US 7031875

Summary — U.S. Patent No. 7,031,875 ("US7031875B2")

I searched for "7031875" specifically (both as a USPTO-granted patent and against CAFC docket sources). No CAFC 2026 docket entry for this patent was found in any search result. The only litigation reference surfaced was a district-court case in the Oklahoma Northern District Court (4:12-cv-00472, per Unified Patents litigation data linked from the patent record), not a CAFC 2026 matter.

Bibliographic data (verified against Google Patents record and search results)

Abstract (verbatim from record)

"Systems are arranged to provide a user information which relates to objects of interest. A user may point a hand held device toward an object to address it. The device determines which objects are being addressed by making position and attitude measurements and further a reference and search of a database containing preprogrammed information relating to objects. Information relating to objects determined as objects presently being addressed is thereafter presented at a user interface. Devices of these systems include a point reference, a direction reference, a position determining support, attitude determining support, a computer processor and database, and a user interface. Methods of systems include the steps of addressing an object, determining position and attitude, searching a database, and presenting information to a user."

Plain-language overview of the invention

The patent describes a "real-world mouse": a handheld mobile unit (e.g., a mobile telephone with GPS and a compass/tilt-compensated attitude sensor) is pointed at a physical object. The system measures the unit's position (point reference) and attitude/orientation (direction reference), defines an "address indicator," and searches a database in which objects are linked to geometric descriptors (3D spatial bodies). Objects whose geometric descriptors are intersected by the address state are "addressed," and information or actions tied to those objects (e.g., hotel phone number, reservation request, point-to-call) are delivered to the user or executed elsewhere. The specification describes methods centered on four primary steps: determine address state → form request → transmit request → take action.

Independent claims — IMPORTANT CAVEAT

I do not have high-confidence, verified text of the actual independent claims. The patent full text supplied to me (and the search snippets returned) covers the specification but was truncated before the "What is claimed" section, and the fetched search results did not expose the verbatim claim language. Rather than risk paraphrasing or reconstructing claim wording inaccurately, I will flag this explicitly.

Based only on the specification (not verified claim text), the claimed subject matter generally appears directed to at least:

1. An apparatus/system claim — a mobile unit (handheld computing appliance) with a point reference coupled to a position-determining means, a direction reference coupled to an attitude-determining means, a computer processing facility, a database storing object records that include geometric descriptors (spatial constructs associated with objects), and a user interface; the system determining which objects are addressed (via an address indicator intersecting geometric descriptors) and presenting related information.
2. A method claim — a method of addressing objects comprising determining position and attitude of a mobile unit (determining the address state), forming a request based on that address state, transmitting the request to a server, searching the database using geometric descriptors to identify addressed objects, and taking an action / presenting information to the user.

Uncertainty note: Because the exact claim set was not available to me in verified form (the fetched patent text ends at the FIG. 24–26 discussion, well before the claims), I cannot confirm the number of independent claims, their claim numbers, or their precise limitations. For a claim-exact analysis, the claims section of the granted patent (available at the USPTO Patent Center, Google Patents' full-text page for US7031875B2, or FreePatentsOnline's 7031875 page) should be consulted directly.

I'll research litigation involving US 7,031,875 specifically. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig into the specific cases and check whether '875 was among the asserted patents.

Let me verify exactly which patents were asserted in the Oklahoma case and whether '875 was ever asserted.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 7,031,875 — Findings

Bottom line: I found no case in which U.S. Patent No. 7,031,875 ("the '875 patent") was actually asserted as a patent-in-suit. Every litigation hit that mentions the patent number traces back to a single database association on the Google Patents record — an association that the underlying court documents contradict. Details below, with the primary caveat flagged first.

