US 6917017

Patent Overview: US6917017B2

Title: Counter-top cooker having multiple heating elements

Patent number: US6917017B2 (application US10/226,695)

Assignee/owner of record in the supplied text: Original assignee Heartware Home Products Inc.; current assignee listed as Nuwave LLC. (The excerpt also lists later reassignments, which I note only as recorded entries, not as verified conclusions.)

Key dates (as listed):

• Prior art date / priority date: 2002-08-23
• Filing date: 2002-08-23
• Publication of US20040035845A1: 2004-02-26
• Publication of US6917017B2 (grant): 2005-07-12
• Adjusted expiration: 2022-11-25
• Legal status: Expired – Lifetime

Inventors: Jung S. Moon, Rong Liu, Kitak Chae, Jongrok Kim

Purpose: The invention "relates to counter-top cookers, and in particular to a counter-top electric cooker having a radiant heating element in addition to the convection heating element in a power head." Counter-top electric cookers are known; versus conventional ovens they offer "the advantage of being less bulky and having quicker cooking times." Such cookers include "a power head having an electric heating unit that generates heat in the cooking enclosure," and "typically will rely on a hot air stream that is produced by a high speed fan provided in the power head upstream of an electric heating element, or by utilizing an infrared heating element in combination with a relatively low speed fan that generates sufficient air circulation in the oven to cook the food."

Plain-language scope: The disclosed cooker comprises "a base, a cooking chamber having a top end and a bottom end supported on the base, and a power head attached to the top end of the cooking ch[amber]"—with the distinguishing feature being multiple heating elements, namely a radiant element plus a convection element in the power head.

What the excerpt does not establish:

• Full claim language, dependent claims, or exact claim scope (claims are not reproduced here).
• The complete description, figures, or specific embodiments.
• Any verified conclusion on validity, enforceability, or infringement.
• Details of the noted litigation or ownership transfers beyond the raw record entries.

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6917017](/patent/US6917017)/en

I'll research litigation involving US patent 6917017 using the specified sources.

Let me dig into the specific case listed on the patent page and other known suits.

Let me verify the De'Longhi case details and check whether '017 was asserted in the Hearthware–Morningware litigation.

Litigation involving US Patent 6,917,017

Important framing up front: The Google Patents page for US 6,917,017 ("Counter-top cooker having multiple heating elements," filed 2002‑08‑23, granted 2005‑07‑12, expired 2022‑11‑25) carries a "Family has litigation" flag with exactly one litigation record. My searches were capped before I could exhaustively cross‑check PACER/CAFC, so I flag verification gaps explicitly rather than overstate.

Confirmed / identified case

Sources:

• Google Patents family/litigation entry for US 6,917,017: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6917017/en (links the Illinois Northern District litigation and the Darts‑IP worldwide family‑litigation record, family ID 31887301).
• Case docket summary: https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/ilnd/1:17-cv-08638/nuwave-llc-v-delonghi-spa (reports cause of action "Patent Infringement," sector Mechanical Engineering/Manufacturing, filed 11/30/17, Status "Closed"). (Note: "Ex Parte" here is the name of the case‑tracking site, not an ex parte proceeding or an indication that the case was dismissed.)

Verification caveats you should carry forward

1. Which patent was actually asserted. The Google Patents linkage identifies this case as the litigation "involving" the '017 family, but I could not, within my search budget, retrieve the complaint or infringement contentions to confirm that US 6,917,017 specifically was pleaded (as opposed to a sibling/related NuWave counter‑top‑oven patent). Because NuWave's portfolio includes several related counter‑top oven patents, confirm against the complaint in 1:17‑cv‑08638 before relying on this.
2. Complete defendant list. I identified only De'Longhi S.p.A. Additional De'Longhi affiliates (e.g., U.S. subsidiaries) may be named; the docket should be checked.
3. Outcome. "Closed" does not itself establish dismissal vs. settlement vs. consent judgment. No publicly reported damages award, injunction, or Federal Circuit appeal appeared in my searches.
4. CAFC/PACER. I was unable to complete a dedicated CAFC and PACER sweep; no appeal involving US 6,917,017 surfaced, but treat that as "none found," not "none exists."
5. No other litigation found. I found no other case, and in particular no ITC Section 337 action, naming US 6,917,017. Note that the patent's "expired" status (2022‑11‑25, per the adjusted‑expiration entry) now forecloses new infringement suits.

Adjacent litigation — do NOT attribute to the '017 patent without checking

• Morningware, Inc. v. Hearthware Home Products, Inc., N.D. Ill. No. 1:09‑cv‑04348 (filed 2009). Hearthware (the '017's original assignee) and Morningware litigated extensively over counter‑top ovens, but the patent judgment vehicle in that case was U.S. Patent No. 6,201,217 (the '217 patent), not the '017. See, e.g., the N.D. Ill. summary‑judgment orders concerning the '217 patent (https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2009cv04348/[233487/373](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=233487-0373)/0.pdf). A Justia page for a related Hearthware patent (US 7,964,824) lists US 6,917,017 in a table together with Hearthware's LPR infringement‑contention docket entries (https://patents.justia.com/patent/[7964824](/patent/7964824)), which might indicate the '017 was also asserted in a Hearthware case — but I could not confirm that, and the docket entries shown there reference the '217 patent. Do not report the '017 as asserted in Morningware without confirming via the Local Patent Rule 2.2 infringement contentions.
• NuWave LLC v. Individuals… (Schedule A), N.D. Ill. No. 1:22‑cv‑05578 (filed 2022‑10‑11) — a NuWave anti‑counterfeiting/Schedule A action. I have no evidence the '017 was asserted there, and the patent expired in November 2022, making assertion implausible. Mentioned only so you can rule it out.

Same-number lookalike (different jurisdiction — not the US patent)

My search also returned JP Patent No. 6917017 B2 — a Japanese patent issued 2021‑08‑11 to Dai Nippon Printing for a thermal transfer sheet (B41M 5/44, 5/42). This is a different document in a different jurisdiction that merely shares the same numeric string. Per your literal‑interpretation rule, I am not treating it as related to US 6,917,017, but I flag it because a naive text search on "6917017" will surface it as a false positive.

Bottom line

• *One litigation is affirmatively associated with US 6,917,017: NuWave LLC v. De'Longhi S.p.A., N.D. Ill. No. 1:17‑cv‑08638, filed November 30, 2017, patent infringement, now closed.* I could not verify the pleaded patent, complete party list, or the disposition from primary documents.
• No other litigation is known. Absence of results for a CAFC appeal or an ITC action is a limitation of my search, not proof of nonexistence.

If you want, I can focus a follow‑up on pulling the 1:17‑cv‑08638 docket (PACER/RECAP), the complaint's asserted patents, and any termination order.

I'll verify the structured "no proceedings" signal against public sources before writing the analysis.

The first pass returned ambiguous hits — some snippets reference a different "'701 patent" (Nuwave's 7,979,023 continuation family) and car-tech petitions. Let me disambiguate before I write anything.

No AIA proceeding has surfaced yet. Let me chase the two district-court leads (the Google Patents litigation link and any IPRs filed by Nuwave's litigation targets).

PTAB / AIA Trial Analysis — US 6,917,017 ("Counter-top cooker having multiple heating elements")

Verification note up front: I started from the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP: no AIA trial proceedings), then tried to falsify that via web search — PTAB E2E petition documents, PTAB Final Written Decisions, CAFC/CourtListener dockets, and Nuwave's litigation history. Every search came back empty on this patent number. I also want to flag one trap explicitly, because it will mislead you if you Google the case: several PTAB petition PDFs on ptacts.uspto.gov contain the query string "6917017" in their EAST prior-art search histories, and a separate petition document discusses a "'701 patent" with a continuation chain through U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,979,023 / 8,463,177 / 8,718,543 / 8,849,191 (petitions citing IPR2019-01102, Volkswagen Group of America, Quinn Emanuel counsel). That "'701 patent" is not US 6,917,017 — US 6,917,017's Google Patents family (ID 31887301) has exactly one member, and it is not in that continuation chain. Do not cite those petitions against 6,917,017.

---

Proceedings overview

Total AIA proceedings on US 6,917,017: 0 — no IPRs, no PGRs, no CBMs, no derivation proceedings; therefore no claims invalidated, none sustained, none settled, and no institution denials. The defendant-facing bottom line is twofold and should not be confused: (1) the patent has not been "hardened" by surviving an IPR — all 23 claims are simply untested at the PTAB, so there is no FWD and no cancellation to point to; but (2) more decisively, the patent is expired (Google Patents legal status: "Expired - Lifetime," adjusted expiration 2022-11-25), which — not the empty PTAB docket — is the fact that should drive your defense strategy, because it caps exposure to past damages under 35 U.S.C. § 286 and eliminates injunctive relief.

---

No proceeding sections to write — here is the negative finding, documented

I am deliberately not generating ### IPR… blocks with invented numbers. There is nothing to populate. What follows is the verified evidence trail and the litigation backdrop, which is where the useful defendant-side signal actually sits.

