US 6803255

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent and check for any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

Let me run a few more targeted checks to confirm the patent's status and any litigation activity.

US Patent 6,803,255 — Search Summary

Search scope and limitation: I searched for the literal number "6803255" against patent databases and Federal Circuit / litigation dockets. I found no CAFC 2026 docket activity, no IPR/PGR, and no district-court litigation referencing this patent. Hits that superficially matched "6803255" were false positives unrelated to this patent:

• 2020 WL 6803255 — a Westlaw citation number in Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB (E.D. Tex. 2020), not a patent.
• DI 6803255-2 — a Brazilian industrial design registration (INPI) to a different owner, not this US patent.

I could not retrieve the USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR record directly, so the details below are grounded in the patent's own full text (Google Patents) plus Justia, with uncertainty flagged.

Bibliographic data

Uncertainty flags: (1) The Google Patents page lists BorgWarner US Technologies LLC as current assignee at the top, while the visible legal‑events log only shows the 2018 assignment to Delphi Technologies IP Limited — the BorgWarner transfer is not shown in the events table I retrieved, so I state both without confirming the chain. (2) Patent term: the anticipated 2022‑07‑31 expiration implies no term extension/PTA, but I did not independently verify the terminal disclaimer/PTA situation.

Abstract

A dual gauge lead frame (36) is provided, including at least one mating surface (14) and a plurality of terminal arms (16) formed into a flat circuit surface (12) having a first gauge (32). Each terminal arm (16) includes a fold‑over terminal arm portion (28) folded over and coined into a base terminal arm portion (26) to form a plurality of end posts (30). The end posts (30) form a second gauge (34).

Claims — plain‑language overview

The patent has 8 claims, all method claims. Only claim 1 is independent; claims 2–8 all depend from claim 1. (Note: despite the "dual gauge lead frame" title and the abstract's apparatus‑style language, no apparatus/structural claim is present — the claim set is purely a manufacturing method.)

Claim 1 (the sole independent claim): A method of making a dual gauge lead frame, with three steps:

1. Form a plurality of terminal arms and at least one mating surface into a flat circuit surface — all made from a first gauge (i.e., a single, uniform thickness material).
2. Fold a fold‑over portion of each terminal arm back onto a base terminal portion to create a plurality of end posts.
3. Coin those end posts so the fold‑over portions are secured/pressed into the base terminal portions, where the end posts constitute a second gauge (thicker than the first).

Plain-language takeaway: instead of extrusion or lamination to make a thick/thin lead frame, you stamp or etch a uniform‑thickness (single‑gauge) lead frame, fold the terminal‑arm tips back on themselves to double the thickness at the contact posts, then coin (compress) the fold to lock the layers together and hold the thicker gauge dimension stably.

Dependent claims 2–8 (all narrow the "how" or add optional steps to claim 1):

• Claim 2 — the forming step is done by stamping pattern gaps into the flat circuit surface.
• Claim 3 — the forming step is done by etching pattern gaps into the flat circuit surface.
• Claim 4 — additionally removing a trim portion from the flat circuit surface (the tie/trim strip that stabilizes thin terminal arms during forming).
• Claim 5 — adjusting the end‑post width during coining.
• Claim 6 — adjusting the end‑post shape during coining.
• Claim 7 — adjusting the second gauge (thickness) during coining.
• Claim 8 — additionally forming a plurality of lead frames into the flat circuit surface (i.e., a multi‑up/strip layout).

Cited prior art (as listed on the face/report)

US 4,404,264 (Olin, "Multi‑gauge strip"); US 5,068,206 (Rohm); US 5,557,842 (Motorola); US 5,785,791 (Motorola); US 5,821,610 (NEC); US 5,859,387 (Allegro MicroSystems); US 5,889,658 (Motorola); US 5,969,293 (National Semiconductor, "Method and apparatus for doubling back single gauge lead frame"); US 6,107,676 (Rohm); US 6,320,147 B1 (Delphi, "Dual contact membrane horn switch assembly"). The US 5,969,293 reference ("doubling back single gauge lead frame") is the most topically proximate, and US 4,404,264 covers the multi‑gauge strip concept.

Bottom line

US 6,803,255 is a Delphi Technologies method patent (inventor Patrick A. Davis) covering single‑gauge stamping/etching of a lead frame followed by folding and coining the terminal tips to create thicker end posts. It is expired (as of 2022‑07‑31) and has one abandoned continuation. I found no CAFC 2026 docket, PTAB, or litigation activity for this patent — I cannot confirm with certainty that none exists (my search covered secondary databases, not a direct PACER/CAFC docket query), but no search result tied this number to any such proceeding, and matches to "6803255" were unrelated citations or foreign registrations.

I'll search multiple litigation sources for US patent 6803255.

Let me check litigation-specific databases.

Let me try a few more targeted sources.

Litigation Search Results: U.S. Patent No. 6,803,255

Conclusion: No litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 6,803,255 was found.

I searched litigation-focused sources (Unified Patents litigation portal, PACER/CourtListener-adjacent materials, Docket Alarm, and general web indexing) for the specific number 6,803,255 and for "dual gauge lead frame" infringement actions. No case was identified in which US 6,803,255 was asserted, challenged, or otherwise at issue. I cannot report a plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome because no such case appears in the sources searched.

Important note on apparent false positives

Several search results contained the string "6803255," but none of them refer to this patent number. These are unrelated numeric coincidences and should not be mistaken for litigation of the '255 patent:

No source tied the digits "6,803,255" to any court docket, complaint, IPR, or other adversarial proceeding.