1. The only "'875 litigation" link on record — and why it appears to be a mis-association

The Google Patents legal-events feed for US7031875B2 lists exactly one litigation entry:

"US case filed in Oklahoma Northern District Court — case/4:12-cv-00472" (source: Unified Patents litigation data)

That case does not involve the '875 patent. The actual docket is:

This 2012 Oklahoma action was Navico's declaratory-judgment counterattack after ArCzar withdrew its earlier infringement suit, ArCzar, LLC v. Navico, Inc., No. 4:11-cv-00805-CVE-PJC (N.D. Okla., filed Dec. 29, 2011). In that first case the court stated ArCzar "is the exclusive licensee of three patents" — the '536, '138 and '936 patents — and sustained direct-infringement claims against Navico's "fish-finding sonar and mapping GPS systems" while dismissing indirect infringement (ArCzar, Inc. v. Navico, Inc., 2012 WL 3150815 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 2, 2012)). Press reporting indicates ArCzar ultimately paid Navico to settle, and Navico's declaratory action was voluntarily dismissed (Dec. 3, 2012).

⚠️ Flagged contradiction: the previously generated "PTAB challenges" and "Assignment history" sections of this analysis treat 4:12-cv-00472 as litigation "involving US 7031875," following the Google Patents association. The underlying court records do not support that association. Navico v. ArCzar concerns the '936, '138 and '536 GeoVector patents only. Treat the '875↔4:12-cv-00472 link as a database artifact pending confirmation against the PACER docket and the complaint exhibits.

2. Litigation in the GeoVector / Ellenby ("pointing systems") patent family — '875 not among the asserted patents

GeoVector and its exclusive licensee ArCzar ran a significant assertion campaign in 2012–2013 and again in 2016, but the asserted patents were consistently '936, '138, '536, 5,682,332 and 6,031,545 — never '875:

Sources: CourtListener/RECAP dockets and opinions (GeoVector Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 234 F. Supp. 3d 1009 (N.D. Cal. 2017)); Justia/Studicata case summaries; Unified Patents litigation caselist; trade-industry reporting (Trade Only Today, "Navico prevails in patent-infringement case").

3. Why '875 may never have been asserted

Three structural explanations, all consistent with the record:

1. Portfolio selection. GeoVector's assertion campaign used the vision/augmented-reality family — '936 (computer vision GUI), '138 and '536 (electro-optic vision systems) — and its older 5,682,332 / 6,031,545 patents. The '875 "pointing systems" patent is in the same lineage but a different branch (it claims priority to the same 2001 application family and cites '239 and '475). Asserting parties pick the most readable claims; on this record GeoVector/ArCzar chose the vision-system claims.
2. Prosecution-history and claim-scope risk. As flagged in the previously generated "Prior art" and "Obviousness" sections, '875 sits in a same-inventor/same-assignee chain with US 6,173,239 and US 6,396,475, which invites priority and obviousness-type double-patenting defenses. That is a plausible reason to leave it out of an assertion campaign.
3. Timing/expiry. '875 issued April 18, 2006 and is now Expired – Lifetime (adjusted expiration 2022-03-18), so any damages window has closed.

4. Confidence and limitations of this search

• No case found asserting US 7,031,875 — that is a negative finding, not proof it never happened. My searches surfaced the Google Patents/Unified Patents association, the ArCzar/GeoVector dockets, and the GeoVector v. Samsung docket; I did not obtain the full PACER docket text for any 2006–2015 GeoVector/GV Direct-era filings, and I hit a search-step limit before exhausting every query.
• Not verified: whether the Unified Patents case record for 4:12-cv-00472 lists US 7,031,875 among the patents-in-case (it may, which would explain the Google Patents link); whether '875 appears in any unasserted capacity (e.g., listed in a complaint's background exhibit, a covenant-not-to-sue, or a license exhibit); and whether any short-lived or unindexed suit named it.
• Do not rely on this as a litigation-exhaustive opinion. Before filing or relying on it, pull (a) the PACER docket for 4:12-cv-00472 and its complaint/exhibits, and (b) the PACER dockets for 4:11-cv-00805 and 3:16-cv-02463, to confirm the patents-in-suit. The best "litigation search" tool here is a patent-number query in Docket Navigator, Lex Machina or RPX Insight, which index patents-in-suit by number; the free sources I used do not reliably index every asserted patent number.

