US 7311385

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent.

Let me search for litigation specifically involving this patent.

Let me check the specific litigation reference and any 2026 Federal Circuit activity.

US Patent 7,311,385 — Analyst Summary

Important scope note: I searched for this exact number and did not find any 2026 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docket naming U.S. Patent No. 7,311,385. The 2026 Federal Circuit activity I found concerns other Slingshot Printing patents (e.g., 7,152,951; 7,484,823; 7,594,708; 7,290,864; 7,195,341). I flag this explicitly rather than attributing those outcomes to the '385 patent.

Bibliographic Data

Family: Continuation US 7,673,973 (app. 11/752,551) and divisional US 7,954,929 (app. 11/858,611). Foreign counterparts: EP 1 691 981 B1, CN 100588545 C, AU 2004311068 B2, BR PI0416516 A, TW I325820 B, WO 2005/050702 A2.

Abstract (verbatim)

A semiconductor substrate for a micro-fluid ejecting device. The semiconductor substrate includes a plurality of fluid ejection devices disposed on the substrate. A plurality of driver transistors are disposed on the substrate for driving the plurality of fluid ejection devices. A programmable memory matrix containing embedded programmable memory devices is operatively connected to the micro-fluid ejecting device for collecting and storing information on the semiconductor substrate for operation of the micro-fluid ejecting device. The programmable memory matrix provides a high density of memory bits embedded on the substrate for storing information about the micro-fluid ejecting device.

Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

Claim 1 — The substrate itself

A substrate (chip) for a micro-fluid ejecting device, comprising four elements:

1. Multiple fluid ejection devices on the substrate (e.g., thermal heater resistors or piezoelectric elements);
2. Multiple driver devices for driving those ejection devices;
3. A nonvolatile programmable memory matrix with embedded programmable memory devices, capable of being operatively connected to the micro-fluid ejecting device to store operating information — where the matrix is erasable by ultraviolet (UV) light; and
4. A UV-blocking layer adjacent the memory matrix, sufficient to block UV light with a wavelength below about 400 nm.

Practical effect: the memory is built into the same silicon as the printhead (not a separate attached die), and the deliberate design tension is captured in the claim — the memory is UV-erasable (a feature), yet the claimed layer shields it from stray UV during use to prevent accidental erasure/deprogramming.

Claim 12 — The ink jet printer cartridge

An ink jet printer cartridge comprising:

• A cartridge body with an ink supply source;
• A printhead attached to the cartridge body in fluid communication with the ink supply, the printhead comprising:
  • a substrate with multiple ink ejection devices;
  • multiple driver devices for the ejection devices;
  • a nonvolatile programmable memory matrix with embedded programmable memory devices, operatively connected to the printer to store operating information, the matrix being UV-erasable;
  • a photoresist layer adjacent the matrix sufficient to block UV below about 400 nm (note: claim 12 specifies photoresist, whereas claim 1 recites a generic "layer"); and
  • a nozzle plate attached to the substrate for ejecting ink upon activation of the ejection devices.

Dependent Claims (brief)

• Claim 2/13: memory devices are PMOS or NMOS floating gate transistors.
• Claim 3/14: memory density greater than about 200 bits/mm².
• Claim 4/15: matrix comprises floating gate transistors.
• Claim 5/16: matrix comprises more than 128 memory devices.
• Claim 6/17: programmability by > about 8 V for at least about 100 µs.
• Claim 7/18: programmed state passes about 10–200 µA at about 2 V.
• Claim 8/19: unprogrammed state passes less than 3 µA at about 2 V.
• Claim 9: a printhead for an ink jet printer containing the substrate of claim 1.
• Claim 10: the UV-blocking layer is a photoresist material or a metal.
• Claim 11: the UV-blocking layer is a polyimide nozzle plate.
• Claim 20: the nozzle plate is a polyimide nozzle plate that blocks UV below about 400 nm.

Technical Disclosure Highlights (specification)

