: (a) resilient/compressible take-up ('802), (b) telescoping sleeve/plunger ('087, '802, '6340106), and (c) pivoting coupling ('050). The '541 selects and combines (a)/(b) with (c). Selecting two of three known mechanisms to solve a known problem, with the results being the sum of their known functions, is obvious unless the patentee shows a nexus-bearing unexpected result (see § 7).
6. Same field, common owner, contemporaneous development. '802, EP 0 913 297 and the '541 all originate from JAC Products in the same 1997–2002 window; POSAs in this art are a small, well-defined community who routinely combined stanchion, slider, tap-plate and cross-bar teachings (see the dense cross-citation among Masco, Advanced Accessory Systems, Thule and JAC references).
7. Trade-off / design incentives. Clamping (lock) vs. free sliding (adjust) is a standard engineering trade-off the POSA resolves by a user-actuable knob or tap plate; the '541's claims 2/3/13 do no more than that.

---

6. Summary table of proposed grounds

---

7. Weaknesses, counterarguments, and honest caveats

1. '802 as "applicant's own disclosure." Because the '541 incorporates '802 by reference, the patent owner will argue under the incorporation doctrine that the '802 disclosure is part of the '541 specification and therefore cannot be prior art against it. The response is that a patent that issued 2001‑08‑28 is an independent printed publication/patent under § 102(a) irrespective of incorporation, and incorporation does not remove it from the prior-art category. Still, expect a fight, and expect the owner to lean on § 103(c) (common ownership) — which, as noted, does not apply to § 102(a)/(b) art. This is the single biggest legal risk in Grounds 1, 2 and 5.
2. "Non-linear" vs. "non-parallel." Claim 10 says "nonparallel"; claims 1, 5, 16, 21 say "non-linear." '802's slats "converge slightly" (non-parallel, but straight). If "non-linear" is construed to require curved rails (as the '541's own usage of "nonlinear or … slightly non-parallel" as distinct terms suggests), then '802 alone will not read on claims 1/16, and the combination needs a curved-rail teaching (e.g., the admitted state of the art in the '541 background, or Bott's rounded-roof slat patents US 4,684,048 / 4,754,905 discussed in US 5,205,453). The scope of "non-linear" is therefore the pivotal construction issue for the whole analysis.
3. Degree of adjustment. The '541's stated advance is accommodating non-parallelism "to a very significant degree," whereas the '541 characterizes '802 as handling only "a degree" of non-linearity. A patent owner will argue no reasonable expectation of success at large misalignment. The answer is that no claim recites a degree, magnitude, or range of rail non-linearity or effective-length change, so the argument is not commensurate with the claim scope (and the 300–400 cm spec figure is unclaimed). This is the strongest and simplest rebuttal available to a challenger.
4. Spring bias vs. free sliding. '802 and '087 use resilient/spring elements to keep the bar extended; the '541 clamps the bar in position with a tap plate and loosens it to allow receding/extension. A patent owner may argue '802's compressible member is a biasing element rather than "sliding linear movement." This is only a partial defense: '802 claim 18 recites "linear movement between said one end of said cross bar and said one of said end supports" without interference, and '802 claim 23 recites a slot + fastener permitting such movement; '087's slot/screw telescoping is plainly free sliding.
5. Claim 5 antecedent inconsistency (independent of obviousness). As flagged in the earlier section, claim 5's preamble recites "said cross bar assembly" while the body refers to "said cross bar supporting assembly." This is a § 112(b) vulnerability that should be pursued separately; it does not affect the § 103 analysis and should not be conflated with it.
6. References I could not substantiate in this pass. I retrieved no substantive description of US 4,449,656 (Thule), US 5,988,722 (Parri), US 3,471,045, US 4,236,854, US 4,772,165, US 5,088,636 or US 5,139,375. I have characterized them only by title, date and assignee and have not relied on any of them as a grounds-of-rejection anchor. Full-text review would be needed before asserting any of them as an anticipatory or primary reference. Similarly, the "Similar Documents" list (e.g., US 5,382,285 (1995), US 5,042,705 (1991)) is not of record and would require an independent § 102(b)/§ 103 justification before use.
7. Secondary considerations (Graham factor 4). No evidence of commercial success, long-felt need, or unexpected results appears in the record supplied, and a nexus would have to be traced to the claimed combination rather than to the '802 family generally. One caution: the patent lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees effective 2012‑04‑20 (37 C.F.R. § 1.362) — I would not attempt to use non-payment as an obviousness argument; it is weak, non-probative and invites an adverse inference about the analysis.
8. Overall posture. Claims 16 (bare functional result, no structure) and 10 (non-parallel framing already reduced to a method by the same assignee's '802) are the most exposed. Claims 1, 5, 17 and 21 are obvious over '802 + '050 with a well-supported motivation showing. The locking and anti-jamming dependents fall with ordinary, conventional-mechanism combinations. The principal uncertainties are (a) the construction of "non-linear" and (b) whether the '802 patent's same-owner/incorporated-by-reference status can be leveraged to defeat its prior-art effect — which it should not, but which will be contested.

Primary sources used: Google Patents, US 6,722,541 B1 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6722541/en); US 5,071,050 (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a4/49/0b/ab2e5fd2b4b156/US5071050.pdf; family EP 0 495 020 http://data.epo.org/publication-server/rest/v1.2/patents/EP0495020NWB1/document.pdf); US 6,279,802 (https://patents.searchlight.law/doc/US6279802); US 5,688,087 (https://uspto.report/patent/grant/5688087; http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat5688087.html); US 5,732,863 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US5732863A/en); US 5,732,864 (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/1a/70/ba/dc7209d333f730/US5732864.pdf); US 5,205,453 (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f0/5c/02/3358263a63345b/US5205453.pdf); US 6,340,106 B1 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6340106); EP 0 913 297 A2 (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e0/92/fa/7e524371ce76e7/EP0913297A3.pdf).