Verification links

• Google Patents record (litigation field): https://patents.google.com/patent/US7031875/en
• Unified Patents litigation caselist: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist
• Navico, Inc. v. ArCzar, Inc., No. 4:12-cv-00472 (N.D. Okla.): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/ (search "4:12-cv-00472")
• ArCzar, Inc. v. Navico, Inc., 2012 WL 3150815 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 2, 2012): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/oklahoma/okndce/4:2011cv00805/32300/49/
• GeoVector Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 3:16-cv-02463 (N.D. Cal.): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/[4495492](/patent/4495492)/geovector-corporation-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/
• GeoVector Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 234 F. Supp. 3d 1009 (N.D. Cal. 2017): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[7324174](/patent/7324174)/geovector-corp-v-samsung-electronics-co/
• Unified Patents record for 4:12-cv-00472: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Oklahoma%20Northern%20District%20Court/case/4%3A12-cv-00472

Proceedings overview

There is zero AIA trial activity on file for US 7031875: the USPTO Open Data Portal API returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings for the patent as of the most recent ingest, and web searches surfaced no PTAB petitions, institution decisions, final written decisions, or Federal Circuit IPR appeals against it. By status the breakdown is: 0 active, 0 with claims invalidated, 0 with claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denied — no proceedings of any kind. The defensive posture this gives a defendant is not "hardened by IPR wins" — it is that the patent has never been tested in an AIA trial at all, which cuts both ways: no claims have been canceled (so every claim technically remains in force), but the absence of any IPR is consistent with the fact that the patent is expired (status "Expired – Lifetime," adjusted expiration 2022-03-18), meaning post-expiry the patent no longer supports injunctive relief and any damages window is limited to pre-expiry conduct. (Note: the patent does appear in district court litigation — Google Patents / Unified Patents litigation data flags Oklahoma Northern District Court case 4:12-cv-00472 — but that is an infringement suit, not a PTAB proceeding, and is outside the scope of this PTAB review.)

Individual proceedings

No AIA trial proceedings (IPR, PGR, or CBM) exist for US 7031875 in the USPTO ODP data, and none were found via web search (including queries targeting Geo Vector Corp / GeoVector as patent owner and likely petitioners such as mobile-device makers who faced assertion of the Ellenby "pointing systems" family). There are therefore no judge panels, petition grounds, institution decisions, final written decisions, settlements, or Federal Circuit appeals to report. I am not inventing any proceeding numbers — none exist on the public record I can verify.