Negative finding — AIA trial record

• Source of truth: USPTO Open Data Portal (structured block), cross-checked at PTAB E2E: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/ and https://patents.google.com/patent/US6917017/en (no "PTAB proceedings" or trial-history entries on the patent page).
• Searched and found nothing: IPR/PGR/CBM petitions naming 6,917,017; no FWD; no CAFC appeal (nothing to appeal); no CourtListener opinion.
• Only self-inflicted similarity risk: the "'701 patent" confusion described above. Label it "unverified / different patent" in any internal memo — do not assume a prior petitioner already ran the art here.

Litigation backdrop (not PTAB, but load-bearing)

Context: '017 appears in Nuwave's own product literature ("Protected under U.S. Patents: 6,201,217; 6,617,554; 6,917,017; 6,936,795; D487,670; D490,648" — Nuwave manual), and Nuwave still lists it on its "Patents" page. It is a branding/marking patent as much as an assertion patent.

Why no IPR was ever filed — my read (flagged as inference, not record): De'Longhi, a well-capitalized accused infringer, had a § 315(b) window that closed roughly one year after 2017 service and never used it. The likely reason is commercial math: the '017 sits in a crowded family (6,201,217; 6,936,795; and the later 7,979,023 / 8,463,177 / 8,718,543 / 8,849,191 line), so canceling '017 wouldn't clear the field, and the case resolved without a PTAB fight.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status — CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. All 23 claims are UNTESTED. Nothing is canceled; nothing is sustained. There is no narrowing to tabulate. Structure for reference: claim 1 (independent, the base + chamber + power-head heater/fan + second bottom heater combination), claims 2–18 (depend from 1; substantial content in claims 7–9 on ceramic-coated infrared/incoloy 840 heating elements and claims 11–18 on the dual set-switch and keypad/controller architectures), claim 19 (independent, radiant-heat-from-below + convection-from-above + cooking surface), claims 20–23 (depend from 19; claim 23 folds in the defrost-mode power-allocation feature). A defendant cannot say "claim 1 is dead." A defendant can say something more valuable: all 23 claims are expired, so the only live question is past damages.

Estoppel landscape. Because there is no IPR, there is zero § 315(e)(2) estoppel on this patent — no petitioner, no privies, no "raised or reasonably could have raised" bar. Every prior-art ground a defendant wants to run (102/103 over the art cited in the patent's own IDS, or the examiner-cited references such as US 4,628,850; US 5,801,362; US 6,069,345; US 6,201,217) is available in district court without restriction. Symmetrically, § 315(b) does not bar a fresh petition for any party not served with the '017 more than a year before filing — but see the expiry point below, which makes an IPR a bad spend. (De'Longhi and its privies, if still relevant, are time-barred from their 2017 service date.)

Pattern signals. No repeat petitioner (no petitioner at all). No PTAB appeals — Nuwave has never had to defend this patent at the Board. No defensive aggregator in the chain: the '017's prosecution and post-issuance history (Hearthware Home Products → Nuwave, LLC, per the recorded 2014-07-14 assignment) shows no Unified Patents / RPX-style challenge. That absence is itself the signal called for in the task framing: this patent was asserted in 2017 and drew no IPR, on a family that also generated a large later continuation portfolio. The most coherent explanation is expiry and settlement economics, not art-strength.

The expiry point your adversary's demand letter will omit. Google Patents lists legal status "Expired - Lifetime," adjusted expiration 2022-11-25 (falling from the 2002-08-23 priority/filing date; term adjustment pushed it ~3 months past the 20-year date). If you are sued today (2026-10-01), § 286 limits recovery to infringement occurring on or after 2020-10-01, and the patent stopped being enforceable at the end of term — so the realistic damages window is roughly 2020-10-01 through 2022-11-25, about 26 months of past sales. There is no prospective injunction and no royalty base for post-2022 conduct. Verify before relying on it: the recorded fee events show payments through the 12-year stage (last FPAY 2016-08-22, year 12) and no 16-year entry; check USPTO PatentCenter for lapse-vs-natural-expiration, because if the 16-year fee lapsed, the enforceable term ended even earlier and your damages window shrinks further. Either way the term is over.

---

Recommended next steps

• Do not build a defense around a nonexistent IPR. There is no FWD to link, no disposition to quote, and no canceled claim to point at. Any memo asserting otherwise is sanction-adjacent under Rule 11 / § 285 if it reaches a brief.
• If you are a defendant, lead with § 286 and expiry, not with validity. Serve a damages-only framing: request Nuwave's pre-2022 sales/complaint records and its marking/notice evidence; the question is whether it can prove notice for a ~26-month window. Confirm the 16-year maintenance-fee status in PatentCenter and, if '017 lapsed early, move to dismiss pre-lapse-period theories on that basis.
• Check the related, likely-unexpired family — that is where real risk lives. The 2007-onward Nuwave/Hearthware continuations (e.g., 7,964,824 / 7,979,023 / 8,463,177 / 8,718,543 / 8,849,191, and the SharkNinja-cited descendants of this line) are the candidates for live assertion and for viable IPRs. Those patents, unlike '017, have litigation and inter partes histories worth pulling at PTAB E2E.
• Watch for re-assertion anyway. Nuwave asserts sibling patents (6,201,217) and still lists '017 on its public Patents page. If a demand letter cites claims 1–23 of '017, the correct response is: (1) no AIA challenge has ever touched these claims, so they are unadjudicated; (2) the term expired 2022-11-25; and (3) any case is a § 286-limited past-damages dispute with no injunction exposure.
• Set a monitor, not a calendar. With no pending proceeding there is no institution deadline, no oral hearing, and no statutory 1-year FWD due date to track. Monitor PTAB E2E and CourtListener for any newly filed petition; IPRs can be instituted on expired patents, but with claim amendments unavailable and only past damages at stake, that is a low-value path for a petitioner.

Unverified items I am explicitly not asserting: the identity/patent number of the separate "'701 patent" referenced in the IPR2019-01102-era petition documents; whether the 16-year maintenance fee was paid; and the terms of any 2017 settlement that closed NuWave v. De'Longhi (settlement terms, if any, are not public).

I'll start by gathering corroborating evidence from live sources before assembling the assignment record.

Good leads. Let me dig into the odd Turtle Beach security-interest entry and the De'Longhi litigation specifics.

US 6917017 — Ownership Chain Reconstruction

Source note (read first): My tooling could not query assignmentcenter.uspto.gov or assignment.uspto.gov directly, and the Google Patents legal-events export supplied in the authoritative text strips the correspondent-of-record field (it shows reel/frame, conveyance, assignor, assignee, and dates only). Everything below is grounded in the reel/frame and dates that are in the record, plus live corroboration of the corporate parties. Where the correspondent is not in my source, I say so rather than guess. To capture attorneys/firms you must pull the recorded document images for each reel/frame below from Patent Assignment Search or Patent Center.

---

Inventors

All four executed the original assignment between 2002-08-12 and 2002-08-16, recorded 2002-08-23 on reel 013238/0198 — i.e., assignment to the employer was obtained essentially at filing, the normal operating-company pattern.

Unusual-pattern check — "all inventors depart within 12 months": Not present, and in fact the inverse. Jung S. Moon not only stayed with the enterprise, he is identified in two 2022 N.D. Ill. complaints as the sole member of NuWave, LLC, the current owner (e.g. complaint language: "At the time of the filing of this action, Defendant's sole member was Mr. Jung S. Moon"). I found no evidence of departure dates for Liu, Chae, or Kim, so I cannot rule anything in or out for those three.

---

Original assignee

Hearthware Home Products, Inc. (Illinois) — the entity named on the issued patent per reel 013238/0198.

• Business: Small-electric housewares; maker/distributor of the NuWave Oven counter-top infrared/convection oven, later the NuWave Pro Infrared Oven and NuWave PIC induction cooktop. A patent filed by the same assignee in 1999 (US 6201217, "Counter-top electric cooker") shows this was a sustained in-house filing program, not a one-off.
• Product embodiment: Yes — the assignee's commercial identity is the product category. NuWave's own manual describes the oven as combining "infrared, conduction and convection heat" in a countertop appliance with a power head and base. I did not perform an element-by-element read of claim 1 against a specific SKU, so treat "embodies the claims" as well-supported but not court-verified.
• Current status: Operating. Renamed/rebranded NuWave, LLC (announced 2014; the corporate name change is corroborated by trade press, e.g. HFN and HBS Dealer coverage of "Hearthware Inc. has changed its corporate name to NuWave LLC"). Still headquartered in Libertyville/Vernon Hills, Illinois; described as a privately held American company manufacturing in China. Not dissolved, not in bankruptcy on any record I found.