Caveats on completeness (stated candidly)

• Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. Not every district court docket (particularly older or settled cases), ITC Section 337 investigation, or state-court action is fully indexed in freely searchable sources. A definitive negative would require a paid PACER/Docket Navigator/Lexis Litigation run.
• The patent's economics suggest litigation is unlikely: it is a manufacturing-process patent for a dual-gauge lead frame, assigned to an automotive electronics supplier (originally Delphi Technologies, Inc.; later Delphi Technologies IP Limited, per the recorded assignment of REEL/FRAME 045115/0001, effective 2017-11-29, and now listing BorgWarner US Technologies LLC as current assignee). Such process claims are rarely asserted against end users and are more typically practiced internally, which is consistent with the absence of litigation.
• Per Google Patents' "Cited By" data, the only forward citations to this family are the continuation application US 10/961,655 (published as US 20050048694A1, now abandoned) — i.e., a family member, not third-party litigation — plus later connector/lead-frame patents from Drapho Electronics and Danfoss Silicon Power. Those are patent citations, not lawsuits.

Status of the patent itself (context)

• Patent: US 6,803,255 B2, "Dual gauge lead frame"
• Inventor: Patrick A. Davis
• Filing/priority date: 2002-07-31
• Grant date: 2004-10-12
• Legal status: Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration 2022-07-31)
• Family: US 10/961,655 (continuation, abandoned)

Note that even if litigation had occurred, the patent expired in 2022, which would bar any new infringement suits.

If you need a court-record-confirmed negative, I recommend a direct PACER search of the patent number across all district courts and a Docket Navigator "patent" search; I did not have credentialed access to those in this session, and I will not represent the above as an exhaustive docket inquiry.

I'll verify the structured-data default with targeted web searches before drafting.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 6,803,255: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal structured feed for this patent returns no AIA trials (no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition ever instituted, denied, or terminated), and targeted web searching surfaced no proceeding number referencing this patent. The breakdown is therefore: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials.

Bottom-line defensive posture: there is no PTAB record to leverage or to fear — but that is largely moot, because the patent's own term has run. US 6,803,255 expired on 2022-07-31 (Google Patents "Anticipated expiration"), i.e. 20 years from the 2002-07-31 filing date, with all three maintenance fees having been paid (year 4 on 2008-03-13, year 8 on 2012-04-12, year 12 on 2016-04-12). Nobody can bring an IPR on an expired patent to invalidate claims for prospective effect, and no one can infringe it going forward. If you are holding a demand letter citing this patent, your defense is not an IPR — it is the calendar.

No proceedings to report — verification log

Per the operating rule to prefer the structured ODP list as canonical and to use search only to surface what ODP has missed, I ran the following checks and found nothing attributable to this patent:

Limitation I want to be explicit about: I could not directly query PTAB E2E / PTAB Center by patent number in this session, so I cannot rule out a petition that was filed and denied institution without generating a Google Patents timeline entry — those leave a thinner public footprint. Given the structured ODP block is the canonical source and shows zero, and given the patent expired in 2022, the materially correct answer is no PTAB activity on file. If you need a belt-and-suspenders confirmation, the free check is PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) → "Patent Number" search → 6803255, and the CAFC side is a name search for "Delphi" / "Dual gauge lead frame" on CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%226803255%22).

Strategic summary

Claim status: all 8 claims UNTESTED, all 8 expired. US 6,803,255 has 8 claims, all method claims directed to manufacturing: independent claim 1 (forming terminal arms and a mating surface at a first gauge; folding a fold-over portion back onto a base terminal portion to form end posts; coining the end posts to secure the fold-over portions and create a second gauge), with dependents 2 (stamping pattern gaps), 3 (etching pattern gaps), 4 (removing a trim portion), 5 (adjusting end post width during coining), 6 (adjusting end post shape during coining), 7 (adjusting the second gauge during coining) and 8 (forming a plurality of lead frames into the flat circuit surface). Because no AIA trial ever ran, no claim of this patent was ever canceled, narrowed, or confirmed at the PTAB. There is no surviving-claims list to give you, and equally no claims-invalidated trophy to hand you. The claims carry an unrebutted statutory presumption of validity that no tribunal has ever tested — and that no tribunal can invalidate prospectively now that the term has lapsed.

Estoppel landscape: essentially empty, and in your favor. With zero proceedings, there are no § 315(e)(2) estoppel chains, no privies bound, no Sotera-type stipulations, and no petitioner-side narrowing of the prior-art space. Every ground that was ever available remains available to you in litigation. That matters because the art cited on the face of the patent is unusually on-point for a fold-over-then-coin method: US 5,969,293 to National Semiconductor ("Method and apparatus for doubling back single gauge lead frame") and US 4,404,264 to Olin ("Multi-gauge strip") go directly to the dual-gauge-by-folding concept, and the Motorola references (US 5,557,842; US 5,785,791; US 5,889,658) plus Rohm (US 5,068,206; US 6,107,676) address leadframe manufacturing. None of these were ever substantively applied in an AIA trial. If you are in litigation on pre-expiration conduct, § 282 invalidity under §§ 102/103 against those references is your live theory — not IPR.

Pattern signals: none. No repeat petitioner, no patent-owner PTAB appeal history, and no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents, RPX, or similar) challenge in the chain. That is unsurprising: this is a component-level manufacturing patent from Delphi's automotive electronics portfolio, filed 2002-07-31 and granted 2004-10-12 to inventor Patrick A. Davis, with a continuation (US 10/961,655, published as US20050048694A1, filed 2004-10-08) that was ultimately abandoned. Ownership has moved: the ODP/Google record shows a 2018-01-23 reassignment to Delphi Technologies IP Limited (Barbados), effective 2017-11-29, and Google's "current assignee" field lists BorgWarner US Technologies LLC — consistent with BorgWarner's 2020 acquisition of Delphi Technologies, though Google expressly disclaims accuracy of assignee data and the structured feed does not contain a BorgWarner assignment event, so treat the current owner as probably BorgWarner and verify in the USPTO Assignment database (https://assignment.uspto.gov/) before relying on it. No monetization campaign is visible around this patent, which explains the zero-IPR record: patents that are never asserted never attract IPRs.

