US 6848347

I'll search for this specific patent number and check for any litigation or CAFC docket activity.

Let me run additional targeted searches for any legal proceedings involving this patent.

Let me check for any post-grant proceedings (IPR/PGR) or district court litigation involving this patent.

US Patent 6,848,347 B1 — Verified Summary

Search scope note: I searched for patent number 6848347 specifically (with and without commas). I found no USPTO litigation records, no CAFC 2026 docket entries, and no district-court or PTAB (IPR/PGR) proceedings involving this patent. That absence is based only on my searches — I could not confirm a definitive "no litigation" result from an authoritative docket system, so treat it as not found rather than affirmatively nonexistent.

I also did not locate any authoritative source that contradicts the patent's own front-page/Google Patents data, so I relied on that text.

---

Bibliographic Data (from the patent itself)

Abstract (verbatim gist)

The invention is a multi-spindle machine system with a control arrangement for selectively slowing the speed of a stock feeder mechanism. The machine operates at low or high speed. A braking arrangement slows the advance of stock responsive to a machine controller, and the feeder is slowed prior to engagement of the feed stock with a stock stop device. This reduces stock bounce-back and improves initial stock positioning accuracy. The braking arrangement may be a machine brake clutch and/or a snubbing clutch.

---

Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

Claim 1 — Controller arrangement (apparatus).
A controller arrangement for a multiple-spindle machine that runs at low or high speed and that has a starting clutch drive shaft and a long worm drive shaft. The arrangement has three parts: (a) a stock feeder mechanism that can feed stock into the machine at high speed; (b) a brake arrangement that can slow the feeder mechanism; and (c) a machine controller that controls the brake arrangement so the feeder is slowed during stock feeding. (Dependent claims 2–7 add: brake slows a drive shaft; feeder/brake are responsive to the controller; switching from high to lower speed; switching before the stock hits the stock stop; switching from machine high speed to machine low speed; brake = machine brake clutch; brake = snubbing clutch.)

Claim 8 — Method of feeding stock.
A method for feeding stock into a multiple-spindle machine (machine has a timing shaft, starting clutch drive shaft, long worm drive shaft, brake arrangement, machine controller, and stock feeder mechanism). Steps: (1) operate the machine at high speed; (2) operate the feeder mechanism; (3) operate the brake arrangement to slow the feeder mechanism during stock feeding. (Dependent claims 9–14 add controller-driven slowing of a drive shaft, feeding at high speed first, slowing before stock-to-stop engagement, then feeding at low speed, and specify machine brake clutch or snubbing clutch.)

Claim 15 — Stock feeder control system.
A stock feeder control system with: (a) a stock feeder mechanism that feeds stock during a stock feeding operation; (b) a stock stop device adapted to be engaged by the stock during feeding; and (c) a brake system operative to slow the feeder mechanism during the stock feeding operation. (Dependent claims 16–20 add: slowing before stock-to-stop engagement with reduced bounce-back distance; a detection system confirming the stock reached a predetermined feeding position, with the brake system responding to it; detection prior to engagement; switching from machine high speed to machine low speed; and detection at a predetermined position prior to engagement.)

Note the breadth gradient: claim 1 requires a controller; claim 8 is the method counterpart; claim 15 is the broadest system claim and does not itself recite a controller or the pre-engagement timing (those appear in dependent claims 16–20). The bounce-back/pre-engagement timing limitation is the apparent point of novelty over the cited art.

---

Prior Art Cited on the Face of the Patent (15 references, selected)

• US 4,644,819 — Leggett & Platt, High-low speed drive system for multiple spindle machines (the high/low pneumatic disc-clutch concept)
• US 5,676,031 — Logan Clutch, Apparatus for detecting stock
• US 5,730,037 — Logan Clutch, Multi-spindle machine control systems
• US 6,050,162 — Logan Clutch, Multi-spindle machine retrofit system (the 08/871,019 application referenced in the spec)
• US 6,148,976 — Logan Clutch, Multi-spindle machine high speed/low speed system (the 09/325,247 application referenced in the spec)
• US 6,044,736 — Pietro Cucchi, Rotary bar loader with braking and positioning device for automatic lathe (notable as a bar-feeder braking reference)
• Also: US 3,720,048; US 3,747,444; US 3,760,661; US 4,942,650; US 5,044,055; US 5,076,123; US 5,910,201; US 5,953,970; US 6,272,955

Notable Later Citations (patents citing it)

• US 2007/0124904 A1 / US 7,290,316 B2 — Ram Technology / Muscarella, Automatic screw machine with multi-axis drive control
• US 2013/0032982 A1 / US 9,183,915 B2 — Vigel S.p.A., Workpiece-holding unit for machining centers for connecting rods
• US 10,160,038 B1 — Logan Clutch Corporation (priority 2014-08-29), Multi-spindle machine control system (same family lineage)

---

Uncertainties and Caveats

1. No legal proceedings located. I found no litigation, CAFC appeal, or IPR/PGR referencing 6,848,347. I cannot rule out an unindexed or very recent filing (current date April 26, 2026). Please verify against PACER, the CAFC docket, and USPTO PTAB directly if a litigation check is required.
2. Literal-reading notes (not corrections): The specification contains an apparent typographical inconsistency — it renders the high speed clutch as "1118" in one sentence (properly element 118, matching the rest of the description). Per instructions I have not auto-corrected; I flag it only so you know the OCR/print text is non-uniform.
3. The file history "prior art date" is listed by Google Patents as 2000-02-04 (the provisional filing); the non-provisional filing date is 2001-01-31, and the statutory term ran to the adjusted expiration of 2022-07-16.
4. Claim terminology mixes "brake arrangement," "braking arrangement," "brake system," and "braking arrangement" across independent claims; these appear intended as synonyms, but I have not seen prosecution history that confirms the applicant's stated construction.
5. No inventor other than Kalinsky is named on this patent, and the only recorded assignment is to Logan Clutch Corporation (Reel/Frame 011706/0117).

I'll research litigation involving US patent 6848347. Let me run several searches across litigation-focused sources.

Let me search litigation-specific databases with more targeted queries.

Search Results: Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 6,848,347

Bottom line: I found no evidence of any litigation — no district court case, no ITC action, and no PTAB proceeding — involving U.S. Patent No. 6,848,347 ("Multi-spindle machine," Logan Clutch Corp.).

Strict identifier note: I searched literally for 6,848,347 / US6848347. I did not substitute any look‑alike numbers, and I flag below the specific near‑match patents that search engines surfaced so you can confirm they are not being confused with the target.

What the record shows for US 6,848,347

From the authoritative patent record (Google Patents, https://patents.google.com/patent/US6848347/en):

The patent's prosecution/ownership history contains only: one assignment, the grant, and three maintenance‑fee payments. There is no "Litigation" entry in the record (Google Patents populates a litigation tab when district‑court or ITC complaints are associated with a patent; none appears here).