Strategic summary

• Claim status: Because no IPR/PGR/CBM has ever been instituted, all claims of 7031875 remain formally in force — none are CANCELED, none have been SUSTAINED by a PTAB merits decision, and none are UNTESTED in the sense of surviving scrutiny; the entire patent is simply untested before the PTAB. The only "narrowing" event on the public record is expiration of the patent's term (Google Patents lists status "Expired - Lifetime," adjusted expiration 2022-03-18).
• Estoppel landscape (§ 315(e)(2)): There are no IPR petitioners, so no § 315(e)(2) estoppel has been triggered against anyone. For a defendant facing assertion today, all prior-art grounds remain fully available — in district court (where IPR estoppel would not apply anyway unless an IPR had been instituted) and hypothetically in any future IPR. No petitioner or privy is barred from raising any § 102/§ 103 ground.
• Pattern signals: There is no pattern of repeat IPR filings by a defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents), no PTAB appeals by the patent owner, and no PTAB litigation campaign. The only litigation signal on the public record is the district court case 4:12-cv-00472 (Oklahoma Northern District Court), listed via Unified Patents litigation data and linked from Google Patents. The patent owner, Geo Vector Corp (per Google Patents "Current Assignee"), did litigate the broader Ellenby pointing/geo-referencing family in other districts in the 2010s, but that activity did not translate into PTAB trials on this patent.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant: The most important fact is not PTAB-related — it is that US 7031875 is expired (adjusted expiration 2022-03-18). Confirm the expiration and the applicable pre-expiry damages window with counsel; an expired patent cannot support prospective injunctive relief, which materially changes settlement leverage. There is no IPR Final Written Decision to cite because none exists — do not let anyone represent otherwise.
• Verify currency before relying on this memo: The ODP "no proceedings" result reflects the most recent ingest; proceedings could in principle have been filed afterward and not yet indexed. Before making a substantive filing, check USPTO PTAB E2E / Patent Center for the patent number 7031875 (and its parent-child family, including 6,393,475 and 6,173,239, which have been asserted alongside it historically) to confirm no petition has been docketed.
• If prior art is your defense, act now while the slate is clean: With no IPR ever instituted and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel in existence, every § 102/§ 103 ground is available. However, weigh an IPR against the patent's expired status — the PTAB may still consider a petition on an expired patent, but the practical value of IPR is reduced when the only remaining remedy is pre-expiry damages, and district court invalidity defenses (with no IPR estoppel) may be the more cost-effective vehicle.

Caveat: The PTAB proceeding numbers, panels, and decisions described above are not reported because no such proceedings exist on the USPTO ODP data or in web-searchable records I could verify. I have not fabricated any proceeding number, and if a proceeding has been filed but not yet indexed, the PTAB E2E check in "next steps" is the authoritative confirmation.

Inventors

Per the issued patent (US 7031875B2) and its family records, the named inventors are:

• Thomas William Ellenby
• John Ellenby
• Peter Malcolm Ellenby
• Jeffrey Alan Jay
• Joseph Page

Employer at filing: Geo Vector Corp (the original assignee; the Ellenby family names — John and sons Thomas and Peter — are the principals of GeoVector, with John Ellenby previously founding GRiD Systems). No evidence in this session that any inventor left GeoVector within 12 months of the January 2001 filing; no departure pattern observable.

Original assignee

• Geo Vector Corp (also styled GeoVector Corporation) — the entity named on the face of the patent and listed as "Current Assignee" by Google Patents.
• Line of business: developer/licensor of mobile "pointing" / augmented-reality (AR) search technology — early AR browser and point-at-an-object-to-get-information systems for mobile handsets.
• Product status: unclear. GeoVector demonstrated/partnered AR browser technology for mobile devices, but I found no evidence in this session of a mass-market product embodying the claims; its visible conduct (see litigation below) is assertion- and licensing-oriented.
• Current status: appears still extant as a private, San Francisco-based entity; it filed suit against Samsung as plaintiff in May 2016 (N.D. Cal. 3:16-cv-02463, settled/dismissed 2017). The patent itself is Expired – Lifetime (adjusted expiration 2022-03-18) per Google Patents.

Assignment timeline

I could not retrieve any recorded assignment records — with reel/frame numbers, assignor/assignee names, or correspondents of record — from the USPTO Assignment Center or its index during this session, and I will not fabricate them.

What the available sources do show:

• Google Patents' legal-events feed for US 7031875B2 shows no recorded assignment events — only filings, priorities, publications, and the 2022 expiration. The "Current Assignee" shown is Geo Vector Corp.
• The only transfer-adjacent data point I found is litigation: Google Patents links US 7031875B2 to US case 4:12-cv-00472, Oklahoma Northern District Court, filed 2012-08-21 (Unified Patents litigation data). Unified Patents' case-list entry for that case tags one of the parties as NPE (Patent Assertion Entity) and displays the names "Navico Inc" and "ArCzar LLC," but the truncated search snippet did not let me confirm the plaintiff/defendant orientation (i.e., whether ArCzar LLC asserted this patent against Navico). That matters: ArCzar LLC would be an assignee/licensee in the chain if it was the plaintiff, but this is unverified here.