Recommended next steps

• Lead with the expiration date, not with invalidity. US 6,803,255 expired 2022-07-31 for failure of term. Any assertion can only reach past conduct, and only within the 6-year damages lookback of 35 U.S.C. § 286 — i.e., conduct occurring from roughly 2016-07-31 through 2022-07-31. Conduct after 2022-07-31 cannot infringe; a demand letter premised on current products is meritless on its face.
• If you are sued on pre-expiration conduct, do not build a stay strategy around IPR — there is no petition to file that can render the claims invalid prospectively, and the Board routinely declines to institute on expired patents absent a concrete collateral consequence. Put your resources into (a) § 282 invalidity over the face-of-the-patent art, especially US 5,969,293 and US 4,404,264, and (b) non-infringement of the coining limitation, which is the point of novelty the specification itself frames as the fix for unreliable fold-over-only end posts ("The present invention addresses this problem by further including the process of coining the end post sections 30").
• Confirm the negative directly rather than relying on this report: PTAB E2E patent-number search for 6803255 (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and a CourtListener docket search for any CAFC appeal involving the patent or Delphi/BorgWarner and lead frames. I found none, and the ODP feed shows none, but I cannot substitute for a direct E2E query in this session — I am flagging that as an open verification item rather than asserting certainty about never-filed-and-denied petitions.
• Preserve the record on ownership. Before you draft any response, pull the chain of title at USPTO Assignment and the Google Patents page (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6803255/en) side by side. If the asserting party is neither Delphi Technologies IP Limited nor BorgWarner US Technologies LLC, you have a standing/ownership inquiry worth raising early.

Caveat on sources: every factual statement above about the patent's claims, dates, family, and cited art comes from the authoritative full text supplied in this prompt. The proposition that there are no PTAB proceedings comes from the ODP structured feed plus negative results from the searches logged above. I did not locate any PTAB Final Written Decision, institution decision, or Federal Circuit opinion touching this patent, and I have not invented proceeding numbers, panels, or dispositions to fill the format — the format's per-proceeding sections are intentionally omitted because there is nothing to fill them with.

I'll start by gathering the ownership-chain data from the sources available to me.

Let me dig into the current assignee and any litigation or further transfers.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 6803255 B2 ("Dual gauge lead frame")

Data-source caveat, stated up front: I was not able to open assignmentcenter.uspto.gov or assignment.uspto.gov directly in this session. The reel/frame data below is cited from the Google Patents legal-events record for US 6803255 B2 (which mirrors the USPTO assignment database), as supplied in the authoritative patent text. The correspondent-of-record field is not exposed in that record, so I cannot name an attorney or firm for any link. I have not fabricated a correspondent or a reel/frame I could not see. Where a corroborating independent source exists, I cite it.

Inventors

• In 2002 the Delphi group was Delphi Corporation (formerly Delphi Automotive Systems, spun off from General Motors in 1999); "Delphi Technologies, Inc." (Troy, MI) was the group subsidiary that appears as original assignee.
• Pattern check: not assessable. With a single inventor there is no "all inventors departed within 12 months" signal to test. I found no record of Davis leaving the Delphi group.
• Family note (not an inventor issue but chain-relevant): continuation US 10/961,655 (pub. US 2005/0048694 A1), filed 2004-10-08, claims the same 2002-07-31 priority and is now abandoned. It is a member of the same family (Family ID 31187079) and shares the same ownership path.

Original assignee

Delphi Technologies, Inc. — Troy, Michigan (the Google record renders it "Delphi Technologies Inc"; the 2018 assignment record spells it "DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.").

• Line of business: Tier-1 automotive supplier — powertrain electronics, fuel injection, connectors, and electronic-component assemblies. This patent is a manufacturing-process patent (a method of making a dual-gauge lead frame by folding and coining terminal-arm ends), squarely within Delphi's automotive-electronics component business.
• Product embodying the claims: lead frames for electronic assemblies. Delphi was a high-volume producer of such components; the process claims (fold-over + coining) reflect a cost-reduction manufacturing method intended for production use. Confidence: moderate — I did not find a specific part number or product literature tying this exact process to a shipped part.
• Current status: the corporate chain has been restructured twice. Delphi Corporation (the 2002-era parent) filed Chapter 11 in October 2005 and emerged in 2009. Delphi Technologies PLC was spun off from Aptiv (Delphi Automotive PLC) in December 2017. BorgWarner Inc. completed its acquisition of Delphi Technologies PLC on 2020-10-01 (BorgWarner 10-Q, per cdn.borgwarner.com and BorgWarner's closing press release). Google records the current assignee as BorgWarner US Technologies LLC (Wilmington, DE) — but no assignment event or reel/frame for that transfer is exposed in the record available to me. Relatedly, BorgWarner's July 2023 spin-off of PHINIA Inc. moved the fuel-systems/aftermarket businesses; later records associate some Delphi Technologies IP Limited patents with PHINIA Jersey Holdings LLC, so which of BorgWarner / PHINIA currently holds this patent cannot be confirmed without the Assignment Center abstract.

Assignment timeline

Only one post-issuance assignment appears in the record available to me. Google's legal-events tab shows no security agreements, licenses, mergers, releases, or corrections for this patent — one assignment, plus maintenance-fee payments and expiry.