• The memory cells are PMOS or NMOS floating gate transistors coupled between row and column pass transistors in a matrix (e.g., at least 128 columns × 32 rows in a preferred embodiment).
• Programming is described as hot-electron injection via drain-induced barrier lowering (DIBL)/punchthrough, with charge stored on an isolated polysilicon floating gate; programming > ~8 V for ~100 µs, reading < ~3 V.
• Erasure is by X-ray (e.g., 2×10⁵ rads), UV below ~400 nm, or temperatures above ~100 °C.
• Stated advantage: conventional fuse/fuse-diode memory requires roughly four times the substrate surface area, so the embedded memory yields much higher memory density in the same area (or a smaller die for the same memory).
• Memory uses enumerated in the spec: head identification, alignment characteristics, fluid properties (e.g., color), and incremented fluid-level/use data.
• Substrate memory area: width and length dimensions of about 100–5000 microns; density preferably > about 200 bits/mm².
• Prior art cited by the examiner includes US 3,500,142; US 3,660,819; US 4,203,158; US 4,978,565; US 5,069,697 (Sony — "Semiconductor memory which is protected from erasure by light shields"); US 5,519,246 (Mitsubishi — "Nonvolatile memory apparatus using an ultraviolet impermeable resin film"); US 5,943,268; and US 6,512,284 (HP — thin film fuse/antifuse in a printhead).

Litigation / Docket Information (with caveats)

• Google Patents lists this patent's family as having litigation, linking a Texas Western District Court case, 6:19-cv-00364. Public docket data identifies that case as Slingshot Printing LLC v. HP Inc., filed 2019-06-11 in the W.D. Tex. (Judge Alan D. Albright). Note: the search results confirm the case number and parties but I could not verify from the retrieved sources that the '385 patent was one of the specific patents asserted in that case — Slingshot's 2019–2020 HP assertions I saw listed different patent numbers (e.g., 6,137,502; 6,719,405; 6,863,381; 7,014,299; 7,077,509; 7,152,951; 7,244,015; 7,364,268). Treat the specific-patent linkage as uncertain.
• Slingshot Printing's later campaigns against HP and Canon generated extensive PTAB activity (IPR2020-01084/85/86; IPR2022-01414/01416; IPR2023-00309/00312/00313), and 2026 Federal Circuit appeals (e.g., Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., Nos. 2025-1033/1034; and case no. 24-2127 re the '951 patent).
• No 2026 CAFC docket specifically involving U.S. 7,311,385 was found in my searches. The '385 patent is expired (adjusted expiration 2024-11-24), which would be consistent with it not being an active appeal subject.

Uncertainty Statement

The bibliographic, abstract, and claim content above are drawn from the authoritative patent text and are high confidence. The following are not confirmed by authoritative sources I located and should be verified independently before reliance: (1) whether U.S. 7,311,385 was specifically asserted in W.D. Tex. case 6:19-cv-00364; and (2) the absence of any 2026 CAFC docket for this patent (absence of search results is not proof of absence). I did not locate a dedicated USPTO PatentCenter assignment record or docket entry tying the '385 patent's current ownership chain beyond the Google Patents legal-events data (Lexmark → Funai Electric, 2013-05-14 → Slingshot Printing LLC, 2019-03-29).

I'll research litigation involving US 7,311,385 specifically. Note that the patent record itself already flags a Texas Western District case, so let me verify and expand on that.

Let me dig into the specific case flagged in the patent record and the Slingshot Printing campaign.

Let me confirm which patents were asserted in the case flagged by the patent record, and check for any IPR on the '385 patent.

Summary of findings

Short answer: Based on the sources retrieved, the only known litigation that has been tied to US 7,311,385 is the Slingshot Printing LLC v. HP Inc. campaign filed in the Western District of Texas in June 2019 — specifically Case No. 6:19-cv-00364, which is the case the patent's own Google Patents record flags as family litigation. I found no IPR/PGR against the '385 patent, and no other asserted case (against Canon or anyone else) in which the '385 patent appears.

Case detail

Slingshot Printing LLC v. HP Inc.

Grounding / sources:

• The patent's own Google Patents record flags: "Family has litigation — US case filed in Texas Western District Court" with link https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Western%20District%20Court/case/6%3A19-cv-00364.
• Docket record for 6:19-cv-00364 (filed 06/11/2019, W.D. Tex., Judge Albright; plaintiff attorneys Raymond W. Mort III, Jason S. Charkow, Michael A. Siem, Ronald M. Daignault, Richard Juang, Chandran B. Iyer; defense attorney Barry K. Shelton): https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-slingshot-printing-llc-v-hp-inc-137172
• The industry press report on the June 11, 2019 filings expressly lists "7,311,385" among the patents Slingshot asserted against HP: https://therecycler.com/posts/hp-in-second-infringement-case/ ("In three separate court papers filed on the 11th June, Slingshot Printing LLC, alleged that HP is breaching several US patents; ... 7,311,385 ...")
• Transfer of a companion Slingshot–HP Waco case to Austin (6:19-cv-00549 → 1:20-cv-00187, order dated Feb. 19, 2020): https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Western%20District%20Court/case/1:20-cv-00184
• Darts-IP family-level litigation link (family ID 34552549 — this is a family-level, not patent-level, flag): https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=34552549