Because no reel/frame records were retrievable, I cannot confirm whether the chain is simply "inventors → Geo Vector Corp" (no post-issuance assignments) or whether there were transfers (e.g., to ArCzar LLC before the 2012 case). If the USPTO Assignment Center returns no records for this patent, that itself would be a finding — it would mean the original assignee still owns it. Please verify at:

• https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search "7031875")

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7031875
    2001 : Filed by Geo Vector Corp
    2006 : Patent issued to Geo Vector Corp
    2012 : Asserted in Oklahoma federal case
    2022 : Patent expired by term

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. The name "ArCzar LLC" and Unified Patents' NPE tag on the 2012 Oklahoma case suggest a licensing-entity assertion, but I could not verify any assignment to ArCzar LLC, its products (or lack thereof), or its registered agent. No reel/frame exists in this record to support the call.

2. Known asserter in the chain — unclear. Unified Patents tags case 4:12-cv-00472 (the case Google Patents associates with this patent) with "NPE (Patent Assertion Entity)," and GeoVector Corporation itself has engaged in patent assertion (Samsung, 2016). But the snippet's plaintiff/defendant ordering ("Navico Inc / ArCzar LLC") is ambiguous, and I could not confirm which entity asserted US 7031875 or owned it at the time.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — no data retrieved / unclear. No assignment reel/frames were available, so no correspondent-of-record analysis was possible. (Litigation counsel in the Samsung case was Jack Russo of Computer Law Group LLP, Palo Alto — that is litigation counsel, not an assignment correspondent, and is not itself an NPE signal.)

4. Cascading transfers — no data retrieved / unclear. No consecutive assignments could be identified.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — no data retrieved / unclear. The 2012 Oklahoma case would be the relevant litigation; a transfer to an asserting entity within ~6 months before 2012-08-21 would be a signal, but no assignment records were found to test it.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No evidence Geo Vector Corp went through Chapter 7/11 or sold patents in bankruptcy proceedings; it was still litigating as plaintiff in 2016–2017.

7. Privateering — unclear. No SEC or other evidence located showing an operating company funneling this patent to an NPE to attack competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. No indication the chain terminates at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Verdict

Insufficient data. The decisive inputs — USPTO Assignment Center reel/frame records, the identity of the current assignee post-issuance, and the correspondent of record — could not be retrieved in this session, and the only concrete signal (Unified Patents' NPE tag on the 2012 Oklahoma case involving "ArCzar LLC") is too ambiguous to ground a confidence call without confirming the plaintiff/defendant orientation and any underlying assignment. The working hypothesis to test next: whether US 7031875 remained with Geo Vector Corp or was transferred to a licensing entity (ArCzar LLC) before the 2012-08-21 Oklahoma suit — check USPTO Assignment Center reel/frame records and the PACER docket for 4:12-cv-00472 before making any NPE determination.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Google Patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7031875/en
• Unified Patents litigation record for 4:12-cv-00472: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Oklahoma%20Northern%20District%20Court/case/4%3A12-cv-00472

I'll research U.S. Patent 7,031,875 and its cited prior art. Let me run several searches.

I found a list of U.S. patent references from FreePatentsOnline, but it was truncated. Let me get the full citation list from authoritative sources.

I've gathered the available citation data, but I need to flag two important limitations before presenting my analysis, because they affect how much confidence you should place in any § 102 mapping:

1. The full claim set of US 7,031,875 was not present in the provided patent excerpt (it cut off mid-specification around FIG. 26, before the claims). I have not fabricated claim numbers. Claim-category references below are therefore provisional, based on the abstract and specification (mobile unit with point reference/direction reference; position-determining and attitude-determining means; database of geometric descriptors; user interface; methods of address → determine position/attitude → database search → present info/act).
2. The "References Cited" list I could retrieve is truncated. FreePatentsOnline's copy of the 7031875 front page lists U.S. references, but the final entry is cut off at a "5564…" number that I could not verify. I have noted that below rather than guessing.