• Executed 2017-11-29 / recorded 2018-01-23 — Reel 045115/0001
  • Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST")
  • Assignor: DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  • Assignee: DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES IP LIMITED (Barbados; Erin Court, Bishop's Court Hill, St. Michael / The Grove, 21 Pine Road, Belleville, St. Michael BB11113)
  • Correspondent: not exposed in the available record — cannot be stated. No recurrence can therefore be assessed.
  • Context: internal corporate reorganization. The U.S. operating subsidiary assigned the patent into the group's Barbados captive IP-holding affiliate, executed roughly three weeks before the Delphi Technologies PLC spin-off closed — a standard group IP-consolidation step, not a sale to a third party.

Non-assignment ownership events (not transfers, listed for completeness):

• 2004-09-23 — patent grant (STCF)
• 2008-03-13 / 2012-04-12 / 2016-04-12 — maintenance fees at years 4, 8, 12 (all paid; the patent was held to full term)
• 2022-07-31 — anticipated expiration; status = Expired – Lifetime
• Discrepancy to flag: Google's "Current Assignee" field lists BorgWarner US Technologies LLC, but the legal-events table I can see contains no reel/frame for a Delphi Technologies IP Limited → BorgWarner transfer. I record this as unverified, not as a finding.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6803255
    2002 : Application filed by Delphi Technologies Inc
    2004 : Patent issued to Delphi Technologies Inc
    2008 : Maintenance fee year 4 paid
    2012 : Maintenance fee year 8 paid
    2016 : Maintenance fee year 12 paid
    2017 : Assigned to Delphi Technologies IP Limited
    2018 : Assignment recorded reel 045115 frame 0001
    2020 : Delphi Technologies acquired by BorgWarner
    2022 : Patent expired

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The only recorded transfer, reel 045115/0001 (exec. 2017-11-29, rec. 2018-01-23), moves the patent from Delphi Technologies, Inc. to Delphi Technologies IP Limited — a Barbados entity that is not an unrelated third party. It is the same corporate family's captive IP holder, holding ~991 assets (onscope.com profile), and its parent ships products. Barbados is a tax-driven IP-holding jurisdiction and worth flagging as a monitor item, but there is no evidence of a licensing-only shell, no registered-agent address pattern, and no unrelated operating company on the sell side.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither Delphi Technologies, Inc. nor Delphi Technologies IP Limited nor BorgWarner US Technologies LLC appears on any of the listed NPE rosters (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities) or in Unified Patents / RPX high-frequency-plaintiff listings that I could retrieve.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / no data. The correspondent of record for reel 045115/0001 is not exposed in the record available to me, and there is only one link in the chain, so recurrence cannot be tested. No finding is possible here, and I am not going to name a firm I did not see.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Exactly one recorded assignment over the patent's ~20-year life (2002–2022), with a 15-year gap between filing and that single transfer. That is the opposite of a chained-LLC cascade.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. I found no infringement suit naming US 6803255. The lone 2017-11-29 assignment predates any conceivable assertion by years and is explained by the contemporaneous Delphi Technologies PLC spin-off.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present on the recorded chain. The 2002-era parent, Delphi Corporation, did file Chapter 11 in October 2005 (emerged 2009), but the only recorded assignment here is dated 2017-11-29 — nine years post-emergence — and its stated assignee is the family's own IP-holding affiliate, not a purchaser in a §363 sale. No bankruptcy-sale reel/frame appears for this patent.
7. Privateering — not present. No evidence (SEC filing, Patent Progress/EFF coverage, or litigation) that Delphi or BorgWarner funded a third party to assert this patent against competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. The last recorded owner is a Delphi IP-holding affiliate, with an operating-company (BorgWarner) designation unresolved.

Verdict

Insufficient data.

The record contains one post-issuance assignment — reel 045115/0001, executed 2017-11-29 and recorded 2018-01-23, from Delphi Technologies, Inc. to Delphi Technologies IP Limited — and that link is an intra-group reorganization tied to the December 2017 Delphi Technologies PLC spin-off, not an NPE transfer. Every NPE indicator I can actually test comes back negative: no shell-entity purchaser, no known asserter, no cascading transfers, no pre-litigation transfer, no bankruptcy sale, no defensive aggregator. The verdict is "insufficient data" rather than "operating-company assertion" only because the two facts needed to close the file are absent from the sources I could reach: the correspondent of record on reel 045115/0001 (which would let me test signal 3), and a reel/frame for the alleged Delphi → BorgWarner US Technologies LLC transfer that Google's current-assignee field implies but its legal-events table does not evidence. On the evidence available, no NPE/troll pattern is present; this reads as an operating-company automotive-electronics patent that was held to full term and never asserted.

Verify at:

• USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 6803255)
• Legacy Assignment Search: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events for reel/frame confirmation: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6803255B2](/patent/US6803255B2)/en#legalEvents

I'll research each cited prior-art reference for US 6,803,255 to characterize them properly and assess which claims they might anticipate under § 102.

Let me gather details on the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis for US 6,803,255 B2 ("Dual gauge lead frame")

0. Record confirmation (grounding note)

I could not issue a direct USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR query in this session (the same limitation flagged in the earlier summary). This analysis is therefore grounded in the authoritative full text of US 6,803,255 B2 (the Google Patents record supplied in the task, including its examiner-cited "Citations (10)" list), supplemented by retrieval of the individual reference records where available. Where I could not retrieve a reference's full text, I say so and downgrade confidence accordingly.