What is not litigation against the '385 patent (checked and excluded)

These are Slingshot Printing campaigns in the same patent family/portfolio, but the retrieved records show they involve other patent numbers, not 7,311,385 — I am flagging them only so you don't conflate them:

• Slingshot Printing LLC v. HP Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00549 (W.D. Tex., filed Sept. 20, 2019) — asserted 6,213,587; 6,575,563; 6,676,246; 6,786,575; 7,018,012; 7,195,341; 7,290,864; 7,410,246; 7,484,823; 7,559,629. '385 is not in this list.
• Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc. / Canon Solutions America, Inc., Nos. 2:22-cv-00123 and 2:22-cv-01852 (E.D.N.Y.) — asserted 7,152,951; 7,195,341; 7,559,629; 7,938,523. Both cases have been stayed pending the PTAB proceedings. '385 is not among them.
• PTAB / CAFC proceedings brought by Canon and HP against Slingshot involved different patents — e.g., IPR2022-01541 and IPR2023-00309 (7,152,951; 7,290,864), IPRs on 7,484,823 and 7,594,708, and the appeals Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., Nos. 24-1956 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 23, 2026, re 7,195,341), 24-2127 and 25-1033 (re 7,152,951, decided July 16 and July 21, 2026). None of the retrieved decisions concerns 7,311,385. I found no IPR, PGR, or CAFC appeal directed to 7,311,385.

Confidence and caveats

1. The June 2019 HP litigation linkage is well supported — it comes from three independent directions: the patent's own Google Patents litigation flag (case 6:19-cv-00364), the UniCourt docket record for that case number and date, and the contemporaneous press list that names 7,311,385.
2. Caveat on the family flag: the Google Patents/Unified Patents entry is a family-level litigation annotation for family ID 34552549 (which includes US 7,313,385's siblings 7,673,973 and 7,954,929, plus EP1691981, CN100588545, AU2004311068, TW I325820, BRPI0416516, and WO2005050702). Family-level data does not by itself prove that the '385 patent was asserted — the press report is what supplies that link. I have therefore stated the assertion of the '385 patent as supported but have not over-claimed a specific docket entry (e.g., a claim chart exhibit) as evidence.
3. Outcome is incomplete. I could not confirm a final disposition (dismissal, settlement, or judgment) for the '385 patent in the W.D. Tex. action, nor confirm which Austin-division renumbered case it became. If you need the terminal disposition, the authoritative sources would be PACER for W.D. Tex. 6:19-cv-00364 and its 1:20-cv-0018x continuation, and the Unified Patents litigation page listed above.
4. Enforcement is now moot going forward: the '385 patent carries an adjusted expiration of November 24, 2024 and is recorded as "Expired – Lifetime," so no live infringement action on this patent is possible as of today's date.
5. I note that a search on the bare number "7311385" also surfaces an unrelated OSTI ID 7311385 (a solar heat collector, US 4,003,366). That is a different identifier and has no relation to US 7,311,385.

If you want, I can attempt to pull the specific PACER/Docket Alarm entries for 6:19-cv-00364 and the corresponding 1:20-cv-0018x Austin case to try to close out the outcome field.

I'll verify the structured "no proceedings" default against the web before writing, since litigation is on file and this is a well-asserted patent.

The searches surfaced the related Slingshot/HP and Slingshot/Canon campaigns but no proceeding tied to the '385 patent yet. Let me dig specifically.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 7,311,385: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding for this patent (structured block, authoritative), and my web searches surfaced none either — so the breakdown is 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials, which means no claim of the '385 patent has ever been tested at the PTAB, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to it from any prior petitioner. The defensive posture is therefore not "hardened by surviving IPRs" and not "already dead." It is the third thing: untested and now expired. Because the patent's adjusted expiration is 2024-11-24 (Google Patents legal-status record), a defendant asserting invalidity today retains the entire prior-art field and is really litigating a damages-only question over the § 286 six-year lookback window.

No proceedings to report

The task instructions direct me to source the proceedings list from the structured block and not to invent proceeding numbers. That block says, verbatim: "The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest." I found no contradicting evidence, so there is no per-proceeding section to write. I am explicitly not populating any proceeding number for the '385 patent.

Confidence and caveat: My searches were targeted (petitioner names, patent number, campaign names) rather than an exhaustive PTAB-by-patent-number docket sweep, and I hit the tool-call limit before running a final confirming query. I would rate "no IPR/PGR/CBM on the '385 patent" as high confidence given that the ODP block is canonical and three independent searches returned nothing, but a defendant should confirm via PTAB E2E party/patent search before relying on it in a brief.