---

Assignment timeline

• 2002-08-12/16 (executed) / recorded 2002-08-23 — Reel 013238/0198

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Moon, Jung S.; Liu, Rong; Chae, Kitak; Kim, Jongrok
  • Assignee: Hearthware Home Products, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not present in source (Google Patents legal events omit the correspondent field; not retrievable here).
  • Context: Founder/inventor-to-employer assignment at filing — ordinary employment capture of IP.

• 2014-07-11 (effective) / recorded 2014-07-14 — Reel 033307/0543

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Hearthware, Inc.; Hearthware Home Products, Inc.; IBC-Hearthware, Inc.; and others (record recites "AND OTHERS")
  • Assignee: NuWave, LLC (Illinois)
  • Correspondent: not present in source.
  • Context: Internal reorg / change of name. The Hearthware corporate family consolidated into the rebranded NuWave, LLC in the same window as the publicized name change; this is a single-step housekeeping transfer, not an arm's-length sale.

• 2019-05-31 (effective and recorded) — Reel 049330/0863

  • Conveyance: Security Interest (lien, not ownership)
  • Assignor: Turtle Beach Corporation
  • Assignee: Bank of America, N.A., as Agent
  • Correspondent: not present in source.
  • Context: Securitization. ⚠️ Anomaly: Turtle Beach Corporation is a gaming-headset/peripherals company with no discernible relationship to a counter-top cooker patent. This entry is almost certainly a large omnibus security-agreement reel mis-associated with this patent by the indexer, or Nuvave-family collateral swept into an unrelated facility. I could not confirm any Hearthware/NuWave↔Turtle Beach corporate link. Treat this reel as not probative of this patent's ownership pending sight of the recorded document.

• 2019-04-22 (effective) / recorded 2020-03-06 — Reel 052041/0688

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: NuWave, LLC
  • Assignee: BMO Harris Bank N.A. (Illinois)
  • Correspondent: not present in source.
  • Context: Securitization — senior lender taking a blanket lien on NuWave's IP, consistent with a going-concern operating borrower.

• 2021-05-11 (effective) / recorded 2021-05-21 — Reel 056314/0606

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: BMO Harris Bank N.A.
  • Assignee/holder: NuWave, LLC
  • Correspondent: not present in source.
  • Context: Lien discharge — the BMO lien is extinguished and the patent is unencumbered (as to that facility) in NuWave's hands.

Net ownership effect: Hearthware Home Products → (2014, name-change consolidation) → NuWave, LLC, which remains the owner. No third-party acquirer, no licensing entity, no asserted-transfer chain.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6917017
    2002 : Inventors assign to Hearthware Home Products
         : Reel 013238/0198 recorded
    2005 : Patent issues as US 6917017 B2
    2009 : Maintenance fee paid
    2013 : Maintenance fee paid
    2014 : Hearthware group assigns to NuWave LLC
         : Reel 033307/0543 recorded
    2016 : Maintenance fee paid
    2017 : NuWave sues DeLonghi in N D Illinois
    2019 : BofA security interest recorded
         : Reel 049330/0863 names Turtle Beach
    2020 : BMO Harris lien on NuWave recorded
         : Reel 052041/0688
    2021 : BMO Harris releases lien
         : Reel 056314/0606
    2022 : Patent reaches adjusted expiration

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The only ownership change is reel 033307/0543 (eff. 2014-07-11), Hearthware family → NuWave, LLC. NuWave, LLC is an operating consumer-appliance maker with a real principal place of business in Libertyville, IL and named products in commerce (NuWave Oven, PIC, Brio, Nutri-Pot), not a registered-agent mail drop. Its "member" is a natural person — inventor Jung S. Moon — not an anonymous single-purpose LLC. No "IP/Patents/Licensing/Ventures" suffix anywhere in the chain.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. None of the recorded assignees — Hearthware Home Products, Inc.; NuWave, LLC; Bank of America, N.A. as Agent; BMO Harris Bank N.A.; Turtle Beach Corporation — appears on the Acacia / Marathon / IV / IPNav / Wi-LAN / Conversant / Vringo / Pendrell / Innovatio / MPHJ / Lumen View / Round Rock / DGC / Spangenberg lists, nor in the litigation dataset I could reach. The two banks are collateral agents, not asserters. Caveat, stated because it cuts the other way: one third-party aggregator (Ex Parte's party page for NuWave LLC) tags the party "Type: NPE" with 9 cases, while that same site's case page for the 2017 De'Longhi suit tags the patent owner "Operating Company." The aggregator is internally contradictory on this point; I weight it as low-quality metadata. I was unable to query the Unified Patents or RPX asserter directories within my step budget, so this item is not-present-on-available-evidence rather than affirmatively disproved.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (insufficient data). I cannot make this call, and I will not invent an attorney. The authoritative Google Patents legal-events record supplied for this patent does not expose the correspondent field, and my searches returned no reel-level correspondent data. What is required: pull the recorded documents for reels 013238/0198, 033307/0543, 049330/0863, 052041/0688, and 056314/0606 from the USPTO Assignment Search and read the "correspondent" block on each. Note that on its face, the chain should show different correspondents at each link — an inventor-assignment filer at reel 013238/0198, company counsel at 033307/0543, and lender's counsel at 052041/0688 / 056314/0606 — so I would not expect recurrence here.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. Five recorded events across 2002–2021, of which only one is an ownership transfer; the rest are two security interests and one release. There is no <24-month sequence of chained LLCs, and no shared correspondent address to test, because only one assignee entity ever held title.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. The nearest ownership assignment (033307/0543, eff. 2014-07-11) predates the first flagged infringement suit, NuWave LLC v. De'Longhi Spa, 1:17-cv-08638 (N.D. Ill., filed 2017-11-30), by roughly 3 years 4 months — far outside any 6-month window. The only events near litigation are maintenance-fee payments (2016-08-22) and no title movement. I could not confirm from available sources which patents were actually asserted in 1:17-cv-08638, so I am not asserting that '017 was a claim there.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 record, no trustee transfer, no sale motion. Maintenance fees were paid three times (2009-01-12, 2013-01-14, 2016-08-22), and the patent ran to adjusted expiration on 2022-11-25 ("Expired - Lifetime") in the hands of its operating owner. The 2020 BMO Harris lien (reel 052041/0688) was released at reel 056314/0606 on 2021-05-11 — refinance/lien discharge behavior, not liquidation.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. No operating company transferred this patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf. NuWave retained title and litigates in its own name — the De'Longhi infringement action (1:17-cv-08638, 2017) and the Schedule A e-commerce enforcement actions (e.g. 1:22-cv-05574, filed 2022-10-11, with a TRO entered 2022-10-31 against offshore sellers of knock-offs). That is direct, first-party enforcement, the signature of an operating company.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain terminates at NuWave, LLC (reel 056314/0606 release left NuWave as unencumbered owner). No RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN link anywhere.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

Justification: Title moved exactly once — reel 033307/0543, effective 2014-07-11 — from the Hearthware corporate family to NuWave, LLC, which is the same business under its publicized 2014 rebrand, not an acquirer or licensing vehicle; every other recorded event is collateral (reel 052041/0688, BMO Harris lien) or lien release (reel 056314/0606). NuWave, LLC ships countertop infrared/convection ovens in the patented product category and enforces first-party — NuWave LLC v. De'Longhi Spa, 1:17-cv-08638 (N.D. Ill., filed 2017-11-30) — and its sole member is inventor Jung S. Moon, the opposite of the anonymous-shell profile. The one caveat against a clean sweep is the anomalous reel 049330/0863, which names Turtle Beach Corporation as assignor under a Bank of America security interest; it has no apparent nexus to this patent and should be verified against the recorded document image before being given any weight.

Verify at: USPTO Patent Assignment Search (search 6917017) · assignment.uspto.gov mirror · Google Patents legal events · Unified Patents litigation record for 1:17-cv-08638

Two explicit gaps I did not close, flagged rather than filled: (a) the correspondent of record on all five reels — absent from the source and not retrieved; (b) whether US 6917017 itself was among the patents asserted in 1:17-cv-08638. Note also that the patent expired 2022-11-25, so no current assertion of this patent is possible regardless of the ownership picture.

I'll research the specific patent and each of its cited references to build the prior-art analysis.

Good detail on the key references. Let me gather the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 6,917,017 B2

Patent: US 6,917,017 B2 ("Counter-top cooker having multiple heating elements"), App. No. 10/226,695, filed/priority 2002-08-23, granted 2005-07-12, expired 2022-11-25. Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6917017/en

Scope of this task, stated precisely: you asked me to identify the most relevant prior art by working through each patent citation on the face of 6,917,017. The patent's own record lists 16 U.S. patent citations. I analyze those 16 below, reference by reference. I do not substitute similar-numbered documents (e.g., the unrelated JP 6917017 B2, a Dai Nippon Printing thermal-transfer-sheet patent, or the "'701 patent" in the Volkswagen IPR2019-01102 family, which is a different Nuvave continuation).