• Patent: US 6,803,255 B2 — "Dual gauge lead frame"
• App. No. / Filing / Priority: US 10/209,532; filed and priority-dated 2002-07-31; granted 2004-10-12
• Inventor / Original assignee: Patrick A. Davis / Delphi Technologies, Inc.
• Claim set: 8 claims, all method claims; only claim 1 is independent (claims 2–8 depend from claim 1)

Critical framing for § 102: Every one of the ten references below issued more than one year before the 2002-07-31 filing date, so each is a textbook pre-AIA § 102(b) statutory bar (and also § 102(a)/(e) art). The relevant legal question is therefore narrow: does any single reference disclose all elements of claim 1 — namely, (1) forming terminal arms + mating surface from a first gauge, (2) folding a fold-over portion back onto a base portion to make end posts, and (3) coining those end posts so the fold-over portions are secured and a second gauge is created?

1. The ten examiner-cited references

US 4,404,264 A — Olin Corporation, "Multi-gauge strip"

• Filing: 1981-01-26 · Publication: 1983-09-13 · Inventors incl. Tatum, Hofer
• Disclosure (verified): A dual-gauge strip made by pressure-bonding two metal strips and then machining/shaving longitudinal sections to different thicknesses, expressly for leadframes having "thick and thin" gauge. Divisional: US 4,458,413 ("Process for forming multi-gauge strip").
• § 102 relevance: This is the multi-gauge leadframe concept reference. It does not disclose folding a fold-over portion onto a base portion, and it does not disclose coining — its dual gauge arises from bonding + shaving. Anticipates no claim (fails claim 1's "folding" and "coining" limitations; claims 2–8 fall with claim 1). Best characterized as § 103 background art showing that dual-gauge leadframes were known.

US 5,068,206 A — Rohm Co., Ltd.

• Filing: 1988-07-22 · Publication: 1991-11-26 · "Method of manufacturing semiconductor devices, and leadframe and differential overlapping apparatus therefor"
• Disclosure (verified): An elongated leadframe with staggered lead pairs; a "differential overlapping apparatus" displaces the two longitudinal bands relative to each other (out of and along the plane) so that a chip is sandwiched between a pair of leads for bonding. It discloses bending/overlapping leads but for chip-sandwiching, and its single-gauge frame.
• § 102 relevance: Discloses deforming leads out of plane and causing them to overlap — conceptually adjacent to "fold-over," but the purpose and geometry differ (sandwiching a die, not thickening a terminal post), and no coining. Anticipates no claim. Useful as § 103 evidence that bending/overlapping portions of a leadframe was known.

US 5,557,842 A — Motorola, Inc.

• Filing: 1995-03-06 · Publication: 1996-09-24 · "Method of manufacturing a semiconductor leadframe structure"
• Disclosure: Leadframe structure with bond posts whose major surfaces carry two different materials to accommodate different bond-wire materials (e.g., Al and Au). Background expressly notes leadframes "typically are formed or stamped from a ribbon of a single or dual gauge metal material." Related EP 0 731 505 A3.
• § 102 relevance: It acknowledges dual-gauge leadframes as known but claims material/plating solutions, not folding or coining. Anticipates no claim. § 103 background only.

US 5,785,791 A — Motorola, Inc.

• Filing: 1997-05-05 · Publication: 1998-07-28 · "Method of manufacturing semiconductor component"
• Disclosure (verified): A discrete power device with a leadframe/heatsink covered by a chemically grafted organic resin coating for electrical insulation; heat dissipation and insulation benefits.
• § 102 relevance: Directed to coating/insulating a heatsink, unrelated to gauge formation. Anticipates no claim. Low relevance; likely cited for general leadframe-manufacture context.

US 5,821,610 A — NEC Corporation

• Filing: 1995-01-18 · Publication: 1998-10-13 · "Leadframe allowing easy removal of tie bars in a resin-sealed semiconductor device"
• Disclosure (from title/typical content; full text not retrieved this session — flagged): A leadframe with tie bars configured for easy severing after resin sealing.
• § 102 relevance: Concerns tie-bar removal — relevant to claim 4's "removing a trim portion," but tie bars in a resin-sealed device are a different structure/purpose from the trim portion that stabilizes thin terminal arms before folding described at col. spec. of the '255 patent. Anticipates no claim (no fold, no coin). Possible § 103 support for the trimming concept behind claim 4, but claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 and adds nothing that helps anticipation.

US 5,859,387 A — Allegro MicroSystems, Inc.

• Filing: 1996-11-29 · Publication: 1999-01-12 · "Semiconductor device leadframe die attach pad having a raised bond pad"
• Disclosure (from title; full text not retrieved — flagged): A leadframe die-attach pad with a raised (up-set) bond pad.
• § 102 relevance: A raised pad is a locally deformed (thickened/offset) region and is the closest conceptual echo of "coining" among the mechanical references, but it is achieved on a die-attach pad, not by folding a terminal arm and coining the fold. Anticipates no claim.

US 5,889,658 A — Motorola, Inc.

• Filing: 1997-11-25 · Publication: 1999-03-30 · "Package assembly for an electronic component"
• Disclosure (from title; full text not retrieved — flagged): A package assembly for an electronic component.
• § 102 relevance: Appears to be a package/packaging reference, not a dual-gauge-forming method. Anticipates no claim. Low relevance; background only.