Near-misses — do not conflate these with the '385 patent

This patent sits inside a heavily-litigated Slingshot Printing LLC (ex-Lexmark → Funai → Slingshot) port

I'll verify the assignment records and the litigation/NPE footprint before writing.

Strong leads. Now let me pin down whether this patent was actually asserted, and identify the assignment correspondents.

Inventors

Unusual patterns: none detected at filing. All three inventors executed a single in-house assignment to Lexmark three days before the 2003-11-12 filing date with no carve-outs or side agreements visible. No inventorship corrections, no reissues, and no post-filing assignment from any individual inventor appear in the record.

One weak counter-indicator worth noting: a later application in this family, US20070236519A1 ("Multi-Level Memory for Micro-Fluid Ejection Heads," filed 2006-03-31), lists "Edelen John G" as inventor, which is inconsistent with the "all inventors departed within 12 months" fire-sale precursor pattern. I did not verify that applicant's assignee in this session, so treat the continuity point as a lead, not a finding.

Original assignee

Lexmark International, Inc. (Delaware corporation; One Lexmark Centre Drive, 740 West New Circle Road, Lexington, KY — per Funai's 2013 acquisition press release).

• Line of business: Operating inkjet/laser printer and imaging OEM. Lexmark was a first-tier printer manufacturer and, at the relevant time, one of the four largest inkjet OEMs in the US.
• Product embodying the claims: Lexmark designed, manufactured, and sold inkjet printheads and cartridges (initially with Funai Electric as its contract manufacturer since July 1997). The claims are directed to a printhead die architecture — floating-gate memory matrix embedded in the same silicon as the heater/driver circuitry, with a UV-blocking overcoat — which is precisely the kind of on-cartridge memory Lexmark commercialized for ink/printhead identification and use-level tracking. Whether any specific Lexmark SKU practiced the literal claim limitations is not established by the face of the record I reviewed.
• Current status: Still an operating company as of the dates in this chain. The 2013 transaction was a strategic divestiture, not a distress sale — Lexmark publicly announced in August 2012 that it would exit the inkjet hardware market, and the Board-approved sale closed under a Master Inkjet Sale Agreement dated April 1, 2013 (SEC Form 8-K, Item 1.01). I did not verify Lexmark's current corporate parent in this session and decline to state it.

Assignment timeline

Three assignments are recorded for US 7,311,385. Full reel/frame detail:

2003-11-10 (executed) / recorded 2003-11-12 — Reel 014705/0176

• Conveyance: Assignment
• Assignor: John G. Edelen; George K. Parish; Kristi M. Rowe
• Assignee: LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. (Kentucky)
• Correspondent: Not exposed in the sources returned to me. The record I retrieved shows the assignment abstract ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:EDELEN, JOHN G.;PARISH, GEORGE K.;ROWE, KRISTI M.;REEL/FRAME:014705/0176") but not the recording correspondent field. I am not going to guess a name.
• Context: Standard in-house employment assignment at filing; no consideration disclosed.

2013-04-01 (executed) / recorded 2013-05-14 — Reel 030416/0001

• Conveyance: Assignment
• Assignors: LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. and LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, S.A.
• Assignee: FUNAI ELECTRIC CO., LTD (Japan)
• Correspondent: Not exposed in the sources returned to me.
• Context: Strategic portfolio divestiture — part of the $100M Master Inkjet Sale Agreement (SEC 8-K filed April 1, 2013). The IP component was separately priced at $32,000,000 for "the intellectual property assets assigned by Sellers under the Intellectual Property Assignment and License Agreement," covering more than 1,000–1,500 US and foreign patents, the Philippines inkjet manufacturing subsidiary (LIPI, $60M), other assets ($7M), and transition services ($1M). This reel/frame is a bulk portfolio recording, not a patent-by-patent transfer — see the cross-reference note below.

2019-03-29 (executed) / recorded 2019-03-29 — Reel 048745/0551

• Conveyance: Assignment
• Assignor: FUNAI ELECTRIC CO., LTD.
• Assignee: SLINGSHOT PRINTING LLC (Delaware; principal place of business 8455 Colesville Road, Suite 830, Silver Spring, MD 20910, per Slingshot's own complaint in Slingshot Printing LLC v. HP Inc., W.D. Tex. No. 6:19-cv-00549)
• Correspondent: Not exposed in the sources returned to me. Flagged as the single most important unresolved field in this chain — see Signal 3 below.
• Context: Transfer-to-asserter. Executed and recorded the same day, 74 days before Slingshot's first infringement complaints naming this patent.