Forward citations (potential future litigation vector) — not litigation itself

The patents citing US 6,848,347 are unrelated to it as causes of action; they are later filings, several by the same assignee:

• US 2007/0124904 A1 and US 7,290,316 B2 — Ram Technology LLC / Muscarella, "Automatic screw machine with multi-axis drive control"
• US 2013/0032982 A1 and US 9,183,915 B2 — Vigel S.p.A., "Workpiece-holding unit for installation on machining centers for connecting rods"
• US 10,160,038 B1 — Logan Clutch Corporation, "Multi-spindle machine control system" (2018)

None of these reflect a lawsuit against the '347 patent; they are mere citation relationships.

Backward citations (prior art cited on the face of the patent) — not litigation

The 15 references cited by the examiner ('347 patent front page) include US 5,676,031 and US 5,730,037 (Logan Clutch), US 4,644,819, US 6,048,976 ('976 equivalent family member of US 6,148,976, Logan Clutch), US 5,950,132, US 6,050,162, US 6,148,976, US 6,272,955, and others. These are prior‑art citations only; there is no indication any of them was asserted against or by the '347 patent in litigation.

Likely source of any confusion (please verify)

Searching for "6848347" surfaced several unrelated matters. None of these concern US 6,848,347:

• U.S. Patent 8,684,734 (Zimmer Holdings/Zimmer Dental v. Four Mile Bay, IPR2015‑01059, PTAB) — a different patent.
• U.S. Patent 7,524,834 (AstraZeneca's "sterile budesonide" patent asserted against Breath/Watson, Sandoz, Apotex in D.N.J.) — the "‑834 patent" of that ANDA litigation, a different patent number.
• Unified Patents portal / PTAB activity cited in results involves other patents (e.g., 7,454,002, 9,069,648, 8,213,907) — not the '347 patent.

Conclusion / limits of this search

• Based on searches of patent‑litigation aggregators and the patent's own public docket/legal‑event record, no litigation is known involving US 6,848,347.
• I could not access a live PACER/courtlistener or Unified Patents caselist query that returned any case tied to this exact number; the searches produced no matching case.
• This is a negative finding, not a certification. It reflects publicly available sources as of my searches (current date April 26, 2026). If you need a definitive clearance opinion, the authoritatively complete check would be: (1) PACER docket search on the patent number and on "Logan Clutch"; (2) the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) API/caselist; (3) the ITC EDIS; and (4) Westlaw/Lexis Dockets. That said, the absence of any litigation entry in the patent's own legal‑event history, combined with its 2022 expiration and a single‑assignee (Logan Clutch) ownership chain, is consistent with there having been no litigation to date.

If you can confirm whether you mean a different identifier (e.g., 8,684,734 or 7,524,834), I'll run that specific number.

I'll start by confirming the structured data and then searching for any proceedings the ODP may not have indexed.

Let me run a few more targeted checks on the patent and its family/sibling patents.

One more pass to rule out reexamination, litigation-driven challenges, or a defensive-aggregator filing.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 6,848,347: zero (0). The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal, most recent ingest) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and my independent web searches corroborated that — no PTAB petition, institution decision, FWD, or Federal Circuit appeal references 6,848,347. Because there is no proceeding, there is nothing to break down by active / invalidated / sustained / settled / denied-institution: all three independent claims (1, 8, 15) and all twenty claims are UNTESTED at the PTAB. The defensive posture this gives a defendant is not "hardened patent" and not "troll with no case" — it is a blank slate on validity with an expired patent and an untested, presumably narrow claim set. Two practical consequences dominate: (1) no claim of 6,848,347 has ever survived or been canceled in an AIA trial, so an IPR-style "the claims are already dead" argument does not exist here; and (2) the patent's adjusted expiration was 2022-07-16, so the only exposure a defendant can have is for conduct before that date.

---

Per-proceeding detail

None. There is no proceeding to report. Rather than fabricate docket entries, I flag the two near-miss patent numbers that a docket search will surface and that must not be confused with this patent:

• US 11,684,347 (C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medline Industries, LP, IPR2025-00400) — different patent (cardiac catheters). Only the last six digits overlap with 6,848,347. Source: PTAB E2E petition documents, IPR2025-00400.
• US 6,847,107 (Immersion Corp., Haptic Feedback System, IPR2017-00889) — different patent; a one-digit digit-transposition of 6,848,347. Reported in the National Law Review PTO Litigation Report, 2017-02-13.

Neither involves Logan Clutch Corporation, Robert M. Kalinsky, or the multi-spindle-machine art. If a vendor's docket tool flags "347" hits, verify the full seven-digit number before 6,848,347 — 6,848,347 vs. 11,684,347 vs. 6,847,107.

Why the absence is credible (not just an indexing gap)

Three independent signals support a genuine "no PTAB activity" conclusion rather than a search failure:

1. Statutory unavailability of the newest trial type. PGR is limited to patents with at least one claim having an effective filing date on or after 2013-03-16. This patent's priority date is 2000-02-04 (provisional 60/180,328), so PGR was never available against it. CBM, the other post-grant option, required a "financial product or service" patent — a screw-machine clutch controller does not qualify, and CBM as a category has been judicially curtailed. That leaves IPR as the only viable AIA vehicle, narrowing the search space.
2. Terminal timing. The patent expired 2022-07-16. The patent has been off-royalty for years, and under the USPTO's current discretionary-denial practice (Acting/under-Director "settled expectations" line of decisions, e.g. Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. v. AXA Power Aps, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 (2025-06-18)), an expired, long-in-force patent is a strong candidate for discretionary denial anyway. Post-2022 petitions are therefore both commercially pointless and procedurally disfavored.
3. Family history. Logan Clutch's multi-spindle portfolio (6,148,976; 6,050,162; 6,125,982; 6,626,072; 5,730,037; 5,676,031; and the later 10,160,038) shows no PTAB trail in my searches either — consistent with a small, non-aggressive assertion posture by the owner rather than a hidden cluster of cancelled claims.

Caveat (carry it forward): "No PTAB activity found" is my search result, not a certified negative. The ODP ingest is the canonical list, and it is empty; I could not independently confirm against a live PTAB E2E docket query for this patent. Treat this as not found rather than affirmatively nonexistent, and re-verify at PTAB E2E and CourtListener before relying on it in a filing.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status across the patent. No claim has been CANCELED, none has been SUSTAINED, and all twenty are UNTESTED by the PTAB. That means the claim set that issued on 2005-02-01 is exactly the claim set that exists today — no certificates of cancellation, no adverse judgment, no statutory disclaimer on the public record that I could find. Independent claim 15 is the broadest system claim (it recites no controller), independent claim 1 is the apparatus claim that adds a controller, and independent claim 8 is the method counterpart. The apparent point of novelty over the cited art is the pre-engagement, brake-induced slowing that reduces stock bounce-back (see claims 4, 11, 16, 18, 20) — and that limitation is what has never been tested. A defendant's job is therefore not to cite a PTAB kill shot that does not exist, but to attack validity in whatever forum the case is actually in, using the fifteen references already on the face of the patent plus the expired term.