Number-verification note (literal reading): the record I was given is the Google Patents presentation of the USPTO grant. It confirms US6917017B2, application US10/226,695, issued 2005-07-12. My live searches returned the same document and its pre-grant publication US20040035845A1. Nothing in these results contradicted the supplied full text, so I treat that text as authoritative. I hit my tool-step ceiling before I could open the USPTO's own grant page, so I flag that the bibliographic confirmation rests on the Google Patents/USPTO-mirror text plus uspto.report and FreePatentsOnline hits, not a directly opened PatentCenter record.

---

A. The legal frame you must apply to these 16 references

Three points govern everything below, and getting them wrong is the usual failure mode in this analysis:

1. Pre-AIA § 102 governs. The application was filed 2002-08-23, before the AIA's 2013 first-to-file date. So § 102(a)/(b)/(e) analysis applies as it stood pre-2013 — not § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2).

2. Every one of the 16 references is prior art on its face; the question is only anticipation. Fifteen of the sixteen issued more than one year before 2002-08-23, so each independently qualifies as § 102(b) art (a patent "patented … more than one year prior to the date of the application"). The single exception is US 6,363,836 (issued 2002-04-02), which is not § 102(b) art but qualifies under § 102(a) and/or § 102(e) (application filed 1998-04-03). All sixteen were also filed before 2002, so each is additionally available as § 102(e) art where its filing date precedes the applicants' invention date.

3. Anticipation requires every limitation, in the claimed arrangement. Under § 102, a reference anticipates only if it discloses all elements of the claim as arranged. This has a consequence that matters enormously here: claims 2–18 all depend from claim 1, and claims 20–23 all depend from claim 19. A dependent claim cannot be anticipated unless the reference also anticipates the independent claim it incorporates. So if no reference anticipates claim 1 or claim 19, no reference anticipates any of claims 1–23 — and the references' real value is as § 103 art.

Bottom-line answer up front: On the face of the citations and the disclosure-level detail I could verify, none of the 16 cited references anticipates any of claims 1–23. Every reference is missing at least one essential element of claim 1 (a counter-top cooker with a power head containing a fan) and/or claim 19 (a cooking surface interposed between a fan-equipped power head and a bottom radiant heater). They are, however, a collectively strong § 103 set, and two of them (US 6,201,217 and US 6,069,345) are individually the most dangerous. Details follow.

---

B. Master table — the 16 cited references

Formatting note: Google's tables mark US 5,485,780, US 6,069,345 and US 6,201,217 with an asterisk, which on Google's legend corresponds to "cited by examiner." I reproduce the marking as found but treat it as a formatting artifact and do not rest any conclusion on it, since I could not verify the underlying examiner's Form PTO-892.

---

C. Reference-by-reference § 102 analysis

Group 1 — The high-relevance references ("core art")

15. US 6,201,217 B1 — Counter-top electric cooker (Hearthware Home Products) — filed 1999-04-12, issued 2001-03-13

Full citation: US 6,201,217 B1, "Counter-top electric cooker," inventors Moon et al., assignee Hearthware Home Products, Inc., filed 1999-04-12, issued 2001-03-13. Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6201217/en; https://uspto.report/patent/grant/[6201217](/patent/6201217)

Description: The same corporate family's earlier counter-top oven. Discloses a base-supported cooking enclosure; a detachable power head containing a heating unit that extends into the cooking enclosure; a fan chamber above the enclosure with a fan creating cooling airflow and a cooling manifold distributing it over the enclosure surface; an infrared heating element made of Incoloy 840 coated with SiO₂/TiO₂/Al₂O₃; a controller with sets of keys and a control panel; temperature sensing; and optionally a cooling stage where power to the element is cut while the fan runs.

What it reads on: claims 1 (base, cooking chamber, power head with heating element + fan), 4–6 (fan chamber/housing and cooling-air ducting), 7–9 (verbatim: its claim 2 recites "an electric infrared heating element made of incoloy 840 coated with a coating material, the main components of the coating material being SiO₂, TiO₂, and Al₂O₃," which is the '017's claim 8 and claim 9 language), 11–14 (control panel, keypad, controller, sensing).

Potential anticipation: None of claims 1–23. It does not disclose the '017's distinguishing element — a second heating element located in the cooking chamber proximate the bottom end. Its element directs heat from above toward the oven pan interior; there is no bottom heater. Because claim 1 is not anticipated, every claim depending from it is not anticipated either.

Why it still matters most: it is the single best § 103 base reference — it establishes the entire counter-top-oven-with-power-head-and-fan architecture as of 1999–2001, in the applicants' own field and by the applicants' own assignee. Combine it with any bottom-heating-element reference (below) and claim 1 is obvious; combine its claim-2 coating language with the '017's claims 8–9 and those claims are on the edge of a § 102(b) self-collision.

14. US 6,069,345 A — Apparatus and method for cooking food with a controlled spectrum (Quadlux) — filed 1997-12-11, issued 2000-05-30

Full citation: US 6,069,345 A, "Apparatus and method for cooking food with a controlled spectrum," assignee Quadlux, Inc., filed 1997-12-11, issued 2000-05-30. Sources: https://uspto.report/patent/grant/[6069345](/patent/6069345); sibling specification EP 0 416 030 B1 (Quadlux/Carrier, "Visible light and infra-red cooking apparatus"), full text at https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/71/31/f9/e1fe409b197407/EP0416030B1.pdf

Description: A lightwave oven using quartz-halogen lamps arranged above and below the food support; a reflective chamber; a food support ("platter 30") positioned above the lower lamps and below the upper lamps; a control circuit including a microprocessor that independently controls the upper and lower lamp sets; and worked examples in which the upper and lower sources are driven at different power levels for different times (e.g., "upper lamps … 4.8 kW for 40 seconds while the lower lamps … 6.0 kW"), with automatic reduction to hold a set temperature. The '345 patent's description section explains the spectrum-control rationale (visible/near-visible vs. infrared browning) that the '017's specification echoes in its "shifts the emission spectrum to the infrared range" language.

What it reads on: claims 1/19's "second heating element … proximate said (bottom) end" (lower radiant lamps); claim 19's "cooking surface … between said power head and said second heating element" (platter between lower and upper sources); claims 7–9 (radiant/infrared heating and its effect on the emission spectrum); claims 11–12 (independent control of the two heat sources); claims 15–16 (allocation of differing power levels/time to the top vs. bottom heater — Quadlux does exactly this); claims 21–23 (microprocessor/controller, keypad-style control, preset cooking routines).

Potential anticipation: None of claims 1–23. Quadlux's oven is a radiant lightwave oven with no fan and no "power head" directing airflow over the element into the chamber — the claim 1 and claim 19 "first fan … directing airflow over said first heating element" limitation is absent. It therefore cannot anticipate claim 1 or 19, and per the dependency rule, nothing downstream. Also its lamps are quartz-halogen lightwave sources, not the claimed Incoloy-840 ceramic-coated elements (claims 8–9).

Why it still matters: for claim 19 specifically it is the most dangerous reference in the set — it discloses radiant heat from below, a cooking surface above that radiant source, and independent power allocation between top and bottom heaters. Its only gap versus claim 19 is the fan. Combine Quadlux with Hudson Standard (US 5,801,362, below) and you have a complete § 103 case against claim 19.

13. US 5,801,362 A — Portable electric oven with fan and motor arrangement for improved heated air flow and motor cooling (Hudson Standard) — filed 1994-01-14, issued 1998-09-01

Full citation: US 5,801,362 A, "Portable electric oven with fan and motor arrangement for improved heated air flow and motor cooling," Hudson Standard Corporation, filed 1994-01-14, issued 1998-09-01. Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5801362/en; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e2/d1/ef/77edc1b747e431/US5801362.pdf

Description (from the specification): An electrically heated portable convection oven with built-in rotisserie. It has a heating chamber with a hinged door; electric heating rods located inside the oven closely parallel to the top wall; a fan inside the heating chamber that circulates air over the heating elements; two motors — a first motor driving the chamber fan and a second fan that cools the motor area, and a second motor driving the rotisserie spit and a control-cooling fan; a microcomputer pre-programmed to accept user input and to process a chamber air-temperature sensor; and user controls in a panel box with a display (bake, broil, grill, rotisserie, defrost, dehydrate modes). The chamber wall is parabolic/reflective to enhance circulation.

What it reads on: claim 1's base + cooking chamber + power head with a first heating element and a first fan directing airflow over that element into the chamber; claim 4's "second fan for generating airflow in said first housing, and a motor for driving said first and second fans" (Hudson's dual-fan/dual-motor arrangement is a near-literal read); claims 5–6 (housing separation and air-duct/venting around the chamber); claims 11–14 (timer, temperature setting, microprocessor control, display); claims 19 and 21 (convection heat from a fan-assisted top element; sensor + controller).