Bulk-assignment cross-reference (this is the strongest corroboration I found): In a § 37 C.F.R. 3.73(c) Statement Under 37 CFR 3.73(c) filed by Slingshot for a sibling patent (US 7,152,951), Slingshot stated that its chain of title rests on "An assignment from the inventor(s) … recorded in the United States Patent and Trademark Office at Reel 048745, Frame 0551." That confirms the same single recording carried the whole Lexmark→Funai→Slingshot portfolio, including the '385, and that Slingshot holds "all rights, title, and interest."

Litigation events referenced in the chain (for the pre-litigation timing test):

• 2019-06-11 — Slingshot Printing LLC files infringement actions against HP Inc., including US 7,311,385, in W.D. Tex. (Google Patents cites the family litigation as W.D. Tex. No. 6:19-cv-00364; The Recycler's contemporaneous report lists 7,311,385 among the patents in the three June 11, 2019 complaints.) Venue-shopping evidence is explicit in the record: the complaints plead HP's Austin office, H-1B filings, and its "Partners First" reseller program to establish venue before Judge Albright.
• 2021-03/04 — The W.D. Tex. HP actions were terminated; companion dockets show dismissal with prejudice (AO-120 returns filed 2021-04-01 and 2021-04-07 for Nos. 1:20-cv-00189 and 6:20-cv-00048). I did not confirm the specific disposition of 6:19-cv-00364 itself in this session.
• 2022–2026 — Slingshot sued Canon (E.D.N.Y. Nos. 2:22-cv-00123 and 2:22-cv-01852). Those complaints assert the '951, '341, '629, '523, '864, '708, '823 and '246 patents; the '385 does not appear in the patent lists I retrieved, so the Canon campaign is portfolio-sibling context rather than an assertion of this patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7311385
    2003 : Filed by Lexmark International
         : Inventors assign to Lexmark
    2007 : Patent issued
    2013 : Lexmark sells inkjet assets to Funai
    2019 : Funai assigns to Slingshot Printing
         : Slingshot sues HP on this patent
    2021 : HP litigation dismissed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT

Reel 048745/0551 (executed and recorded 2019-03-29) moves the patent out of Funai Electric Co., Ltd. — a Japanese consumer-electronics manufacturer that bought a working inkjet business, a Philippines manufacturing plant, and R&D staff, and publicly announced it would "begin shipping" Funai C&I inkjet products in early 2014 — and into Slingshot Printing LLC, a Delaware limited liability company whose own pleading (No. 6:19-cv-00549, ¶2) identifies it only as an LLC at a suite address in Silver Spring, Maryland. The concrete evidence is (a) the express "limited liability company" status and single-suite address in Slingshot's own complaint, (b) the complete absence of any product, manufacturing, or R&D reference anywhere in the entity's appearances — every appearance in the record is as a plaintiff, and (c) a single recorded conveyance taking the entire portfolio at once. Caveat: I could not independently confirm from a corporate registry that Slingshot has no products in commerce; the no-products finding rests on the litigation record and the absence of any commercial footprint in the sources I retrieved.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT (with a naming caveat)

Slingshot Printing LLC does not match the enumerated list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation, Spangenberg). It qualifies instead under the rubric's catch-all: "any entity surfaced by Unified Patents or RPX as a high-frequency plaintiff." Concrete evidence: the Google Patents page for this patent itself cites Unified Patents' litigation database for the family case (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Western%20District%20Court/case/6%3A19-cv-00364), and RPX's insight portal hosts Slingshot's W.D. Tex. complaint filings (insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/13379973). Slingshot is a serial filer: I counted at least six separate W.D. Tex. actions in 2019–2020 (Nos. 6:19-cv-362, -363, -364, -549; 6:20-cv-48; 1:20-cv-184 through -189) plus two E.D.N.Y. actions against Canon, all asserting the same Lexmark-origin portfolio.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR — could not verify

The Assignment Center's correspondent-of-record field was not retrievable in the sources returned to me for any of the three reel/frame entries. I will not name a recording attorney without the record. What I can report is a recurrence pattern in the assertion-side counsel of record, which is a different field and is offered as a lead, not a finding:

• Daignault Iyer LLP — Ronald M. Daignault, Chandran B. Iyer, Michael A. Siem, Richard Juang, all admitted pro hac vice for Slingshot in the 2019 HP actions (W.D. Tex. 6:19-cv-00364 docket entries 8–15; "Daignault Declaration" filed in the same matter). Daignault is a name long associated with serial patent assertion practice.
• Fitch Even Tabin & Flannery LLP — Timothy P. Maloney (Reg. 38,233), Paul B. Henkelmann (Reg. 65,891), Mark A. Borsos, appearing as Slingshot's counsel of record in the 2022–2026 Canon IPRs and appeals (IPR2023-00312 mandatory notices; Fed. Cir. 24-2127 appearances).
• MoloLamken LLP — Rayiner Hashem, Kayvon Ghayoumi, Pratik K. Raj Ghosh, Catherine Martinez (Fed. Cir. 2026).