Estoppel landscape. With zero petitioners, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is empty — no party is barred from anything, because no party has ever been a petitioner. This is unusual and, for a defendant, favorable on the IPR side: if the patent were somehow still assertable, any prior-art ground would be procedurally available to a first-time petitioner (subject to the General Plastic / Fintiv / current Director-level discretionary factors and the "settled expectations" policy noted above). But the more important point is that a defendant is not estopped from raising § 102/§ 103 in district court, because nothing has been raised at the PTAB. Check § 315(b): the one-year IPR time bar runs from service of a complaint alleging infringement, and given the 2022 expiration there may be no live complaint to trigger it — confirm the actual litigation posture rather than assuming.

Pattern signals. No repeat-petitioner pattern (no petitioner at all). The patent owner, Logan Clutch Corporation, shows no history of aggressive PTAB appeals or defensive-aggregator involvement in the multi-spindle family — no Unified Patents or RPX filing surfaced against any Kalinsky/Logan patent in my searches. The one apparent continuation of this lineage is US 10,160,038 B1 (Multi-spindle machine control system, Logan Clutch, priority 2014-08-29), which cites 6,848,347 — a family relationship, not a validity challenge. Do not mistake a citation for a proceeding.

The expiration point is the real defense. The adjusted expiration is 2022-07-16 (maintenance fees paid at 4, 8, and 12 years; Google Patents legal status "Expired – Lifetime"). A patent owner cannot recover for infringement occurring after expiration, and pre-expiration damages are bounded by the six-year lookback of 35 U.S.C. § 286 — which, measured from today (2026-10-01), reaches back only to approximately 2020-10-01, with everything after 2022-07-16 outside the term entirely. For most defendants this makes the entire PTAB question academic: the monetizable window is roughly 2020-10-01 through 2022-07-16, and any demand letter citing ongoing or current infringement is legally defective on its face.

---

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant being asserted against today:

1. Attack the term first — it is the cleanest defense. Demand the complaint's accused-infringement dates. Any theory premised on conduct after 2022-07-16 is barred because the patent is expired; any theory reaching back more than six years from the complaint (before roughly 2020-10-01) is barred by 35 U.S.C. § 286. Narrow, date-bounded damages are usually fatal to a case's economics.
2. Do not assume a PTAB shortcut exists. Because there are no proceedings, there is no Final Written Decision to cite and no claim held invalid to quote. If you want a PTAB route, you would be petitioner number one — and given expiration plus current discretionary-denial practice, institution is a long shot. Evaluate ex parte reexamination (no § 315(b) bar, no estoppel, cheaper) or summary judgment of invalidity in the district court using the face-of-patent references instead.
3. Build invalidity on the cited art and the pre-AIA § 102/§ 103 framework. The most promising references are already identified by the examiner: US 4,644,819 (Leggett & Platt high-low speed drive for multiple spindle machines), US 5,730,037 and US 5,676,031 (Logan Clutch's own stock-detection/positioning patents), US 6,148,976 and US 6,050,162 (Logan's own high/low-speed-with-brake patents, incorporated by reference in the specification), and — notably for the anti-bounce-back concept — US 6,044,736 (Pietro Cucchi, Rotary bar loader with braking and positioning device for automatic lathe). Because the patent is pre-AIA, the pre-AIA § 102/§ 103 regimes and the pre-AIA § 102(e)/§ 103(c) nuances apply; do not import post-AIA case law uncritically.
4. Verify against the primary sources before filing, and record the negative. Confirm the empty PTAB list at PTAB E2E and check for any Federal Circuit appeal or collateral estoppel/issue-preclusion effect at CourtListener. Also pull the file history from USPTO PatentCenter to see whether any claim was narrowed or whether any terminal disclaimer/reexamination exists that the front page does not reflect.
5. Watch the numbering confusion. When you build your docket watchlist, key on US 6,848,347 exactly; exclude US 11,684,347 (IPR2025-00400, Bard v. Medline) and US 6,847,107 (IPR2017-00889, Immersion). A one- or two-digit slip here will put a cardiac-catheter IPR or a haptics IPR in your brief.

If you are the patent owner or licensing this patent: there is nothing in the PTAB record standing against you — the claims are intact and untested. But the expiration date and the empty proceeding list together mean the patent's enforcement value is largely historical. Any assertion should be limited to pre-2022-07-16 conduct and should be paired with a realistic § 286 damages model; a demand letter that ignores either limitation invites a Rule 11 or § 285 fee motion.

---

Sourcing note. The canonical proceedings list for this response is the USPTO Open Data Portal "PTAB proceedings on file" block, which is empty for 6,848,347. Bibliographic, claim, and legal-status facts are taken from the full patent text supplied in the prompt (fetched from Google Patents, US6848347B1). The two near-miss proceedings are sourced from the linked PTAB E2E petition documents and the National Law Review PTO Litigation Report cited above. Where I could not confirm something from an authoritative system, I have said so rather than guess.

I'll research the assignment record for US 6,848,347, cross-referencing the patent's legal events with USPTO assignment data and any corporate records on Logan Clutch.

Let me dig into the specific assignment record details and check whether any post-issuance transfers exist.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 6,848,347 B1 ("Multi-spindle machine")

Data-source note: I reconstruct this chain from (a) the patent's own front-page/Google Patents legal-events record and (b) the sources reached in my searches. I was unable to retrieve the USPTO Assignment Center detail page (assignment.uspto.gov / assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) for this patent within my search budget, so I could not capture the recording correspondent (the attorney/agent of record) for the one assignment that exists. I flag that gap explicitly rather than guess it. The reel/frame, conveyance type, assignor, assignee, and dates below are taken from the patent's recorded legal events.

---

Inventors

• Unusual-pattern check: Not present. There is no evidence of the inventor departing the original assignee. To the contrary, the same inventor name recurs on Logan Clutch filings roughly 15 years after this patent's 2000 priority date, which is consistent with a long-tenured in-house design engineer at a small family-owned OEM rather than a founder-inventor preparing a portfolio for sale. No co-inventors exist to create a fragmented inventorship pattern.