US 5,969,293 A — National Semiconductor Corporation, "Method and apparatus for doubling back single gauge lead frame" ⭐ closest reference

• Filing: 1997-07-18 · Publication: 1999-10-19
• Disclosure (verified, quoted from the reference): The reference itself defines "dual gauge" and observes that dual-gauge leadframe blanks were used because the thick support pad gives a thermal path while thin leads are cheaper to form. To avoid the cost of dual-gauge blanks, it teaches a single-gauge leadframe having a first support pad and a second support pad that is a mirror image of, integrally formed with, and "capable of being bent back upon the first support pad" to build up thickness. Its stated goal is to obtain dual-gauge benefits at near single-gauge cost.
• § 102 relevance: This is the most topically proximate reference and the one the '255 specification's cost/complexity framing implicitly answers. It discloses the "form single-gauge frame" step and the "fold/double a portion back onto a base portion" step in the leadframe context. However:
  • The doubling is on a support pad (for a die/heat-sink), not on terminal-arm end posts intended as a second-gauge "end post."
  • The reference does not disclose coining the doubled-over portion to secure the layers and fix the second gauge. Its bend-back is a mechanical doubling, not a coined, cold-pressed joint.
• Anticipation conclusion: Because § 102 requires every claimed element in a single reference, US 5,969,293 does not anticipate claim 1 (missing the coining limitation). Claims 2–8, all dependent on claim 1, likewise are not anticipated by it. It is, however, the primary § 103 reference: combining its "double back a single-gauge leadframe" teaching with a known coining/pressing step to secure the fold is the obviousness attack the patent was designed to survive.

US 6,107,676 A — Rohm Co., Ltd.

• Filing: 1997-03-21 · Publication: 2000-08-22 · "Leadframe and a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device by use of it"
• Disclosure (from title; full text not retrieved — flagged): A leadframe and a method of using it in semiconductor-device manufacture.
• § 102 relevance: A generic leadframe/assembly reference; no showing of fold-over-and-coin forming. Anticipates no claim. § 103 background only.

US 6,320,147 B1 — Delphi Technologies, Inc., "Dual contact membrane horn switch assembly"

• Filing: 1999-12-28 · Publication: 2001-11-20
• Disclosure (from title/field): A membrane horn switch with dual contacts — a Delphi-owned patent in an unrelated art (automotive switches).
• § 102 relevance: Not a leadframe reference. Its only plausible relevance is as an example of stamped/formed thin-metal contact layers, and it is the reference most likely cited as an assignee's own art. Anticipates no claim.

2. Summary table — § 102 exposure of each reference

3. Bottom line

• No cited reference anticipates any claim of US 6,803,255 under § 102. Each of the eight method claims requires the coining step of the end posts (claim 1), and not one of the ten references discloses coining a fold-over terminal-arm portion into a base portion to create a stable second gauge. Where a reference comes closest mechanically (US 5,969,293's doubled-back single-gauge support pad; US 5,859,387's raised pad; US 5,068,206's overlapping leads), it is missing at least the fold + coin combination, so § 102 fails at the "arrangement of every element" requirement.
• US 5,969,293 is the single most relevant reference and the natural centerpiece of any § 103 obviousness challenge (single-gauge frame → bend a portion back → secure it), with US 4,404,264 supplying the "dual-gauge leadframe" motivation and US 5,859,387 / US 5,068,206 supplying "local deformation/bending of leadframe metal was known." The patent's asserted point of novelty — that a bare fold is "unreliable and difficult to maintain," so coining is used to fix the gauge and shape — is precisely the gap none of the cited art fills.
• Verification caveats: I confirmed full text for US 4,404,264, US 5,068,206, US 5,557,842, US 5,785,791, and US 5,969,293. For US 5,821,610, US 5,859,387, US 5,889,658, US 6,107,676, and US 6,320,147 I could only confirm bibliographic data and title-level subject matter from the '255 record this session, so the descriptions for those five are title-based and flagged; a docket-grade § 102 opinion would require pulling each full specification (and any non-US counterparts) before relying on them. Consistent with the earlier sections, I found no litigation, PTAB, or CAFC proceeding involving this patent, and it is expired (anticipated 2022-07-31), so these references now matter chiefly for validity/history rather than enforcement.

I'll ground this analysis in the reference list on the patent's face, and pull what detail I can on the most topically proximate references before building the § 103 combinations.

Let me pull more detail on the most topically proximate reference (US 5,969,293) and probe whether coining-of-folded-lead-frame features appear in the cited art or in the general knowledge of the art.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 6,803,255 ("Dual gauge lead frame")

Note on evidence base. This analysis uses the prior-art references listed on the face of the '255 patent (the "Prior Art" section of the Google Patents record) and the excerpts I was able to retrieve. I verified substantive disclosure for US 4,404,264 (Olin), US 5,068,206 (Rohm), and US 5,557,842 (Motorola). For the remaining cited references — including the most topically proximate one, US 5,969,293 (National Semiconductor) — I have the literal title and bibliographic data but did not retrieve full claim/description text. Where I reason from a title alone, I say so explicitly. I have not fabricated any reference disclosure.

1. Legal framework applied

Obviousness under § 103 is judged from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the 2002-07-31 priority date, using the Graham v. John Deere factors: (1) scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) level of ordinary skill; and (4) secondary considerations. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the motivation to combine need not be found expressly in a reference; it may come from common sense, a known design need or market pressure, or the predictable nature of the variation. MPEP § 2143 supplies exemplary rationales, several of which apply here:

• (A) combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
• (B) simple substitution of a known element for another to obtain a predictable result;
• (C) use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way ("known-technique" rationale);
• (D) applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
• (F) "obvious to try" — choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.

The technical field is narrow and mature: lead-frame fabrication for semiconductor/electronic packages. A PHOSITA here would be a mechanical/manufacturing engineer with several years of experience in progressive-die stamping, etching, folding, and coining of copper-alloy lead frames, familiar with the electrical/mechanical need for thin, flexible conductor arms terminating in thicker contact posts.

2. Claim 1 decomposed into limitations

Claim 1 is the sole independent claim and has three steps:

The distinguishing feature of the patent is therefore a process: single-gauge stock → fold the tips back → coin the fold to lock the layers and fix the doubled thickness. The specification itself concedes the purpose is to avoid the cost/complexity of extrusion and lamination and to obtain a dual-gauge frame by "accurate and cost effective single gauge manufacturing techniques" (Background; Summary).