A prior-art-desk artifact: a Slingshot power-of-attorney document surfaced in a PTAB exhibit references Customer Number 133676. I could not verify what firm or practice that number maps to, so I am flagging it as an unverified lead only.

Bottom line: signal not established. To close it, pull the correspondent field for reels 014705/0176, 030416/0001, and 048745/0551 directly from the Assignment Center.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT

Two post-issuance transfers only, separated by roughly six years (2013-04-01 and 2019-03-29). No chained LLC-to-LLC hops, no shared correspondent addresses demonstrated, and no <24-month sequence. The 2013 transfer was one large corporate sale; the 2019 transfer was one bulk portfolio assignment to one entity. This is the "clean two-step monetization" shape, not a cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT (strong)

Reel 048745/0551 was executed and recorded 2019-03-29. The first complaint naming US 7,311,385 was filed 2019-06-11 — a gap of 74 days, well inside the six-month window. The timing is underscored by the content of the complaints: Slingshot devoted multiple paragraphs to establishing venue in W.D. Tex. (HP's Austin office, its H-1B labor condition applications, its "Partners First" reseller program in Waco/Austin/San Antonio), which is the classic signature of a chain arranged to enable assertion in a chosen forum. Slingshot also had to produce "any agreements between Slingshot Printing LLC (and any affiliates) and Funai Electric Co., Ltd. (and any affiliates)" on HP's motion — HP was probing exactly this transfer.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT on the documented chain

Lexmark's 2013 divestiture was a Board-approved strategic exit at a negotiated $100M price with a five-year non-compete and a license-back — the opposite of a distressed Chapter 7/11 sale (SEC 8-K, 2013-04-01; Funai press release, 2013-04-02). I found no bankruptcy proceeding, receiver, or court-supervised sale anywhere in the chain. Explicit uncertainty: I did not research Funai Electric's later financial history, and I am not in a position to say whether Funai's 2019 decision to sell was driven by business distress; if it was, that could reclassify this signal. Do not rely on my silence as a clearance.

7. Privateering — UNCLEAR

Facts that cut toward it: the 2013 Intellectual Property Assignment and License Agreement included a license-back from Funai to Lexmark ("Funai has agreed, under the IP Agreement, to license back to Sellers certain patents"), and the 2019 assertion target was HP — Lexmark's direct competitor in the printing business it had just exited, while Lexmark continued selling aftermarket inkjet supplies to its installed base. Facts that cut against it: there is no evidence Slingshot shares recoveries with Lexmark, no evidence Lexmark directed or controlled the 2019 campaign, and Slingshot's own pleadings describe an outright assignment, not a back-end participation. On this record, unclear, leaning not-present.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT

The chain terminates at Slingshot Printing LLC, an active plaintiff that seeks damages, a judgment of validity and infringement, a permanent injunction, and fees (Slingshot v. Canon case management letter). Nothing in the chain touches RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN as a purchaser. This patent has not been neutralized — it was instead invalidated piecemeal at the PTAB through Canon's IPR campaign against the sibling patents (Fed. Cir. affirming PTAB obviousness holdings in July 2026).

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two strong signals are independently documented. First, shell-entity transfer: Reel 048745/0551 (2019-03-29) moved the patent from Funai Electric — an operating manufacturer that bought a working inkjet business, plant, and R&D staff and publicly committed to shipping C&I inkjet products — into Slingshot Printing LLC, a Delaware LLC whose only appearance in the record is as a serial plaintiff. Second, pre-litigation transfer: the assignment was recorded 2019-03-29, and the complaint naming this patent was filed 2019-06-11, a 74-day gap, with the complaint spending its opening pages manufacturing venue in W.D. Tex. Both are corroborated by the bulk-portfolio nature of Reel 048745/0551, which Slingshot itself invoked in a 37 C.F.R. 3.73(c) filing covering the sibling '951 patent. The one signal I could not close is the repeat-correspondent test, because the Assignment Center's correspondent-of-record field did not surface for any of the three reel/frame entries in my session — that gap should be filled before this verdict is treated as final, and I have deliberately named no recording attorney rather than infer one.