---

Original assignee

• Entity: Logan Clutch Corporation (also styled "Logan Clutch Corp."), Westlake, Ohio (suburb of Cleveland; 28855 Ranney Pkwy).
• Primary line of business: Manufacturer of industrial fluid/air-actuated multiple-disc clutches, brakes, PTO clutches and pump drives; NAICS 333613 (Mechanical Power Transmission Equipment Manufacturing). Long-standing supplier to the screw-machine market, which is exactly the field of this patent (Davenport Model B multi-spindle automatic screw machines).
• Product embodying the claims: Yes — shipped/installed. Logan Clutch's own product literature and Patents & Trademarks page list this patent (6,848,347, "MULTI-SPINDLE MACHINE") as a granted patent, and the company publicly describes a high/low speed retrofit system for multi-spindle machines. The specification's FIG. 6 (starting/feed clutch, machine brake clutch, snubbing clutch, high-speed clutch) maps directly onto Logan's commercial machine-tool clutch/brake products.
• Current status: Operating. Family-owned and family-operated since 1975 (founder William M. Logan; second generation since 1987; current CEO/President W. Andrew Logan). Active U.S. SAM registration (UEI N6PNVK7MM4K7), ~26 employees, facility expanded in 2010, "15 patents and multiple trademarks." No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition event was found.
• Public-company cross-reference: Not applicable — Logan Clutch is privately held, so there is no 10-K/8-K to check for privateering or asset-sale disclosures.

---

Assignment timeline

Only one assignment is recorded against US 6,848,347. There are no post-issuance assignments, security agreements, licenses, mergers, or changes of name in the recorded legal-event history (which shows only: assignment → grant → three maintenance-fee payments).

• 2000-03-30 executed / recorded 2001-04-04 — Reel 011706 / Frame 0117
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: Kalinsky, Robert M. (individual inventor)
  • Assignee: Logan Clutch Corporation, State of Ohio
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved. The recording data surfaced in my sources did not expose the correspondent attorney/firm for this reel/frame, and I did not locate it independently. (Recording per USPTO Assignment Center; this is the only recording in the chain.)
  • Context: Inbound inventor assignment — the standard pre-issuance transfer of rights from the sole inventor to his employer, executed ~14 months before the 2005-02-01 grant and ~2 months after the 2001-01-31 non-provisional filing. No third party is involved.

No subsequent reel/frame exists. Because the Assignment Center shows no post-issuance transfer, the original assignee (Logan Clutch Corporation) is the continuing owner of record.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6848347
    2000 : Provisional filed by Kalinsky
    2001 : Kalinsky assigns to Logan Clutch
         : Nonprovisional application filed
    2005 : Patent issued
    2008 : Maintenance fee paid
    2012 : Maintenance fee paid
    2016 : Maintenance fee paid
    2018 : Later Logan patent cites this one
    2022 : Patent reaches adjusted expiry

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The chain never leaves Logan Clutch Corporation. The assignee is a 50-year-old, family-owned OEM with a physical factory at 28855 Ranney Pkwy, Westlake, OH, real commercial clutch/brake products, and 26 employees. No "IP/Holdings/Ventures/Licensing" successor appears in reel 011706/0117 or anywhere else in the record.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. "Logan Clutch Corporation" appears on no NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, Spangenberg entities, etc.), and no asserter directory entry was surfaced.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / not determinable. With only one assignment on record there is no chain across which a correspondent could recur, and I could not retrieve the correspondent name for reel 011706/0117. I explicitly decline to infer a correspondent from naming alone. There is no recurrence to flag.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Exactly one recorded assignment; no chained LLC-to-LLC transfers, no shared-address assignee cluster.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The sole assignment (2001-03-30/2001-04-04) predates the 2005 grant by years and is unconnected to any suit; the prior analysis found no litigation involving this patent.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. Logan Clutch remains an active operating company (SAM registration active as of Sept 2025; facility expansion 2010; 26 staff in 2026). No Chapter 7/11 or asset-sale event was found. Note the patent already reached its adjusted expiration of 2022-07-16, so it is no longer an assertable asset regardless.
7. Privateering — Not present. No transfer to any third party that could assert on Logan Clutch's behalf; ownership never left the operating company, and there are no SEC filings (private company) suggesting a monetization spin-out.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates where it started: with the original operating-company assignee.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data (only the original assignment is on record).

Justification: The entire ownership history of US 6,848,347 consists of a single recording — reel 011706/0117, executed 2000-03-30 / recorded 2001-04-04, conveying rights from sole inventor Robert M. Kalinsky to Logan Clutch Corporation — plus the 2005 grant and 2008/2012/2016 maintenance-fee payments. Because this is "only the original assignment" with no post-issuance transfers, the verdict category that literally fits is Insufficient data; it is not "NPE — high/moderate confidence," because zero of the eight NPE signals are present, and it is not "Operating-company assertion," because Logan Clutch has not been shown to assert this patent (no litigation was found, and the patent expired 2022-07-16). The weight of evidence points to a benign, non-NPE chain — a working OEM that invented, assigned, and held the patent to term — but the absence of any secondary-market activity means there is simply no assignment-chain data beyond the original inventor-to-employer transfer to analyze.

Verification: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 6848347) and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Confirm the single reel 011706/0117 entry and, if a definitive correspondent record is required, pull the assignment abstract directly from the Assignment Center detail page (a field I was unable to retrieve here).

---

Contradiction check against earlier sections

• The prior Patent summary states the assignment was "recorded 2001-04-04, effective 2001-03-30" — consistent with the legal-events block (reel/frame 011706/0117) reproduced here. No contradiction.
• The prior Litigation summary states reels/summary listing US 5,950,132 and US 6,048,976 among backward citations is a transcription slip: the actual front-page citations are US 5,953,970 and US 6,044,736 (plus US 6,148,976). This does not affect ownership, but I flag it so the citation list is not propagated with the wrong numbers.

I'll research the cited prior art references to ground this anticipation analysis. Let me run targeted searches on the key references.

Let me research the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 6,848,347 ("Multi-spindle machine," Logan Clutch Corp.)

Scope/method note. Per your strict rule, I searched literally for 6,848,347 / US6848347 and did not substitute look-alike numbers. I relied on (a) the authoritative patent text you supplied and (b) live web results for the cited references. Where a search tool did not return the full text of a reference, I say so rather than fabricating its disclosure. I did not complete full-text pulls on every one of the 15 references (search limits were reached), so the descriptions below are anchored to the citation table on the '347 face and to the references whose texts I did retrieve.

A threshold point that governs the whole § 102 analysis:

Critical date. The '347 patent claims benefit of provisional 60/180,328, filed 2000-02-04; the non-provisional was filed 2001-01-31. Under pre‑AIA § 102, the presumptive critical date is the provisional date (2000-02-04). All 15 cited references qualify as prior art:

• 14 of them published/filed before 2000-02-04 → § 102(a)/(b) art.
• US 6,272,955 published 2001-08-14 (after filing) but was filed 1999-02-18, so it is still prior art under pre‑AIA § 102(e) as an earlier-filed U.S. patent.

Key framing for anticipation. For § 102 anticipation, a single reference must disclose every element of the claim. The apparent point of novelty of the '347 claims is the combination of (i) a machine operable high/low, (ii) a controller-driven brake arrangement that slows the stock feeder mechanism, and (iii) doing so before the stock engages the stock stop device to reduce bounce-back. As shown below, no single cited reference appears to disclose all of these together; several disclose the drive/clutch/brake environment, and others disclose the stock-stop/detection environment, but the references key to the invention read as § 103 combination art rather than clean § 102 anticipations. I flag the strongest single-reference candidates explicitly.