3. Scope/content of the prior art (as listed on the patent)

The cited art is strikingly on-point; several references are in the same sub-field of dual-gauge/gauge-varying lead frames:

• US 5,969,293 — National Semiconductor, "Method and apparatus for doubling back single gauge lead frame" (1999). The title itself recites the two core concepts of the '255 invention: (i) starting from single gauge stock, and (ii) doubling back a portion of the lead frame to create a thicker region. This is the most topically proximate reference and is, on its face, directed to the same problem the '255 patent addresses.
• US 4,404,264 — Olin, "Multi-gauge strip" (1983). Verified disclosure: expressly frames the problem as producing leadframes with "thick and thin portions," where "a thick gauge provides improved heat dissipation while a thin gauge, being more easily formed and soldered, provides connecting legs," and produces the strip by bonding two strips and machining them to different gauges. Its FIG. 5 shows a stamped leadframe made from the multi-gauge strip. This establishes both (i) the long-recognized design motivation for dual-gauge lead frames and (ii) that stamping and gauge control were known.
• US 5,068,206 — Rohm, "Method of manufacturing semiconductor devices, and leadframe and differential overlapping apparatus therefor" (1991). Verified disclosure: teaches an integral, single leadframe in which a longer lead is bent along a bending line and the bent portion overlapped onto another lead/"onto itself," with all leads "always located in the same plane… throughout various stages." It also mentions etching. This is direct evidence that folding/bending a portion of a lead frame back over another portion was known and that doing so in a single-gauge integral frame avoided the handling/waste problems of multi-piece construction.
• US 5,557,842 — Motorola, "Method of manufacturing a semiconductor leadframe structure" (1996). Verified disclosure: the background states that leadframes for power packages "typically are formed or stamped from a ribbon of a single or dual gauge metal material such as copper or a copper alloy." This is strong evidence that dual-gauge lead frames formed by stamping were conventional well before 2002.
• US 5,785,791; US 5,821,610; US 5,859,387; US 5,889,658; US 6,107,676; US 6,320,147. Titles map to lead-frame geometry/package assembly and to a Delphi horn-switch assembly (assignee art). I did not verify their disclosures; I treat them as background showing the crowded, well-developed state of lead-frame fabrication.
• JP 2001-007268 (Oki Electric) — listed as a family/examiner citation.

All references predate the 2002-07-31 priority date and qualify as prior art under §§ 102(a)/(b).

4. Differences between the prior art and the claims

• Limitation 1a — forming single-gauge terminal arms + mating surface into a flat circuit surface: squarely met by US 5,969,293 (single gauge), and by US 4,404,264 (stamped leadframe) and US 5,557,842 (stamped single- or dual-gauge ribbon). Terminal arms and mating surfaces are the ordinary anatomy of any lead frame.
• Limitation 1b — folding a fold-over portion back onto a base portion to form end posts: squarely met by US 5,969,293 ("doubling back single gauge lead frame") and strongly suggested by US 5,068,206 (bending a lead portion back over another portion of an integral single-gauge frame).
• Limitation 1c — coining the folded end posts to secure the layers and create a second gauge: this is the one limitation for which I could not identify express disclosure in the cited art on the material I retrieved. The obviousness question therefore turns on whether coining, applied to the folded end posts, is a known technique whose use would have been obvious to a PHOSITA (MPEP 2143 rationales (A), (C), (D), (F)).

5. The combinations that render claim 1 obvious

Combination 1 (primary): US 5,969,293 (primary) + US 4,404,264 + coining as a known technique

How the references map:

• US 5,969,293 supplies the single-gauge starting stock (1a) and the doubling-back/folding of the lead frame (1b) to create a thicker region.
• US 4,404,264 supplies the design motivation and known goal of a lead frame with "thick and thin portions" — thick for conduction/strength, thin for formability/solderability — and confirms that gauge-varying lead frames were made by stamping from strip.
• The coining step (1c) comes from the ordinary skill of a metal-forming artisan: coining (pressing metal between dies to cold-flow and set it) is a centuries-old, standard metalworking operation, and the '255 specification itself treats coining machines as generic off-the-shelf equipment ("Coining machines 38 are utilized to physically press the fold over terminal arm portion 28…").

Reason the combination would have been obvious:

1. Same field / same problem. Both principal references are lead-frame fabrication references directed to the identical problem the '255 patent frames as its own: making a thicker functional region (contact/leg/bond area) on a lead frame without the cost and inflexibility of extrusion or lamination.
2. Known technique to improve a similar device in the same way (MPEP 2143(C)). A folded, doubled-over metal tab is inherently springy and dimensionally unstable — a weakness the '255 patent admits ("the flexible nature of most lead frames 12 would make such a second gauge 34 unreliable and difficult to maintain"). Coining a folded-over tab to flatten, set, and lock the lap is the textbook remedy, and a PHOSITA would have applied it precisely because it improves the fold in the well-understood way. This is the classic "known technique yields predictable results" rationale.
3. Finite, predictable solutions / obvious to try (MPEP 2143(F)). Once the artisan has a folded-over tab, the available methods to secure and dimensionally fix the lap are a small, known set (spot weld, rivet, adhesive, stake, or coin/crimp). Coining was among the predictable options and had known advantages (no filler material, controllable final thickness/shape). That is the KSR "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" scenario.
4. Design incentive / market pressure. US 4,404,264 spells out the long-felt need for thick-and-thin lead frames; the '255 patent's own background complains that extrusion and lamination are costly, slow, and inflexible. A cost-driven industry, already using single-gauge stamping/etching and already folding leads (US 5,068,206), had a clear reason to reach the claimed process.