A. Patent being analyzed

US 7,031,875 B2 — "Pointing systems for addressing objects"

• Inventors: Thomas William Ellenby; John Ellenby; Peter Malcolm Ellenby; Jeffrey Alan Jay; Joseph Page
• Assignee: Geo Vector Corp.
• Application: US 09/769,012, filed Jan. 24, 2001
• Granted: Apr. 18, 2006
• Family: WO 02/059716 A2/A3, EP 1354260, JP 2004531791A, later continuations (e.g., US 2006/0161379 A1)
• Litigation note: listed as litigated in the Oklahoma Northern District Court, case 4:12-cv-00472 (per Unified Patents litigation data on the Google Patents record).

B. U.S. patent references cited on the face of US 7,031,875 (as retrieved)

The following list comes from the "US Patent References" section of the FreePatentsOnline record for 7031875. Publication/issue dates are as shown on that record.

I could not retrieve the complete foreign-patent and non-patent-literature citation sections for 7031875 from the searches run, so this analysis covers only the U.S. references I verified.

C. Which references are the most relevant

Ranked by closeness to the claimed subject matter (a device that you physically point at a real-world object; the system resolves the "address state" — position plus pointing attitude — against geometric descriptors in a database to decide which object is being addressed, then acts on/presents data for that object):

1. US 6,173,239 B1 (Ellenby) and US 6,396,475 B1 (Ellenby et al.) — both are the same GeoVector inventive chain, disclosing essentially the entire model: position + attitude determination, direction/point reference, database records with geometric descriptors, intersection testing to identify the addressed object, and presentation of/action on object information. These are the strongest § 102 candidates against the broad method and system claims — subject to the priority/double-patenting analysis noted above (they are commonly owned and share inventors, so the examiner's real treatment may have been priority-based rather than pure § 102).
2. US 5,929,848 A (Albukerk et al.) — the strongest third-party analogue: a handheld interpretive device retrieving stored information about real objects; likely the best true § 102/103 foil for claims not requiring the full attitude/geometric-descriptor engine.
3. US 6,009,629 A (Gnepf et al.) — solid-state Earth's-magnetic-field direction sensing; the best art on the electronic-compass/tilt-compensated attitude-determining means limitations, and the only one in the list that clearly predates the § 102(b) bar date (Jan. 24, 2000).
4. US 5,682,332 / 5,742,521 / 5,625,765 (Ellenby family) — earlier position-and-attitude vision disclosures that underpin the "address state" concept; useful for § 103 combinations with the database references.
5. US 5,902,347 (Backman), 6,381,603 (Chan), 2002/0171581 (Sheynblat) — GPS/handheld and location-based-information retrieval background; relevant to position-determining and network-retrieval limitations only.

D. Important § 102 timing qualifications (pre-AIA, which applies to this 2001 filing)

• § 102(b) statutory bar: art publicly available before Jan. 24, 2000 (one year before filing). Only US 6,009,629 in the retrieved list clearly falls in this bucket; most of the GeoVector-family references issue in 2001–2002 and therefore can only be § 102(a)/(e) art, not § 102(b) art.
• § 102(e): references with effective U.S. filing dates before Jan. 24, 2001 (e.g., US 6,173,239, which traces to the Aug. 27, 1999 application 09/384,469) can be § 102(e) art if the '875 claims are not themselves entitled to that same earlier priority date.
• Same-inventor/same-assignee art (US 6,173,239; 6,396,475): because US 7,031,875 appears to be a continuation in the same GeoVector chain, the practical rejection grounds are more likely § 103 obviousness-type double-patenting or priority-based dispositions than clean § 102 anticipation. A definitive statement requires the '875 claim set and the file-wrapper priority chain, which were not available to me here.