Potential anticipation: None of claims 1–23. Its heating rods are top-mounted; it discloses no second heating element in the chamber proximate the bottom end, so the claim 1 combination is incomplete. The "counter-top" and "power head attached to the top end" framing also differs — Hudson's power head is not a detachable top module in the '017 sense (a point of possible claim-construction argument, not of clean anticipation). And it is plainly not a "counter-top cooker" in the '017's structural sense.

Why it matters: Hudson is the best § 103 partner to Quadlux — it supplies the missing fan/power-head/convection limitation that Quadlux lacks, and it supplies the claim 4 dual-fan-plus-motor limitation almost verbatim.

9. US 5,735,190 A — Combination bread-baking machine and convection oven (Sham) — filed 1996-08-09, issued 1998-04-07

Full citation: US 5,735,190 A, "Combination bread-baking machine and convection oven," inventor John C. K. Sham, filed 1996-08-09, issued 1998-04-07. Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5735190A](/patent/US5735190A)/en; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/27/4c/46/1b1a22748cc990/US5735190.pdf

Description: A housing defining a baking/cooking chamber with a heating coil; a motor-driven fan mounted adjacent the chamber for circulating heated air; a microprocessor that digitally controls the baking/cooking cycles; a control panel connected to the microprocessor; temperature and humidity sensors feeding continuous signals to the microprocessor, which adjusts the current supplied to the heating coil; and a rotisserie spit that can replace the kneading wand. It expressly claims "cook[ing] foods faster and more uniformly … as a result of the circulating air within the chamber."

What it reads on: claim 1's chamber + fan circulating heated air over a heating element; claims 11–14 (control panel, timer/temperature setting, keypad, microprocessor controller, chamber sensor); claims 21–22 (sensor + controller governing the chamber temperature and heating time).

Potential anticipation: None of claims 1–23. Sham discloses a single heating coil and convection fan in a bread-baker/convection-oven housing; it does not disclose two separately controlled heating elements, one of them located proximate the bottom end of the chamber, and it is not a counter-top cooker with a removable/attached top power head. Claim 1 unanticipated; no dependent claim can therefore be anticipated.

Why it matters: good § 103 art for the "controller adjusts chamber temperature based on a sensed temperature" and "preset cooking cycles" themes (claims 13–16, 21–23).

---

Group 2 — The lower-heating-element references (§ 103 partners for the claim 1 / claim 19 gap)

5. US 4,663,517 A — Electric barbeque cooker (Meco) — filed 1985-08-09, issued 1987-05-05

Full citation: US 4,663,517 A, "Electric barbeque cooker," Meco Corporation, filed 1985-08-09, issued 1987-05-05. § 102(b).

Description (per title/field): An electric barbecue/cooker with a radiant electric heating element and a food-supporting surface above/adjacent to it. (I was unable to open the specification before my step ceiling; the description here is inferred from the citation's title, class and the established art, and is flagged as unverified.)

What it reads on (inferred, flagged): the "second heating element … for providing radiant heat" located below the food and a "cooking surface" above it — i.e., the bottom-radiant-heater + support concept of claim 19.

Potential anticipation: None of claims 1–23 even on the inference above — no power head, no fan, no convection, no dual independently controlled elements. It supplies individual limitations only.

12. US 5,801,357 A — Electric barbecue with rotisserie (SEB S.A.) — filed 1995-11-28, issued 1998-09-01

Full citation: US 5,801,357 A, "Electric barbecue with rotisserie," SEB S.A., filed 1995-11-28, issued 1998-09-01. § 102(b).

Description (per title/field; unverified in detail): An electric barbecue appliance with a bottom radiant heating element and a rotisserie spit.

What it reads on (inferred): the bottom radiant heat source of claim 19; the food-support surface above the radiant source.

Potential anticipation: None of claims 1–23 — no power head/fan/convection, no counter-top oven chamber architecture.

1. US 2,848,592 A — Adjustable heating units for electric range ovens (Gen Electric) — filed 1955-12-29, issued 1958-08-19

Full citation: US 2,848,592 A, "Adjustable heating units for electric range ovens," General Electric, filed 1955-12-29, issued 1958-08-19. § 102(b). Oldest reference in the set.

Description (per title; unverified in detail): An electric range oven with top and bottom heating units that are independently adjustable.

What it reads on (inferred): the concept of two independently adjustable heating units at top and bottom of a cooking chamber — thin support for claims 1/19's two-element architecture and for claims 11–12 (independent temperature setting per element).

Potential anticipation: None of claims 1–23. GE's reference is a range oven, not a counter-top cooker; it has no power head, no fan, and no forced-air convection limitation. Even the two-element concept is disclosed in a structurally remote appliance.

7, 8, 10, 11. US 5,534,681 A (Samsung, 1996-07-09); US 5,548,102 A (Goldstar, 1996-08-20); US 5,747,781 A (Daewoo, 1998-05-05); US 5,793,023 A (Samsung, 1998-08-11)

Full citations:

• US 5,534,681 A, "Microwave oven with electric heater adjustable to different positions," Samsung Electronics, filed 1994-05-12, issued 1996-07-09.
• US 5,548,102 A, "Microwave oven having rotary grill heater," Goldstar Co., Ltd., filed 1993-12-23, issued 1996-08-20.
• US 5,747,781 A, "Microwave oven with turntable and swingable electrical heater," Daewoo Electronics, filed 1995-12-22, issued 1998-05-05.
• US 5,793,023 A, "Microwave oven having electric heating element rotatable between horizontal and vertical positions," Samsung Electronics, filed 1996-01-24, issued 1998-08-11.

All § 102(b).

Description: This is a coherent four-reference family: microwave ovens in which an electric heater is movable — adjustable in position, rotary, swingable, or rotatable between horizontal and vertical orientations — within the cooking cavity. Their common teaching is that a radiant/grill heater may be selectively positioned at different locations inside the cooking chamber, including a lower position.

What they read on (inferred from titles, flagged): the claim 1/19 requirement that the second heating element be "provided in said cooking chamber proximate said (bottom) end." If any of these shows the heater swung/rotated to a position at or near the bottom of the cavity, it reads on that limitation. They may also touch claim 10 (heating below a rack).

Potential anticipation: None of claims 1–23. All four are microwave ovens — an entirely different appliance architecture with a magnetron, a door-cavity enclosure, and no counter-top-oven power head or forced-convection fan creating the claimed airflow over a top heating element. They supply one limitation each in isolation.

4. US 4,629,850 A — Heating apparatus having a selectively movable heater (Sharp) — filed 1984-10-05, issued 1986-12-16

Full citation: US 4,629,850 A, "Heating apparatus having a selectively movable heater," Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha, filed 1984-10-05, issued 1986-12-16. § 102(b).

Description (per title; unverified): A cooking/heating appliance with a heater that can be selectively moved within the cavity — the ancestor of the four microwave-oven movable-heater references above.

What it reads on (inferred): the "heating element … proximate said bottom end" limitation, by position-selectability.

Potential anticipation: None of claims 1–23 — no counter-top power head, no fan-driven convection, no second independently controlled element.

3. US 3,281,575 A — Adjustable electric broiling apparatus (Philco) — filed 1964-03-20, issued 1966-10-25

Full citation: US 3,281,575 A, "Adjustable electric broiling apparatus," Philco Corporation, filed 1964-03-20, issued 1966-10-25. § 102(b).

Description (per title; unverified): An electric broiler with an adjustable radiant heating element and a food-supporting surface below/adjacent it.

What it reads on (inferred): the "radiant heat" character of a top element (claim 19) and the broiling-use context referenced in the '017's specification; possibly the adjustable-position limitation.

Potential anticipation: None of claims 1–23. A broiler is a one-element radiant appliance; it has no power head, fan, chamber-with-second-bottom-element, or controller architecture.

2. US 2,893,307 A — Portable electric cooking device — filed 1957-10-14, issued 1959-07-07

Full citation: US 2,893,307 A, "Portable electric cooking device," inventor Juan C. Latorre Rodriguez, filed 1957-10-14, issued 1959-07-07. § 102(b).

Description (per title; unverified): A portable electric cooking appliance — the earliest citation touching the "counter-top/portable" character of claim 1's preamble.

What it reads on (inferred): the "counter-top," i.e., portable/benchtop, preamble notion of claim 1.

Potential anticipation: None of claims 1–23. Vintage portable cooker with no power head, fan, or dual-element chamber architecture. Its only analytical use is to show that "portable electric cooker" as a category was long known, which cuts against any argument that the preamble carries patentable weight.

16. US 6,363,836 B1 — Rotisserie cooker unit (Franklin Industries) — filed 1998-04-03, issued 2002-04-02

Full citation: US 6,363,836 B1, "Rotisserie cooker unit," Franklin Industries, L.L.C., filed 1998-04-03, issued 2002-04-02. Note: not § 102(b) art (issued 2002-04-02, less than one year before the 2002-08-23 filing); available only as § 102(a) and/or § 102(e) art.

Description (per title; unverified): A rotisserie cooker unit with a rotisserie drive and heating.

What it reads on: little of the '017. At most, generic oven-cavity and heating structure.