---

1. The 15 cited references (as listed on the '347 face / Google Patents citations table)

Dates below are the priority/filing and publication dates given in the '347 citation record; where I retrieved the reference itself, I note the confirmed U.S. filing data.

---

2. § 102 relevance, reference by reference

Below, "potentially anticipates" means the reference, taken alone, discloses the added limitation so as to be a candidate to anticipate that specific dependent claim only if the claim's independent-claim limitations are also met by the same reference. Because several references disclose the drive-train/control environment while others disclose the stock-stop/detection environment, most of these are better characterized as § 103 combination candidates; I mark the ones with genuine single-reference potential.

Tier 1 — Closest references

US 6,148,976 (Logan Clutch) — HIGHEST relevance.
Discloses a multi-spindle machine operable at low/high speed having a starting clutch drive shaft and a long worm drive shaft, with a starting/feed clutch, machine brake clutch, high-speed clutch, and snubbing clutch, all pneumatically actuated and electronically controlled by a microprocessor via solenoid valves, and expressly discloses using the brake/snubbing clutches to slow a drive shaft. This maps very closely to:

• Claim 2 — "brake arrangement enables slowing of the rotation of a drive shaft … operatively responsive to the machine controller." '976 discloses exactly this (snubbing clutch/brake clutch slowing the long worm drive shaft under microprocessor control).
• Claim 6 — brake arrangement = machine brake clutch. Disclosed.
• Claim 7 / Claim 14 — brake arrangement = snubbing clutch. Disclosed.
• Claim 1 preamble / Claim 8 preamble — machine operable high/low with starting clutch drive shaft and long worm drive shaft. Disclosed.
• Claim 3 (partial) — switching from high to a lower speed under controller control. Disclosed as to the machine, though not expressly for the feeder during stock feeding.
  Gap: '976 does not appear to disclose a stock feeder mechanism being slowed, nor slowing prior to the stock engaging the stock stop device to reduce bounce-back. So it is a strong § 103 reference and a candidate to anticipate only the structural dependent claims (2, 6, 7) — not independent claims 1, 8, or 15.

US 5,676,031 (Logan Clutch) — HIGH relevance to claims 15–20.
Discloses a multi-spindle stock-forming machine with a stock feeder, a stock stop/detector device engaged by the stock, a fluid chamber that decelerates the stock, and a sensor that signals a controller when the stock reaches position; the controller uses the signal to stop the feeder / detect malfunction. This maps to:

• Claim 15 — "stock feeder mechanism … stock stop device … brake system operative to slow the speed of the feeder mechanism." '031 discloses feeder + stop device, and deceleration of the stock at the stop; however its deceleration is at the stop device, not by a brake system slowing the feeder mechanism prior to engagement, so it is a strong combination reference but not a clean anticipation of the "prior to engagement" limitation.
• Claim 17/18/20 (detection system) — '031 discloses a sensor + controller detecting the stock and signaling completion of positioning. Strong candidate to anticipate the detection limitations, but the '347 detection is tied to a predetermined braking position prior to engagement, whereas '031 detects at the stop.
  Gap: timing (pre-engagement braking of the feeder) and bounce-back reduction. Best § 103 reference for the detection-based dependent claims.

US 6,050,162 (Logan Clutch) — HIGH relevance.
Retrofit system with a high-speed clutch, feed clutch, and brake clutch plus an electrical control system that disengages high-speed/feed clutch and engages the brake clutch to slow the power feed train from high speed. Maps to:

• Claim 2 (brake slows rotation of a drive shaft), claim 6 (machine brake clutch), claims 9/13 (method of operating a brake clutch under control).
  Gap: like '976, it slows the power feed train for the high→low shift, not to slow a stock feeder prior to stock-stop engagement. § 103 reference; candidate to anticipate the "drive shaft slowing" dependent claims.

US 4,644,819 (Leggett & Platt).
Expressly discloses pneumatically operated disc clutches connecting high- and low-speed shafts to the main drive shaft, where the low-speed clutch "acts as a brake" to rapidly decelerate the main drive shaft, plus an optional main-drive-shaft disc brake. Maps to:

• Claim 6 (brake = machine brake clutch analogue), claim 7 (snubbing/braking clutch analogue), and the general high/low drive environment of claims 1/8.
  Gap: no stock feeder, no stock-stop timing, no bounce-back feature.

US 6,044,736 (Cucchi).
Discloses a braking and positioning device for a bar loader — pins on a drum engaging a cam to brake and stop the drum against inertia, with a sensor/stop positioning function and even a recess for accurate stopping. Notably this reference also appears in the related appeal record ("Ex Parte Kalinsky") discussing Cucchi's drum braking/positioning. Maps to:

• Claim 15/16 generalized concept of a brake system used in bar feeding to slow and position stock; claim 2 (braking to slow rotation).
  Gap: Cucchi brakes the loader drum, not the feeder mechanism, and does not disclose slowing before stock-to-stop engagement to reduce bounce-back. § 103 reference; not a clean § 102 anticipation.

Tier 2 — Relevant background / environment

US 5,730,037 (Logan Clutch) — Multi-spindle machine control systems.
Discloses a programmable controller for a multi-spindle machine with sensors, programmable high/low speed shift points, a clutch pair to shift drive-shaft speed, and shut-down on detected fault. Relevant to the "machine controller" element of claims 1/8 and to the control architecture of claims 9–12. Gap: no stock feeder slowing / bounce-back feature. § 103 reference for the controller limitations.

US 3,760,661 (Automatic Bar Feed) — Pneumatic bar feeder control for multiple spindle screw machines.
Title-identified as a pneumatic bar feeder control for multiple-spindle screw machines; likely relevant to the "stock feeder mechanism" element. I did not retrieve its full text, so I cannot state that it discloses slowing the feeder or pre-engagement braking; treat it as a § 103 candidate for the feeder element only, pending full-text review.

US 5,953,970 (Ski Industries) — servo-controlled power feed/spindle drive.
Discloses an electronically programmable servo-controlled power feed and spindle drive for an automatic screw machine. Relevant to the "controller"/controlled feeding concept (claims 1, 8). Gap: does not appear to disclose brake-induced feeder slowing before a stock stop. § 103 candidate.

US 5,910,201 (Dover Industries) — Multiple spindle screw machine.
Machine architecture reference (multiple-spindle screw machine). Relevant only as background to the claim preamble (claims 1/8/15). Unlikely alone to anticipate any claim; § 103/background.

US 6,272,955 B1 (LNS S.A.) — Feeder of short rods for a machine tool.
Bar-feeder reference (short rods). Relevant to the stock-feeder element and possibly feeding accuracy. Qualifies as art under § 102(e) (filed 1999‑02‑18). Full text not retrieved; treat as a § 103 candidate on the feeder element.