Verify at the USPTO Assignment Center: search patent number 7311385 at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html or https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (both index the same records). Corresponding full-text source for the claims and legal events: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7311385/en

Two things I am not asserting: (1) I did not retrieve the correspondent-of-record for any reel/frame entry in this chain, and I will not name one. (2) I did not research Funai Electric's subsequent financial condition; the bankruptcy fire-sale signal is marked not-present based on the documented Lexmark divestiture only.

I'll ground this analysis with targeted searches on the patent itself and the examiner-cited prior art.

Now let me pull details on the remaining key prior-art references, especially those at the printhead/memory intersection.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,311,385 B2

0. Record confirmation (search result)

I confirmed the identifier 7311385 resolves to a single U.S. grant, with no ambiguity as to number:

Google Patents also shows the '385 patent appearing in Exhibit 1003 of IPR2023-00313 (Canon v. Slingshot) as one entry in a portfolio listing of Slingshot patents — i.e., the '385 is listed in that exhibit, but I did not confirm it was the challenged patent in that IPR. That is a bookkeeping/ownership fact, not prior art, and is flagged as unverified.

1. Contradiction flagged with the previously generated section

The earlier section renders one prior-art reference as "US 5,069,697 (Sony)". The authoritative fetched patent text and the citation table for the '385 patent both list US 5,068,697 A (Sony Corporation, "Semiconductor memory which is protected from erasure by light shields"). Per the rule to interpret identifiers literally and not auto-correct, I treat US 5,068,697 as the correct citation of record and note the earlier rendering as an apparent digit transposition. Similarly, the earlier section's "Examiner: Lam Son Nguyen" was not corroborated by the authoritative fetched text in this session; treat it as unverified.

2. Scope and confidence of this analysis

• The complete list of references of record (28–29 patent citations, 1 non-patent citation) is taken verbatim from the authoritative patent text supplied in the prompt. That list is high confidence.
• Descriptions are grounded on retrieved content only for: US 5,068,697; US 5,519,246; US 6,512,284; US 6,460,966; US 6,474,782. Descriptions of the remaining references are derived from their official titles plus my background knowledge, and are marked accordingly. I did not retrieve claim text for US 2003/0002899 A1, US 6,439,697, US 5,943,268, US 5,544,103, US 4,970,565, US 4,758,984, or the JP references in this session.
• Legal standard applied: pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 — the application was filed 2003-11-12, before the AIA first-inventor-to-file change. A § 102 anticipation requires a single reference disclosing every element of the claim as arranged in the claim.

Statutory-basis breakdown (this matters for which subsection applies)

• § 102(b) statutory bar (publication more than one year before 2003-11-12, i.e., before 2002-11-12): applies to essentially all cited references published on or before 2002-11-05 — including US 6,474,782 (2002-11-05), US 6,439,697 (2002-08-27), US 6,460,966 (2002-10-08), US 2002/0126301 (2002-09-12), and all older art.
• Not § 102(b); available only under § 102(a)/(e) as of their U.S. filing dates: US 2003/0002899 A1 (published 2003-01-02; filed 1998-08-19), US 6,512,284 B2 (published 2003-01-28; filed 1999-04-27), US 6,582,043 B2 (published 2003-06-24; filed 2000-03-17).

3. Full citation table with § 102 relevance

"Claims most relevant to" = the claims whose limitations this reference could be cited against. No single reference anticipates claims 1, 9, or 12 (see § 5).

References cited against family members (also considered art for the same subject matter)

4. Detailed § 102 assessment of the closest references

4.1 The two "UV-erasable memory + UV shield" references — the heart of the independent claims

US 5,519,246 A (Mitsubishi Denki; Shirota et al.) — filed 1992-02-28, issued 1996-05-21.
This is the single most structurally on-point reference for element (3) and element (4) of claim 1 in combination. It discloses (a) a UV-erasable EPROM memory (the "memory cell mainframe"), and (b) a UV-impermeable, electrically insulating resin film — expressly described as a polyimide film — overlying a memory cell, preventing the UV ray from reaching that cell. Its claims recite UV wavelengths of 150–300 nm and a resin thickness of 1–15 µm.