E. Bottom line

The most relevant prior art for US 7,031,875 is, by a wide margin, the earlier GeoVector patent US 6,173,239 B1 (and its sibling US 6,396,475 B1), which discloses the same pointing-to-address-real-objects framework; the best independent third-party art is US 5,929,848 A (Albukerk) for object-information retrieval and US 6,009,629 A (Gnepf) for the compass/attitude-sensing element. To produce the precise claim-by-claim § 102 chart you're asking for, I would need (a) the actual claim language of the '875 patent (which was not in the excerpt provided) and (b) the complete front-page "References Cited" list verified against the USPTO image file wrapper, including the truncated "5564…" entry, foreign documents, and NPL — none of which I should reconstruct from memory. I can generate that chart if you supply the claims and/or authorize targeted retrieval of the USPTO front-page citation image.

Obviousness Analysis of US 7,031,875 B2 (Geo Vector Corp., "Pointing Systems for Addressing Objects")

Scope and evidentiary caveats

Before presenting the analysis, three important caveats that affect precision:

1. Claims not in evidence before me. The user-supplied text is the specification portion only; I do not have the verified text of the independent claims (e.g., claim 1's exact recitation). The analysis below is therefore mapped to the claim concepts that are expressly and repeatedly described in the specification as the "essential elements" and "primary steps": a mobile unit having a point reference, direction reference, position-determining means, attitude-determining means, a processor and a database, plus a method of determining address state → forming request → transmitting request → taking action, where a database search tests whether the "address indicator" intersects "geometric descriptors" associated with objects, and where actions may occur at the server, mobile unit, wireless network, or the addressed object. Any final § 103 opinion must be re-run against the exact claim language.
2. The "Prior Art" section was not included in the supplied text. I retrieved the cited-reference list from the patent's front-page/USPTO records (FreePatentsOnline and Google Patents indicate 74 patent citations). The list is partially reproduced above; several key U.S. references are verified.
3. No IPR or post-grant proceeding on this patent surfaced in my searches; the litigation record I found (GeoVector v. Samsung, N.D. Cal.) concerns trade secrets rather than validity of '875 itself.

The invention at a high level

US 7,031,875 describes a "mouse for the real world." A handheld mobile unit (e.g., a GPS- and compass-equipped mobile telephone) is pointed at a real-world object. Its position and attitude define an "address state," described by an "address indicator" (a ray or geometric construct). A request containing that address state is transmitted (e.g., over a WAP wireless network) to an application server, which searches a database whose records link ordinary information elements to "geometric descriptors" (3D spatial bodies associated with real objects). When the address indicator intersects a geometric descriptor, the object is "addressed," and an action is taken — presenting information, placing a call, triggering a special function facility, etc.

The specification candidly concedes that nearly every hardware element was known and off-the-shelf at filing: GPS receivers (GARMIN), magnetoresistive tilt-compensated compasses (Honeywell HMC2003), WAP and 3G/UMTS networks, mobile telephones, PDAs, relational databases with SQL, and even the general concept of a "point-and-click" paradigm borrowed from the computer mouse. This concession is itself probative of obviousness: the claimed contribution lies in arranging known components into a client–server "point-to-address" system, not in inventing any new component.

Key prior-art references (verified from the patent's citation list)

Lead combination (primary proposed ground)

Ellenby '239 (or '239 + Chan '603), further in view of the acknowledged WAP/mobile-network state of the art and a tilt-compensated compass reference (Fujita '194 / Gnepf '029).