US 3,720,048 (Acme Cleveland) — Spindle control; US 3,747,444 (Acme Cleveland) — Machine tool transmission.
Old machine-tool spindle/transmission controls. Relevant at most to the drive-train environment; unlikely to anticipate any '347 claim.

Tier 3 — Peripheral

US 4,942,650 (Howarth) — fluid-actuated tool slide control; US 5,044,055 (Parker Hannifin) — hydraulic spindle carrier clamping; US 5,076,123 (Brittani‑7) — single spindle drive assembly.
These address tool-slide control, carrier clamping, and single-spindle drive respectively. They are peripheral to the stock-feeding/bounce-back concept. I do not see any of them disclosing the brake-slows-feeder-before-stock-stop combination; they are background only and do not anticipate the independent claims. (Descriptions limited to title/subject; full texts not retrieved.)

---

3. Bottom line on § 102

• No cited reference appears to be a single-reference (§ 102) anticipation of independent claims 1, 8, or 15, because none of them, on the record I retrieved, discloses the combination of a controller-driven brake arrangement that slows the stock feeder mechanism during stock feeding, prior to engagement with the stock stop device, to reduce bounce-back.
• The strongest § 102 candidates on specific dependent limitations are:
  • US 6,148,976 → claims 2, 6, 7 (and parts of 3/5) — brake/snubbing clutch slowing a drive shaft under controller/microprocessor control.
  • US 6,050,162 → claims 2, 6, 9, 13 — brake clutch slowing the power feed train under electrical control.
  • US 5,676,031 → claims 15, 17, 18, 20 — stock feeder + stock stop device + sensor/controller detecting stock position (with stock deceleration at the stop).
  • US 4,644,819 → claims 1, 2, 6, 7 environment — pneumatic disc clutches with low-speed clutch acting as a brake.
  • US 6,044,736 (Cucchi) → claims 15, 16, 2 generalized — braking/positioning in a bar loader.
• The overall inventive contribution of '347 (pre-engagement braking of the feeder to kill bounce-back) is best supported against the cited art as a § 103 combination of a high/low brake/clutch drive system (e.g., '976 / '819 / '162) with a stock-stop/detection arrangement (e.g., '631), rather than as clean § 102 anticipation.

---

4. Contradictions with the previously generated sections (flagged, not auto-corrected)

1. Bogus reference number. The prior Litigation summary states: "US 6,048,976 ('976 equivalent family member of US 6,148,976, Logan Clutch)." There is no US 6,048,976 in the '347 citation list. The actual cited Logan Clutch reference is US 6,148,976. This is an apparent error in the prior section; I did not silently correct it.
2. Bogus reference number. The same section lists "US 5,950,132." No such reference is cited; the actual cited reference is US 5,953,970. Again an apparent error.
3. Dates re-confirmed. The prior sections are consistent with the record on the two controlling dates: provisional priority 2000‑02‑04, non-provisional filing 2001‑01‑31, issue 2005‑02‑01, adjusted expiration 2022‑07‑16. No contradiction there.
4. Litigation finding unchanged. My searches surfaced the Ex Parte Kalinsky appeal record referencing Cucchi as prior art (see law.onecle.com), which is prosecution/appeal activity — not a litigation or IPR/PGR against '347. This is consistent with (and does not contradict) the prior "no litigation found" conclusion.

Caveats. (a) I did not retrieve the full texts of US 3,760,661, US 5,910,201, US 5,953,970, US 6,272,955, US 3,720,048, US 3,747,444, US 4,942,650, US 5,044,055, or US 5,076,123; their descriptions above are limited to their titles/subject matter as recorded on the '347 face, and I have not asserted disclosures I could not verify. (b) Confirming § 102/§ 103 conclusions would require reading each reference's full specification and claims (and the '347 prosecution history / any appeal decision), which I did not exhaust. (c) This is an analyst assessment, not a legal opinion.

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

Let me pull the stock-detector reference and the Board appeal decision that discusses this art.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 6,848,347 B1 ("Multi-spindle machine") under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Source of record: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6848347](/patent/US6848347)/en (full text supplied). All prior-art references below are the 15 references cited on the face of the '347 patent. I have grounded each reference's disclosure in its own text where available.

---

0. Corrections to the previously-generated sections

Before analyzing, two literal-identifier discrepancies in the earlier "Litigation summary" must be flagged (I have not auto-corrected them, per instructions):

• That section refers to a cited reference "US 6,048,976." No such reference appears on the '347 front page. The cited Logan Clutch reference is US 6,148,976 (Multi-spindle machine high speed/low speed system). This appears to be a transcription error in the earlier section.
• That section also lists "US 5,950,132" among the backwards citations. The '347 front page lists US 5,953,970 (SKI Industries). Again, likely a transcription error.

Both are noted so the record is clean; the analysis below uses the identifiers as they literally appear on the patent.

The earlier sections' bibliographic, claim, and "no litigation found" conclusions are consistent with the patent text and are not repeated here.

---

1. Legal framework

Obviousness under § 103 asks whether the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art ("PHOSITA") at the time of invention. Under Graham v. John Deere, the analysis is: (1) scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) the level of ordinary skill; and (4) secondary considerations. Under KSR Int'l v. Teleflex (2007), the claimed combination need not be taught expressly; it is sufficient that the elements were known, that the combination was "a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions," or that the combination was "obvious to try" with a reasonable expectation of success. A motivation to combine may come from the references themselves, the nature of the problem, the ordinary creativity of a skilled artisan, or market/design demands.

Level of ordinary skill (my assessment): a mechanical engineer or machine-tool technician with ~2–4 years of experience with cam-operated automatic screw machines and their pneumatic clutch/brake drive trains, capable of reading timing charts and specifying clutch/brake actuation points in a machine cycle. The '347 specification itself is written at roughly this level and repeatedly states that power-train details are "known to those skilled in this art."

Critical timing point: the '347 has a priority date of February 4, 2000. All 15 cited references pre-date that date (the latest cited, US 6,044,736, issued April 4, 2000, but was filed Jan. 25, 1999, and claims a 1998 Italian priority — squarely prior art). So every reference is available as § 102(b)/§ 102(e) art.

---

2. The inventive contribution, framed narrowly

Stripped to its essentials, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 each require only:

• a multi-spindle machine (with a starting clutch drive shaft and a long worm drive shaft — claims 1/8, not claim 15);
• a stock feeder mechanism;
• a brake arrangement/brake system capable of slowing the feeder; and
• (claims 1/8 only) a machine controller that operates the brake during stock feeding;
• (claim 15 only) a stock stop device engaged by the stock.

The only limitation that is arguably not squarely in the prior art is the timing/target of the braking: applying the machine's existing brake to the feed operation itself (rather than to the high-to-low machining shift) so the stock meets the stop at reduced speed. That purpose-specific timing appears expressly only in dependent claims (4, 5, 11, 16, 18, 20 — "prior to engagement" / "reduce bounce back distance"). The independents are correspondingly broad.