Potential anticipation: None of claims 1–23. This is the weakest reference in the set — a rotisserie appliance with no power head, no convection fan, no bottom element, and no independently controlled dual heating architecture. Its appearance in the list reflects the examiner's general sweep for cooking appliances, not close art.

6. US 5,485,780 A — Rotisserie oven (Food Automation Service Techniques) — filed 1993-02-26, issued 1996-01-23

Full citation: US 5,485,780 A, "Rotisserie oven," Food Automation Service Techniques, Inc., filed 1993-02-26, issued 1996-01-23. § 102(b). (Google's table asterisks this one.)

Description (per title/field; unverified in detail): A commercial-style rotisserie oven with a cooking chamber, heaters, and a rotating food support.

What it reads on: generic oven chamber and radiant heat; possibly plural heating elements about a cooking zone.

Potential anticipation: None of claims 1–23 — no counter-top power head with a fan directing airflow over a top element, and no independently controlled bottom element proximate the chamber floor.

---

D. Ranked answer: the most relevant prior art

Tier 1 — most relevant (the references a validity challenge should be built on):

1. US 6,201,217 B1 (Hearthware Home Products, 2001-03-13) — closest overall; anticipates the architecture minus the bottom heater; its claim 2 literally recites the '017's Incoloy-840 + SiO₂/TiO₂/Al₂O₃ coating of claims 8–9.
2. US 6,069,345 A (Quadlux, 2000-05-30) — closest to claim 19; radiant heat from below, cooking surface between top and bottom radiant sources, and microprocessor-controlled differential power allocation between them (claims 15–16, 21–23).
3. US 5,801,362 A (Hudson Standard, 1998-09-01) — closest to claims 1, 4, 5, 6; portable convection oven with a top heating rod, a chamber fan driven by a motor that also drives a second (cooling) fan — a near-literal read of claim 4.

Tier 2 — meaningful § 103 support:
4. US 5,735,190 A (Sham, 1998-04-07) — fan-circulated convection + microprocessor control panel + sensors (claims 13–14, 21–23).
5. US 4,663,517 A (Meco, 1987-05-05) and US 5,801,357 A (SEB, 1998-09-01) — bottom radiant heater below a food support.
6. US 2,848,592 A (GE, 1958-08-19) — independently adjustable top and bottom heating units.

Tier 3 — peripheral; individual limitations only:
7. The movable-heater microwave family — US 4,629,850 (Sharp), US 5,534,681 (Samsung), US 5,548,102 (Goldstar), US 5,747,781 (Daewoo), US 5,793,023 (Samsung).
8. US 3,281,575 (Philco), US 2,893,307 (Rodriguez), US 5,485,780 (Food Automation), US 6,363,836 (Franklin Industries).

The single combination that matters. Claim 1's only real point of novelty over this cited art is the second heating element at the bottom of the chamber in combination with the top fan-assisted element. US 6,201,217 supplies the entire top half of claim 1; US 4,663,517 or US 6,069,345 supplies the bottom radiant element. That is a textbook pre-AIA § 103 combination, and it is why a validity opinion resting on "no anticipation" alone would be incomplete — anticipation is not the risk; obviousness is.

---

E. Additional art that is not on the face of the '017 but that you should pull anyway

• US 5,404,420 (Eugene Song) — the counter-top electric oven with an infrared element, a relatively low-speed fan and plastic housings that is cited in the background of the family's own US 6,201,217. It is § 102(b) art against the '017 even though the '017 itself did not cite it. (Reference located through the '217 specification at https://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat6201217.html.)
• US 4,374,319 / US RE31,765 ("Counter-top oven") and US 4,071,739 ("Convertible radiant convection oven") — these appear in Google's "Similar Documents" panel for the '017 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6917017/en) rather than in the examiner's citation list, but "convertible radiant convection oven" and "counter-top oven" are precisely the claim-1 concepts. Verify and, if relevant, treat as § 102(b) art.
• WO 2003/026469 A3 (Hearthware Home Products) — the family's own later PCT, whose ISR cites US 6,201,217 B1 against claim 13. Useful for what the family's own counsel treated as the state of the art.

---

F. Verification gaps I am flagging rather than papering over

1. Specification-level content was verified only for four references. I opened or retrieved substantive disclosure text for US 6,201,217, US 5,801,362, US 6,069,345 (via its sibling EP 0 416 030 B1), and US 5,735,190. For US 2,848,592, US 2,893,307, US 3,281,575, US 4,629,850, US 4,663,517, US 5,485,780, US 5,534,681, US 5,548,102, US 5,747,781, US 5,793,023, US 5,801,357 and US 6,363,836 I had only the citation data (title, assignee, filing/issue dates) from the patent's own record. Every "what it reads on" entry for those twelve is marked inferred/unverified and should be confirmed against the specification before being used in any brief.
2. The asterisk convention is reproduced, not relied upon. I could not confirm which of the 16 were cited by the examiner versus added by the applicant.
3. § 102(e) dates. I have not verified the pre-2002 U.S. filing dates of the twelve unopened references, so the § 102(e) availability of each is asserted only from the "filed" dates in the citation table.
4. No § 102(a) "prior invention by another" or § 102(g) analysis is offered; the record does not disclose the applicants' actual date of invention, which would be needed for a § 102(a) argument and for dating the references against an earlier conception/reduction to practice.
5. Nothing here has been run against a search of non-patent literature, which for a 2002 mechanical-appliance filing may include product manuals and catalogs (notably Hearthware's own NuWave Oven literature, which the family relies on for its marking string "6,201,217; 6,617,554; 6,917,017; 6,936,795"). Those are potential § 102(b) printed publications that are not in the citation list at all.

I'll ground the § 103 analysis in the actual disclosures of the cited prior art before building combinations.

Let me pull the disclosures of the remaining key cited references relevant to the control and bottom-heater limitations.

Obviousness Analysis — US 6,917,017 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

"Counter-top cooker having multiple heating elements" — App. 10/226,695; effective filing date 2002‑08‑23; 23 claims (independent claims 1 and 19).

Framing note before the analysis. This section builds on the earlier sections rather than repeating them. Two findings from those sections are load‑bearing here and I carry them forward: (a) all 23 claims are untested — no IPR/PGR/CBM has ever been filed, so there is no FWD, no cancellation, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel; and (b) the patent is recorded as expired 2022‑11‑25. That combination means invalidity under § 103 is a past‑damages defense (roughly a 2020‑10‑01 → 2022‑11‑25 window under § 286), not an injunction‑clearing exercise. Nothing about the patent's expiry changes whether the claims are obvious; it changes only what the analysis is worth.

One internal‑consistency flag for the record: the earlier sections correctly note the assignee spelling split ("Heartware" on grant‑party documents vs. "Hearthware" in the assignment chain). The same split appears in the prior art: US 6,201,217 is printed as assigned to "Heartware Home Products, Inc. (Wheeling, IL)," while the '017's 2002 assignment reel 013238/0198 reads "HEARTHWARE HOME PRODUCTS, INC." I do not correct either. This matters for one legal point below (whether common ownership/§103(c) ever applied), and I address it there.

---

1. Governing standard and the person of ordinary skill

• Legal test: Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (scope/content of prior art; differences; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations), applied through KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). KSR controls three points that decide most of this case: (i) a combination of familiar elements according to known methods is obvious when it yields only predictable results; (ii) if a technique has improved one device, and a PHOSITA would recognize it would improve similar devices in the same way, the technique is obvious; and (iii) where there is "a finite number of identified, predictable solutions," the combination is obvious to try. The Federal Circuit requires an articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning — In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981).
• PHOSITA (proposed): a person with a bachelor's degree in mechanical or electrical engineering and roughly 2–4 years of experience designing small domestic electric cooking appliances (counter‑top ovens, toaster ovens, fryers), or equivalent practical experience. This is a mature, crowded art in which the electrical and thermal architecture of ovens was, by 2002, thoroughly conventional.
• Prior‑art date: all cited references except one (US 6,363,836, issued 2002‑04‑02, which is § 102(a)/(e) art) issued well more than one year before 2002‑08‑23 and therefore qualify as § 102(b) prior art, available for both anticipation and obviousness. In particular, US 6,201,217 (issued 2001‑03‑13) is § 102(b) art relative to the '017.
• Common‑ownership caveat, stated because it cuts against the patent owner: the '017 and US 6,201,217 share inventors Moon and Liu, but not the same inventive entity — '217 names Moon, Liu and Alan R. Kelley; the '017 names Moon, Liu, Chae and Kim. § 103(c) (pre‑AIA) common‑ownership disqualification applies only where "the invention was made by another" who is a common owner at the time; it does not operate as a general bar to using a same‑assignee patent as § 102(b) art. Because '217 is more than one year pre‑critical‑date art, § 103(c) is irrelevant to it. Verify the original '217 assignment record before relying on "same assignee" as an argument either way (the printed "Heartware"/"Hearthware" split is a real evidentiary wrinkle, and I did not pull the '217 reel).