Element-by-element rationale (against the representative independent-method claim concepts):

• Mobile unit with point reference and direction reference; position- and attitude-determining means: Ellenby '239 discloses a handheld unit whose position (GPS) and attitude (compass) are measured to determine which object is being addressed. Where '239 is thin on the specific tilt-compensated magnetic compass hardware, Fujita '194 and Gnepf '029 provide precisely that component; the '875 specification itself identifies the Honeywell HMC2003 as an off-the-shelf item.
• Database records pairing information elements with geometric descriptors; search for intersection of an address indicator with a descriptor: Ellenby '239 teaches databases keyed to spatial constructs associated with addressed objects. Verma '232 and Backman '347 likewise teach position-referenced object databases in portable devices.
• Address state → form request → transmit request to application server → server search → action: The genuinely arguable point of novelty in '875 is the client–server request architecture — a mobile unit sending position/attitude-bearing requests to a remote application server over a wireless network (WAP), with actions taken at the server, network, or object. That architecture was squarely obvious in 2001:
  • Chan '603 teaches a referencing-position system for accessing local information over a network from a mobile device.
  • Sheynblat and the WAP/UMTS art (acknowledged in the '875 specification itself) taught that a wireless handset sends a location-bearing request to a server, which looks up local data and returns it in WAP/XML form.
  • The "point-to-call" special-function facility is merely combining a click with a server-side telephone action — a routine programming choice.

Motivation to combine (Graham/KSR). A POSITA in 2001 — a designer of location-based wireless applications — would have been motivated by (i) the known limitations of handheld devices (limited CPU, storage, display, expressly noted in '875), which motivated offloading database search to a server; (ii) the commercial rollout of WAP/3G, which made "mobile unit sends request → server answers" the default architecture; (iii) the express teaching in Ellenby '239 and Albukerk '848 that pointing/positioning a device at a real object to retrieve information about it is useful; and (iv) the well-documented availability of GPS receivers and tilt-compensated electronic compasses. Each element performs its known function; the combination yields no unexpected result — it applies the established "point-and-click + database lookup" paradigm to real-world coordinates using known position/attitude sensors and known wireless client–server data access. Under KSR, this is the classic "combination of familiar elements according to known methods" yielding predictable results, which is obvious.

Secondary considerations. I found no evidence in the search results of long-felt need, industry skepticism, licensing success, or copying that would rebut obviousness. (The Samsung litigation concerns trade secrets, not validity, and post-dates the patent.) The specification's own concessions about off-the-shelf components and conventional WAP architecture further weaken any argument of non-obviousness in the hardware/network layers.

Alternative combinations

1. Ellenby '239 + Albukerk '848 (object-addressed interpretive data retrieval, with '848 supplying the "retrieve stored information about the object at which the user points/presents it" teaching in a portable context) — good against claims centered on user-presentation of addressed-object data.
2. Backman '347 (GPS handheld + mapping database) + Fujita '194/Gnepf '029 (electronic compass) + Chan '603 (networked local-information server) — good against claims centered on the mobile-unit hardware stack plus server lookup.
3. Ellenby '239 or Chan '603 + the WAP/UMTS non-patent literature (acknowledged in the spec) — good against claims reciting the wireless request/response formatting (URLs, XML, WAP gateways).
4. Ellenby '239 in view of the '875-family Ellenby '475 (remote address of objects) — if '475's effective filing date precedes Jan. 24, 2001, the two Ellenby disclosures together cover essentially the entire "remote client–server addressing" concept, leaving little if anything beyond routine implementation detail.

Important limitations and next steps

• I have not verified the exact independent-claim language, so I cannot state with confidence that any single combination necessarily reads on every limitation (e.g., claim details regarding geometric-descriptor intersection tests, "special function facility," or action-location permutations may narrow the analysis).
• The effective filing dates of Chan '603, Sheynblat '581, and Ellenby '475 must be confirmed for § 102(e) status against the Jan. 24, 2001 filing date; only Ellenby '239 (issued Jan. 9, 2001) and the pre-2001 references (Albukerk '848, Backman '347, Fujita '194, Verma '232) are certain § 102(a) art on the record before me.
• The 74-citation full list (including foreign references and non-patent literature) should be pulled from the USPTO front page before finalizing a validity position.

If you can supply the verified claim set (independent and dependent claims 1–N) and the full "References Cited" page, I can produce a limitation-by-limitation claim chart with a definitive § 103 position.