Combination 2 (alternative): US 5,068,206 (primary) + US 5,557,842 + US 4,404,264 + coining

• US 5,068,206 supplies an integral single-gauge lead frame in which a portion of a lead is bent/folded back over another part — the fold-back concept, in a single frame, with the express benefit of avoiding deformation and extra parts.
• US 5,557,842 supplies the express recognition that lead frames are "stamped from a ribbon of a single or dual gauge" material, i.e., that dual-gauge frames and stamping were conventional.
• US 4,404,264 supplies the "thick portion = conduction, thin portion = formable legs" design rationale.
• Coining the folded overlap again supplies 1c, for the same reasons above.

Motivation: all three are in the same field, all are directed to forming lead frames with localized variations in geometry/thickness from strip stock, and folding the overlapped portion plus coining it is a predictable mechanical finishing step. The references relate to the same art and would have been "reasonably pertinent" to the problem.

Why the examiner's allowance does not defeat this analysis

The '255 patent issued, which means the examiner was persuaded the specific fold-over + coining combination was not taught. For a § 103 challenge, however, the examiner's allowance only shifts the evidentiary burden: the patent survived because no single reference showed coining a folded lead-frame end post, not because coining a folded metal overlap was unpredictable. Under KSR, that gap is bridgeable by common sense and the known-technique rationale — particularly given the applicant's own admission that coining machines are generic and that the purpose of coining (securing the layers, setting the gauge) is purely mechanical.

6. Dependent claims 2–8

All depend from claim 1 and add only conventional steps or predictable results:

Claims 5–7 are especially vulnerable: they recite no structure or process detail beyond "adjusting" a parameter during the already-claimed coining step. A limitation that merely recites the inherent, expected result of performing the recited step (coining with a die) adds nothing patentable — the gauge, width, and shape of a coined part are inevitably set by the coining die.

7. Collective motivation to combine (summary)

A PHOSITA at 2002-07-31 would have been motivated to combine these references because:

1. Common field and problem — all references address forming lead frames, several specifically addressing "single gauge," "dual gauge," and "thick-and-thin" lead frames.
2. Established design need — US 4,404,264 articulates the industry's recognized need for thick high-conductivity/high-strength regions combined with thin, formable connecting legs; the '255 patent's stated goal is identical.
3. Cost pressure / avoidance of known-costly routes — the '255 background disparages extrusion and lamination; the references show the industry already used single-gauge stamping/etching and folding/overlapping, i.e., the very building blocks the '255 claim combines.
4. Known-technique application — coining is a standard metalworking method whose effect on a folded lap (secure the layers; set the final gauge/width/shape) is entirely predictable; using it to fix a folded lead-frame tab is the definition of MPEP 2143(C)/(D) and KSR's "improve a known device with a known technique."
5. Reasonable expectation of success — every step (form, fold, coin) is a routine metal-forming operation on copper-alloy strip, so there was no unpredictability that would deter the combination.

8. Counterarguments and evidentiary weaknesses (stated candidly)

• The coining limitation is the crux, and I could not find express coining disclosure in the cited art on the material I retrieved. If the patentee could show that no cited reference, and no ordinary-skill practice, coined a folded lead-frame end post, it would argue non-obviousness of claim 1. The counter to that is the generic, admitted nature of coining plus the predictable function it serves — but a challenger would want a concrete secondary reference or documentary evidence of coining folded lead-frame tabs to close the gap.
• Reference-content verification gap. My characterizations of US 5,969,293, US 5,785,791, US 5,889,658, US 5,859,387, US 5,821,610 and US 6,107,676 rest on titles/bibliographic data, not retrieved full text. My mappping of US 5,969,293 ("doubling back single gauge lead frame") to limitations 1a/1b is based on its literal title — I have not confirmed its claims recite folding (rather than a different "doubling back" mechanism) or whether it discloses any securing step. A full-text review of US 5,969,293 should be the first step before relying on Combination 1.
• Secondary considerations. None are of record in the material I reviewed. The patent is expired (anticipated expiration 2022-07-31), has one abandoned continuation (US 10/961,655 / US 2005/0048694 A1), and I found no litigation, IPR/PGR, or CAFC activity tied to it — so there is no adjudicated record of nexus, commercial success, or unexpected results to weigh against the prima facie case. (This is consistent with a narrow, internal manufacturing-process patent of the kind rarely asserted.)
• No apparatus claim. Despite the "dual gauge lead frame" title and abstract, all 8 claims are method claims; the obviousness attack is therefore on a process, and its strength depends on the "known technique" treatment of coining rather than on any structural novelty.

9. Bottom line

Under § 103 and KSR, claim 1 is readily rendered obvious by US 5,969,293 in view of US 4,404,264 and the ordinary-skill metal-forming technique of coining (Combination 1), or alternatively by US 5,068,206 in view of US 5,557,842 and US 4,404,264 plus coining (Combination 2). The references supply the single-gauge forming (1a) and the fold-back/doubling (1b) directly; the coining step (1c) is the only true gap, and it is bridged by the known-technique and finite-predictable-solutions rationales given the applicant's own admissions that coining equipment is generic and that coining merely secures the lap and sets its dimensions. Dependent claims 2–8 add only conventional steps or the inherent, predictable results of coining and are obvious for the reasons tabulated above — claims 5–7 being the weakest of all because they recite no more than adjusting parameters that a coining die necessarily fixes.

The single largest caveat is evidentiary, not legal: I did not retrieve the full text of US 5,969,293 (or several other cited references), so the mapping of the "doubling back" reference to limitations 1a/1b should be confirmed against its actual disclosure before this analysis is relied upon as final.