---

3. The prior art, element by element

3.1 US 6,148,976 — Logan Clutch, Multi-spindle machine high speed/low speed system

https://patents.justia.com/patent/[6148976](/patent/6148976) ; http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat6148976.html

This is the single most damaging reference. It is incorporated by reference into the '347 specification itself, shares the same assignee (Logan Clutch) and origin (Kalinsky's program), and describes exactly the hardware the '347 draws in FIG. 6. Its claim 15 preamble reads:

"A clutch arrangement for a multiple spindle machine operable at a low speed or a high speed and having a timing shaft, starting clutch drive shaft and a long worm drive shaft…"

This is verbatim the preamble of '347 claim 1. The '976 reference further discloses:

• a starting/feed clutch (12) on the starting clutch drive shaft (16);
• a machine brake clutch (14) on the same shaft, operative to "slow the rotation of the starting clutch drive shaft" — "can be applied for short periods whereby it acts to reduce the speed of rotation";
• a high speed clutch (18) and a snubbing clutch (22) on the long worm drive shaft (20), the snubbing clutch acting "to selectively slow the rotation of the long worm drive shaft";
• all four clutches pneumatically actuated and electronically controlled by an electrical control system with timers and limit switches, and controllable by a microprocessor (claim 19: "the electrical circuit is operative to be controlled by a microprocessor"); and
• an operating sequence that includes "feeding stock into position at high speed."

So '976 supplies every structural element of '347 claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 — the starting clutch drive shaft, the long worm drive shaft, the machine brake clutch, the snubbing clutch, the controller, and high/low speeds. The only thing it lacks is using the brake during the feed rather than for the high-to-low machining shift. Indeed, '976's own sequence ("feeding stock into position at high speed") is the exact practice the '347 identifies as problematic.

3.2 US 6,044,736 — Pietro Cucchi, Rotary bar loader with braking and positioning device for automatic lathe

https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6044736A](/patent/US6044736A)/en

This is the key motivation reference, and it was the examiner's focus (see §6). Cucchi is a bar loader for automatic lathes with multiple mandrels — the same technical field. It expressly frames the problem the '347 claims to solve:

"The drum must be rotated and stopped in the new position with high speed and accuracy. Since the operating speeds of the machines and the masses in play are high the problem of assuring correct braking and stopping is particularly critical."

Cucchi's solution is a braking and positioning device that brakes the bar-handling structure against its inertial movement so it stops accurately at the machining/positioning location, optionally using "a spring or hydraulic decelerator," and brakes "near the new stopping and machining position." In other words, Cucchi teaches precisely the concept of applying a brake to a bar-feeding mechanism to arrest it accurately at the positioning location — the functional heart of the '347.

3.3 US 5,730,037 — Logan Clutch, Multi-spindle machine control systems

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5730037

Discloses a programmable controller with processor, display, and sensors; an encoder for determining timing-shaft position; and a "clutch pair … operative to change the speed of the drive shaft from a high speed to a relatively low speed and vice-versa … in operative connection with said controller, whereby said controller is operative to shift said drive shaft from high to low speed." This is the "machine controller … operative to control the braking arrangement" element of '347 claim 1, and the "operating the controller to control the braking arrangement" step of claim 9/claim 11. It also confirms the artisan's familiarity with programming the high/low shift points to any desired cycle position — i.e., moving the brake-actuation point is a known control exercise.

3.4 US 5,676,031 — Logan Clutch, Apparatus for detecting stock

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5676031

Discloses the stock stop / stock detector engaged by advancing stock, and a sensor that signals the controller when the piston is driven back by the stock. Critically, one of its stated objects is:

"to provide an apparatus for detecting stock which decelerates stock in a manner that prevents it from being damaged when it is stopped" and "in which the decelerating force can be varied."

'631 also describes the prior-art problem that stock stop devices "absorb the full impact of the advancing stock, often causing the stock to be dented or otherwise damaged." This supplies: (a) the "stock stop device" of claim 15; (b) the "detection system" of claims 17–20; and (c) an independent motivation to decelerate stock before it is arrested.

3.5 US 4,644,819 — Leggett & Platt, High-low speed drive system for multiple spindle machines

https://patents.google.com/patent/US4644819

Teaches an "all-clutch" (brake-less) multi-spindle drive using pneumatic disc clutches on high- and low-speed shafts, where the low-speed clutch "acts as a brake to rapidly decelerate the main drive shaft," plus an optional pneumatic disc brake on the main drive shaft. Establishes that using a clutch/brake to rapidly decelerate the drive train on command was a well-known technique in this exact machine class.

3.6 US 6,050,162 — Logan Clutch, Multi-spindle machine retrofit system

https://companyprofiles.justatic.com/patent/[6050162](/patent/6050162)

Its claim 1 recites a feed clutch, a brake clutch "selectively operative to slow the speed of the power feed train," and an electrical control system that engages the brake clutch to slow the power feed train from high speed. It discloses a timer (1 ms) that applies the brake clutch for a preset interval. This is further cumulative evidence that controller-timed application of a brake clutch to the feed train was known and routine.

3.7 Remaining cited art

US 3,720,048 / US 3,747,444 (Acme-Cleveland spindle control & machine-tool transmission), US 3,760,661 (Automatic Bar Feed — pneumatic bar feeder control for multiple-spindle screw machines), US 4,942,650, US 5,044,055, US 5,076,123, US 5,910,201, US 5,953,970, US 6,272,955 (LNS short-rod feeder) round out the field: bar-feeder controls, multi-spindle transmissions, and clutched drive trains. None of these matters as much as the five above, but US 3,760,661 and US 6,272,955 confirm that controlled/braked bar feeding was a crowded, well-developed art.

---

4. Mapping of the independent claims to the prior art

Claim 1 — Controller arrangement (apparatus)

Difference over the art: the sole gap is timing the brake to the stock-feeding interval rather than the machining shift. That is a use of a known element (the '976 brake) for its established function (slowing the drive train), at a newly chosen point in a known cycle — the classic KSR "predictable use … according to established functions" scenario.

Claims 6 and 7 (brake = machine brake clutch / snubbing clutch) are met literally and individually by '976 (the machine brake clutch 14 and the snubbing clutch 22, respectively). There is no meaningful difference to argue.

Claim 8 — Method of feeding stock

Claims 9–14 add: controller-driven slowing of a drive shaft ('976/'037/'162); feeding at high speed first ('976 text); slowing before stock-to-stop engagement (Cucchi); then feeding at low speed ('976); and brake = machine brake clutch or snubbing clutch ('976, literally).

Claim 15 — Stock feeder control system (broadest)

Claim 15 does not require a controller or the pre-engagement timing — it is the broadest claim and the most exposed. '976 ('631 stock stop) in view of Cucchi '736 renders it obvious.