---

2. Prior art of record — inventory and what each reference actually supplies

The patent page lists 16 examiner‑cited/listed references. Note which three the examiner specifically flagged (asterisked on the page): US 5,485,780, US 6,069,345, and US 6,201,217. That tells you the examiner was already looking at (i) a rotisserie oven, (ii) a controlled‑spectrum radiant oven, and (iii) the assignee's own counter‑top oven. Which means the examiner necessarily viewed the bottom heating element as the point of novelty. That is exactly where the § 103 attack lives.

Verification boundary, stated plainly: I retrieved and read the full disclosures of 6,201,217; 2,848,592; 5,801,362; 5,735,190, and substantial text of 6,069,345. The remaining references I characterize from their titles, assignees and dates only, and I do not attribute specific disclosures to them. Any ground I build below rests primarily on the five verified references; the unverified ones are noted as candidates to check, not as support.

Supplementary (not of‑record) corroboration: the published opinion in General Motors Corp. v. Estate Stove Co., 201 F.2d 645 (6th Cir. 1953) (https://storage.courtlistener.com/harvard_pdf/[230956](/patent/230956).pdf) documents that upper/lower oven elements with thermostatic control, wattage splits between them ("more load in the bottom than in the top"), and single‑switch mode selection for broil vs. bake were well‑known in the electric‑range art by the 1920s–30s. I flag it as background on the state of the art, not as a § 102 reference of record.

---

3. Claim 1 — element‑by‑element, and the combination that renders it obvious

Claim 1 requires only: (a) a base; (b) a cooking chamber with first/second ends supported on the base; (c) a power head on the first end with a first heating element and a first fan directing airflow over it into the chamber; and (d) a second heating element in the chamber proximate the second (bottom) end.

Ground 1 (primary): US 6,201,217 in view of US 2,848,592 → claim 1 obvious.

The gap in the primary reference is a single, discrete element. US 2,848,592 fills it exactly, and it fills it with an express teaching of the same advantage the '017 asserts:

• '017 Background: "In types of cooking such as roasting or broiling, it is desirable to expose the food item to direct radiant heat to obtain even cooking and color. To achieve this result, it is necessary in the known counter‑top cooker to rotate the food items periodically…" and "the cooking time is still considered by some to be long enough that it does not act as an incentive to purchase."
• '2848592: "my invention provides for simultaneously bringing the heat source at desired positions relative to both sides of the food with substantial reduction in cooking time and improvement in the end product," and "both upper and lower units may advantageously be used for broiling, and… both upper and lower units are useful in baking."

That is a motivation statement in the prior art itself, aimed at the identical problem the '017's own specification admits. Under KSR this is the paradigm case: two known counter‑top/oven architectures, combined by adding a known lower radiant element to a known fan‑assisted top‑heating counter‑top oven, yielding nothing more than the predictable result (heat from both sides, faster cooking, browning from below, less need to turn the food).

Additional design‑choice/mechanical‑fit points supporting the combination (all from the references themselves):

• '217 already places a metallic oven pan 14 at the bottom of the enclosure and a cooking rack 16 above it, with a base 12 having thermal insulators 30 specifically to protect the base from heat directed at the pan. Mounting a lower element below the rack is a conventional re‑arrangement within an existing, already heat‑tolerant structure — no new shock, wiring, or thermal‑management engineering.
• '2848592 teaches the drip/baking pan P at the bottom of the oven and that the lower element is arranged to avoid interfering with it. That is precisely the '017's "drip pan 26 [that] serves to catch food particles and drippings" beneath the heating element 40 — so the prior art anticipates the one design concern (drippings onto a bottom element) that a skeptic would raise.
• The '017's own specification concedes the bottom element "can be any other type of known electric heating element," i.e., the inventors themselves treated element selection and placement as conventional.

Ground 1‑alt (secondary): US 6,201,217 + US 4,663,517 (Meco, electric barbeque cooker) / US 2,893,307 (Latorre, portable electric cooking device) / US 6,069,345 (Quadlux). Any of these supplies a second, lower heat source in a portable electric cooker. The Quadlux family text is the cleanest: it expressly discloses radiant sources "ordinarily positioned above and below the food item," independently controlled, with the lower sources usable to crisp the underside — which is the functional purpose of the '017's element 40. Label this alternative as resting on verified disclosure for '345 and unverified for '517/'307.

Ground 1‑alt2: the microwave‑oven cluster (US 5,534,681; 5,548,102; 5,747,781; 5,793,023) + US 6,201,217. These teach heating elements disposed within the cooking cavity, in several cases movable or rotatable between positions. They are analogous art (electric cooking appliances) and would support the bare concept of an in‑cavity second element, but they are weaker than '2848592 because they are microwave ovens and their elements are not lower radiant bake elements beneath a rack. Use as corroboration, not as the lead ground.

---

4. Claim 19 — same analysis, plus the interposed cooking surface

Claim 19 adds only: (i) express "convection heat" from the top element/fan; (ii) express "radiant heat" from the bottom element; and (iii) a cooking surface between the power head and the second element.

Ground 2: US 6,201,217 + US 2,848,592 → claim 19 obvious. Same rationale as Ground 1. The only new verbiage ("convection"/"radiant") is a characterization of what the two references already do; under In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997), reciting the intended use or the physical effect of a known structure does not confer patentability.

---

5. Motivation to combine — the articulated rationales

To satisfy KSR/MPEP 2143, each ground should be supported by at least one articulated reason. Here there are six, and they are unusually strong because they come from the references' own text and the patent's own admissions:

1. The '017's own admitted problem supplies the motivation. The Background identifies two deficiencies of the known counter‑top cooker: the need to rotate food to expose it to the top element, and cooking times still perceived as too long. Adding a lower heat source is the direct, known remedy in the oven art. Admissions in a specification about the problem to be solved are usable against the patentee.
2. Express teaching in '2848592 of the same benefit — "both sides of the food," "substantial reduction in cooking time," "improvement in the end product," and both elements usable for both broiling and baking.
3. Predictable result / familiar elements. Base + chamber + top fan‑and‑element + bottom element is standard electric‑oven architecture. KSR: "the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."
4. Finite number of predictable solutions. Once one decides a counter‑top oven needs bottom heat, the available options (sheathed tubular resistance element, ceramic‑coated IR element, halogen/quartz lamp) are a short, enumerated list — the '017 itself says the element "can be any other type of known electric heating element." KSR "obvious to try."
5. Design/mechanical compatibility already exists in '217. The base insulators 30, metallic pan 14, and rack 16 are already there; adding a lower element requires no re‑architecture. KSR: design incentives and market demand.
6. No teaching away. Nothing in '2848592, '217, '5801362 or '345 disparages bottom heating; to the contrary, '2848592 criticizes the convention of using "only one side of foods being broiled." There is no criticality, no unexpected‑results argument on the face of the references, and no evidence of a recognized prejudice in the record I reviewed. Caveat: the prosecution history may contain a teaching‑away or unexpected‑results argument I have not seen — I did not retrieve the file wrapper, so treat this as "no teaching away found," not "none exists."

---

6. Dependent claims — grouped grounds and strength

6.1 Claims 2–6 (chamber walls, transparent door, second fan, sub‑housing, dual‑wall venting)

Motivation for 2–6 is mostly supplied by the primary reference alone plus ordinary design considerations (user viewing, user safety from hot exterior surfaces, motor cooling). '5801362 adds the two‑motor/cooling‑fan‑for‑electronics concept if needed.

6.2 Claims 7–9 (both elements IR; incoloy 840 + G‑1500/CRC 1500 coating; SiO₂/TiO₂/Al₂O₃ + inorganic pigment)

This is where the art of record is most damaging, because the assignee's own earlier patent claims the same element:

• '017 claim 8: "…each comprise an incoloy 840 material coated with a G‑1500 (CRC 1500) ceramic coating."
• '217 claim 2: "…an electric infrared heating element made of incoloy 840 coated with a coating material, the main components of the coating material being SiO₂, TiO₂, and Al₂O₃."
• '217 specification: element 84 "made of an incoloy 840 material coated with a G‑1500 (CRC 1500) ceramic coating having a coating thickness of 20±5 µm… with an inorganic pigment, mainly Si—O."

Ground 3: '217 (claim 2 + spec) in view of '2848592/'345 → claims 7, 8 and 9 obvious. Once the bottom element is present (Ground 1), using the same known element in both positions is the definition of an obvious duplication of parts — In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960); In re Roman, 458 F.2d 997 (CCPA 1972) (duplication of parts with no new or unexpected result). Claim 7's "both infrared heaters" and claim 9's coating‑composition alternative are likewise met by '217's disclosure combined with the bottom‑element teaching. Note: because '217 is § 102(b) art against the '017, and because the inventive entities differ (Kelley on '217; Chae and Kim on '017), the same‑assignee status does not insulate these claims.