Claims 16–20 add: braking before stock-to-stop engagement with reduced bounce-back distance; a detection system (proximity/pressure sensors) confirming a predetermined feeding position, with the brake responsive; detection before engagement; and switching from machine high speed to machine low speed. These map to '631 (position sensor → controller), '037 (encoder/processor and programmable shift points), and '976 (limit switch on the timing shaft gating brake actuation). These are the narrowest claims and the strongest patentability positions.

---

5. Motivation to combine (why a PHOSITA would have done this)

The combination is not a hindsight reconstruction; multiple independent motivations converge:

1. Same field, same problem, same assignee family. '976, '037, '631, '162 are all Logan Clutch/Kalinsky references directed to multi-spindle stock feeding. '976 is even incorporated by reference into the '347 specification. A PHOSITA working on a Davenport Model B would consult exactly these references together. KSR sanctions combining references "designed to address the same problem."

2. The '347 specification itself supplies the motivation. The Background admits the problem was discovered ("it has been discovered that … the stock may hit the stop and bounce back from the stock stop device … not properly positioned"). A problem newly recognized by the inventor is still part of the objective framework; the question is whether the solution was obvious. Here Cucchi already taught the solution category.

3. Cucchi supplies the express reason to brake during feeding. Cucchi states the problem — stopping a heavy, fast-moving bar-handling structure "with high speed and accuracy" against inertia — and solves it by braking the bar-feeder against inertial movement near the stopping/positioning position. That is a direct, express teaching to apply a brake to the feed mechanism for accurate positioning. Because '976 already put the brake hardware in the very same drive train, the artisan had only to re-time the known brake to the feed step — a predictable change with an expected result (lower impact speed → less rebound).

4. '631 supplies the express reason to decelerate before stopping. '631 states as an object decelerating stock "to prevent it from being damaged when it is stopped" and notes prior stops "absorb the full impact of the advancing stock, often causing the stock to be dented or otherwise damaged." Reducing impact against the stop is the same physical goal as reducing bounce-back. This is a strong, in-field motivation.

5. The '976 brake is expressly a general-purpose, programmable tool. '976 teaches that the brake clutch "can be applied for short periods whereby it acts to reduce the speed of rotation" and that the snubbing clutch "can be applied throughout the work cycle … as needed." Logan's own product literature for the '976 Retrokit states the snubbing brake "Can be applied as needed throughout the work cycle." A brake already sold as arbitrarily programmable and applicable anywhere in the cycle is, by design, available to be applied during the feed.

6. '037 and '162 show that re-timing a controller-driven shift is routine. '037's controller is "readily programmable to modify the high and low shift points," and '162 uses a timer to apply the brake clutch for a preset interval. Choosing the feed interval as the trigger point is a design choice within the artisan's ordinary skill.

7. Predictable result / reasonable expectation of success. All elements are known; the physics (slower stock → smaller rebound) is elementary; Cucchi demonstrates the approach works in a bar-feeding context. No new principle is required. Under KSR, "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill … would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious."

---

6. What the record shows the examiner/applicant actually fought about

A 2004 Board of Patent Appeals decision, Ex Parte Kalinsky (fd040241007), discusses Cucchi:
https://law.onecle.com/board-of-patent-appeals/2004/fd040241007.html

"Cucchi discloses a positioning system for a rotary loader that feeds bars to a lathe. As explained in column 1, a rotatable drum carrying the bar stock is braked and located in position to feed the bars by the interaction of a plurality of pins 17 carried on the drum with a cam surface 20."

Caveat: I was not able to confirm from the retrieved material that this decision concerns the '347 application specifically (it could concern another Kalinsky/Logan application), nor did I retrieve the full decision or the resulting claim amendments. What this snippet does establish is that Cucchi was squarely before the Office during prosecution of a Kalinsky multi-spindle application — consistent with the fact that Cucchi issued to the applicant's attention and is on the '347 front page. That the issued '347 claims omit any express "prior to engagement" limitation from the independents suggests the claims were allowed on breadth of claim language rather than on a strong distinction over Cucchi. I flag this as a lead to verify against the '347 file wrapper, not as an established fact.

---

7. Secondary considerations (§ 103 Graham factor 4)

• Commercial success / nexus: Logan Clutch commercially markets its Hi-Lo Retrokit (U.S. Patent No. 6,148,976) for the Davenport Model B (https://loganclutch.com/hilo-retrokit-davenport). But that success attributes to the '976 system, not to the '347's incremental feed-braking feature, and the earlier litigation section found no litigation or licensing record tying commercial value to the '347's specific claimed timing. Nexus is therefore weak or absent, and this evidence would not overcome the strong § 103 case on the independents.
• Long-felt need: the underlying need (accurate stock positioning / avoiding stop impact) was already recognized and partially addressed by '631 ('decelerate stock … to prevent damage when stopped'). The '347 addresses a narrower residual problem (rebound), which weakens "long-felt but unresolved need."
• Unexpected results: none apparent; the specification asserts no data on surprise or superior magnitude. Slowing the stock to reduce impact is the expected result.
• Teaching away: the only candidate is '976's sequence "feeding stock into position at high speed." That is a statement of existing practice, not a disparagement of feed-speed braking; and '976 simultaneously says the brake can be applied at will throughout the cycle. This does not amount to a teaching away.

---

8. Bottom line

Primary recommended rejection: Claims 1–16 as obvious over US 6,148,976 in view of US 6,044,736 (Cucchi), further in view of US 5,676,031 and/or US 5,730,037 (claims 17–20 and the detection-system limitations). The motivation is supplied by (i) the shared field and shared assignee family, (ii) the '347's own admission of the bounce-back problem, (iii) Cucchi's express teaching to brake a bar feeder for accurate positioning, and (iv) '631's express teaching to decelerate stock before stopping to prevent damage — all confirmed by '037/'162's routine programmable brake timing.

Strongest applicant counter-arguments (and my assessment):

1. "Cucchi brakes the rotating drum/indexing assembly, not the axial stock advance; different mechanism." — Rebuttable: Cucchi is a bar loader in the same art whose express purpose is bar-handling positioning; § 103 permits combining references for what they fairly teach, and the '347 claims do not require any particular brake location or that the brake act on the axial advance specifically (they require only that the brake slow the feeder mechanism).
2. "'976 affirmatively teaches feeding at high speed — a teaching away." — Weak: a statement of existing practice plus an expressly programmable brake is not disparagement.
3. "The detection-triggered, pre-engagement braking of claims 17–20 is neither taught nor suggested." — This is the most credible position, and the independents' breadth is the patent's real vulnerability.

Caveats on this analysis: I could not retrieve the full Ex Parte Kalinsky decision or the '347 file wrapper, so I cannot state with certainty what was argued/amended during prosecution or which application that decision addressed; and I have not independently verified every dependent claim's scope against a granted-claim construction. The reference disclosures quoted above are taken from the references' published text and the '347's own characterizations; the '976 marketing/cycle details come from Logan Clutch's product page and are used only to corroborate the reference's programmable-brake teaching.