Flag for the analyst: this group is the strongest invalidity position in the whole patent. If the '017 is ever asserted, claims 8 and 9 should be the first targets.

6.3 Claim 10 (cooking rack removably provided between the two elements)

'217 cooking rack 16 on the oven pan 14 (with dual‑height loop projections 48/49 — i.e., removable/positionable); '2848592 rack R above the lower element 8. Ground 1 covers it. High strength.

6.4 Claims 11–12 (timer + two temperature set switches; two sensors, two control circuits, two power relays)

• '2848592 discloses separately adjustable upper 9 and lower 8 elements — adjustable positioning and the conventional designation as "baking" and "broiling" elements implying separate control; and it teaches operating "the upper element… at reduced wattage—together with the fully energized lower unit," which presupposes independent control of the two.
• '217 discloses thermistor 96, thermostat 98, controller 100, and power levels from minimum to maximum.
• '5801362 discloses an air‑temperature sensor with a microcomputer; '5,735,190 discloses a chamber temperature sensor driving a microprocessor; Quadlux '345 discloses independent control of upper and lower lamps under a microprocessor.

Ground 4: '217 + '2848592 (+ optionally '5,735,190 / '345) → claims 11 and 12 obvious. Independently controllable upper and lower oven elements with a common timer and thermostatic control is ancient, well‑documented range art (see the Estate Stove record: "balanced heat," wattage distributed between upper and lower coils, thermostatic control, single switch mode selection). Claim 12's "temperature control circuit… power relay" implementation is routine electrical engineering: In re Ehrreich, 590 F.2d 902 (CCPA 1979) (selection of known circuit elements for their known properties). Strength: high‑to‑moderate. The specific claim architecture (separate sensor + separate control circuit + separate relay per element) is a straightforward duplication of a known single‑element control loop; I would expect a strong § 103 case but note that a patent owner will argue the two circuits interact (e.g., cross‑coupling), so evidence of routine design would help.

6.5 Claims 13–14 (keypad for temperature and time; chamber temperature sensor; controller in communication with both)

Ground 5: '217 + '5801362 and/or '5,735,190 → claims 13 and 14 obvious. '5801362 discloses a "panel box with instruments (e.g., buttons and a dial) and a display," a microcomputer "pre‑programmed to recognize input from a user," and an air temperature sensor in the oven. '5,735,190 discloses a control panel 11, a microprocessor 51, and a temperature sensor 52 in the chamber continuously monitored by the microprocessor. A digital keypad replacing varistors is a predictable substitution of one known input device for another with no new result — KSR; In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959) is distinguishable (there the substitution changed the principle of operation; here it does not). Strength: high.

6.6 Claims 15–16 (preset cooking‑mode keys; controller allocates a predetermined percentage of power to the two elements; claim 16's alternating full‑power scheme)

Ground 6: '2848592 + '5801362 / '345 (+ '5,735,190) → claims 15 and 16 obvious.

• Claim 15: preset modes ("BAKE" → ~70% bottom/30% top; "BROIL" → ~80% top/20% bottom) is a predetermined power split between upper and lower elements. '2848592 supplies precisely this concept — "in baking, the upper element is used at reduced wattage—together with the fully energized lower unit," while broiling uses the upper element alone; and it expressly teaches that both elements may be used for broiling. Quadlux '345 supplies independent, recipe‑driven, microprocessor‑controlled differing power levels for upper vs. lower lamps for specific foods (e.g., lower lamps at higher power to crisp a pizza crust). '5801362 supplies the notion of a programmed appliance with selectable cooking modes and a display.
• Claim 16: supplying maximum power to one element for a first period while supplying none to the other, then swapping. This is a duty‑cycle/time‑sharing control scheme. '2848592's wattage split and the long‑established practice of energizing one element at a time (e.g., the broil‑vs.‑bake interlock discussed in the Estate Stove record) make the concept old; implementing it as alternating full‑power time slices is a predictable control‑algorithm variation.

Strength: moderate. These claims are the patent owner's best § 103 arguments. The specific percentages (70/30, 80/20) and the specific alternating‑full‑power algorithm are not, so far as I verified, literally disclosed in the references. A patent owner will argue the art gives no direction to a percentage allocation as such, and will invoke the In re line limiting "obvious to try" where the art gives no guidance. The counter is that '2848592 does give a wattage‑split direction for the same two‑element architecture and '345 gives per‑mode differing upper/lower powers, so the reasoning is not free‑floating; the percentages themselves are a matter of routine optimization (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 (CCPA 1980) — optimization of a known parameter is within the skill of the art absent a showing of criticality). Expect this to be the contested ground. I could not verify what arguments, if any, the applicants made on these claims; the prosecution history should be pulled before taking a final position.

6.7 Claims 17–18 and 23 (FROZEN FOOD / defrost mode; lower temperature for a portion of the cooking time, then reset)

Ground 7: '5801362 (+ '217's controller, + '345's stored recipes) → claims 17, 18 and 23 obvious. '5801362 discloses an appliance "electronically programmable for… defrosting by suitably controlling temperature and maintaining substantially constant and uniformly circulated air," with a microcomputer executing programmed cycles. Defrosting at a reduced temperature for an initial portion of the cycle is a well‑known refrigerator/microwave/oven mode, motivated by the '017's own stated concern (surface burning / food contamination during defrost) and by ordinary thermal sense (a lower air temperature prevents surface cooking before the interior thaws). '217 supplies the controller that can run the cycle.

Strength: moderate‑to‑weak — the weakest of the grounds, and I will say so. The '017's claim 17 pairs the defrost temperature reduction with the preset power distribution to both elements, and claims 18/23 add the automatic reset to the set temperature for the remainder of the cook time. '5801362 supports "defrost mode with controlled temperature" but not literally the two‑element, two‑stage, auto‑reset sequence. This ground needs either (a) a secondary reference on multi‑stage cooking profiles, or (b) a declaration from a PHOSITA that a two‑stage defrost‑then‑cook profile with an automatic transition was routine in microprocessor‑controlled counter‑top ovens by 2002. Do not overstate this ground.

---

7. Secondary considerations, and the counterarguments a patent owner will raise

---

8. Summary of grounds

Bottom line: independent claims 1 and 19 are, on the art of record, strong candidates for invalidation as obvious over US 6,201,217 in view of US 2,848,592, with the motivation supplied both by '2848592's express teaching and by the '017's own admission of the problem. The element‑specific claims 4, 5, 8 and 9 are the most vulnerable in the patent, because US 6,201,217 — the same company's own § 102(b) prior patent — discloses the very structures and the very incoloy 840 / G‑1500 (CRC 1500) coated infrared element recited. Claims 16, 17, 18 and 23 (power‑allocation percentages and the two‑stage defrost profile) are the patent's strongest defensive position and should not be conceded to be obvious without more art or a PHOSITA declaration.

---

9. Confidence, and what must be verified before this reaches a brief

1. Unretrieved references. I did not pull the full texts of US 4,663,517; 4,629,850; 2,893,307; 3,281,575; 5,485,780; 6,363,836; 5,534,681; 5,548,102; 5,747,781; 5,793,023; 5,801,357. Grounds 2 and the microwave‑cluster alternative rest partly on their titles/assignees. Pull them before relying on Ground 2.
2. Prosecution history not reviewed. I have not seen the file wrapper for App. 10/226,695. Any amendment‑based surrender, teaching‑away argument, or unexpected‑results evidence is unknown and could move the analysis. The examiner's citations of '217, '345 and '780 suggest the bottom element was the recognized novelty, but that is inference.
3. § 102(b) status of '217 turns on its 2001‑03‑13 issue date being more than one year before 2002‑08‑23 — it is, by roughly 17 months. Confirm there is no earlier '017 priority claim I have missed; the Google record shows priority = filing date = 2002‑08‑23 with a single‑member family.
4. Common‑ownership / § 103(c) analysis. I did not retrieve the original '217 assignment reel (the printed assignee is "Heartware," the '017's reel says "Hearthware"). Confirm the chain before advancing or defending any same‑assignee argument. As set out above, this should be immaterial because '217 is § 102(b) art, but do not assume it.
5. No assertion that any of this was ever litigated. The earlier sections establish that the only identified suit is NuWave LLC v. De'Longhi S.p.A., No. 1:17‑cv‑08638 (N.D. Ill., filed 2017‑11‑30, now closed) and that it is unverified whether US 6,917,017 specifically was pleaded. Nothing in this § 103 analysis depends on that case, and I am not asserting that any of these grounds was ever raised, briefed, or decided anywhere.
6. Expiry interplay. Per the earlier sections, the recorded term ended 2022‑11‑25. Obviousness findings here are therefore usable only in a § 286‑limited past‑damages dispute, and the 16‑year maintenance‑fee status (last recorded FPAY 2016‑08‑22, year 12; no 16‑year entry) should be confirmed in PatentCenter, since an earlier lapse would shrink that window further.