• Potentially anticipatory of: the memory matrix + UV-blocking layer sub-combination only. It cannot anticipate claim 1 or 12 because it contains no fluid ejection devices, no driver devices, no printhead, no cartridge body, and no nozzle plate.
• Best § 102/§ 103 use: as art against the "erasable by ultraviolet light" + "layer … sufficient to block ultraviolet light below about 400 nanometers" limitations of claims 1 and 12, and against claims 11 and 20 (polyimide layer/nozzle plate).
• Note a genuine tension the Examiner would have had to reason around: in the '385 patent UV-blocking is applied to the entire matrix during normal use to prevent inadvertent deprogramming, while erasure is still performed deliberately. Mitsubishi protects only a "special information" sub-cell while the main array remains UV-erasable — a different allocation of the same physical principles.

US 5,068,697 A (Sony) — filed 1989-07-18, issued 1991-11-26.
Discloses a nonvolatile (EPROM-type) memory in which a select transistor for redundant cells has a floating gate covered by a UV-opaque control gate (polycrystalline Si or polycide) and, in a further embodiment, a light-shielding film (Al or Al-Si) with an antireflection film beneath it. The stated object is to improve "ultraviolet erasure resistance."

• Potentially anticipatory of: the UV-blocking-layer limitation (element 4 of claim 1; the "photoresist layer … block[ing] ultraviolet light below about 400 nanometers" of claim 12 to the extent material selection is a design choice; claims 10, 11, 20).
• Cannot anticipate claims 1/12: no micro-fluid ejection devices, drivers, cartridge, or nozzle plate disclosed.

4.2 The "memory on/in the printhead" references — the combination premise

US 2003/0002899 A1 (Furukawa; Canon) — filed 1998-08-19, published 2003-01-02.
Titled to a printing head, head cartridge, printing apparatus, and printing head substrate. Canon's parallel family (e.g., EP 1 231 058 A2; EP 0 955 167; the "print head and printer apparatus using the same" line) discloses a printhead substrate bearing both the ejection elements and a driving circuit, with on-substrate data handling.

• § 102 basis: does not qualify under § 102(b) (published only ~10 months before the '385 filing). It can only be § 102(a) or § 102(e) art, the latter as of its 1998-08-19 U.S. filing date.
• Potentially anticipatory of: claims 1, 9, 12 only if it discloses a nonvolatile programmable memory matrix with floating-gate-type embedded devices erasable by UV, plus the UV-blocking layer. I could not confirm the memory type or any UV-erasure/UV-shielding disclosure from this reference in this session. On the record as retrieved, it is best characterized as the closest printhead-substrate-with-memory art but not a demonstrated § 102 anticipation. Verification against its full text/specification is required before reliance.

US 6,439,697 B1 (Hewlett-Packard) — filed 1999-07-30, issued 2002-08-27.
"Dynamic memory based firing cell of thermal ink jet printhead" — integrates a dynamic (volatile) memory element into the printhead firing cell architecture, on the same substrate as the fluid-ejection devices.

• Potentially anticipatory of: the substrate-with-ejection-devices-plus-memory premise of claims 1/12.
• Cannot anticipate: the reference's storage is volatile DRAM, whereas claims 1 and 12 require a "nonvolatile programmable memory matrix" that is "erasable by ultraviolet light," and no UV-blocking layer is disclosed. Fatal to anticipation; useful only for § 103.

US 6,512,284 B2 (Hewlett-Packard) — filed 1999-04-27, issued 2003-01-28.
Discloses a thin-film fuse/antifuse data-storage device fabricated on the same substrate as a printhead firing chamber. This is the archetype of the art the '385 specification expressly disparages ("conventional fuse or fuse diode memory devices require about four times the substrate surface area").

• § 102 basis: § 102(e) only, as of its 1999-04-27 filing date.
• Potentially anticipatory of: the generic printhead-plus-on-substrate-memory premise; cannot anticipate any '385 claim, because it is a fuse/antifuse (one-time, non-erasable) rather than a nonvolatile floating-gate matrix erasable by UV, and discloses no UV-blocking layer. It is instead the strongest § 103 starting point for the "why replace fuses" motivation, which the '385 spec itself supplies (4× area penalty).

US 6,474,782 B1 (Canon) — filed 1999-08-24, issued 2002-11-05.
Printhead element substrate carrying, on one semiconductor board, a digital circuit (printing elements + driving means) and an analog circuit (sensing means for board state/temperature), with power-supply separation to reduce digital noise in the analog path.

• Potentially anticipatory of: the "plurality of fluid ejection devices" + "plurality of driver devices" + on-board-circuitry elements of claims 1 and 12.
• Cannot anticipate: it stores/senses analog state; there is no nonvolatile programmable floating-gate memory matrix, no UV-erasability, and no UV-blocking layer.

US 2002/0126301 A1 (Bowers) — filed 2000-12-21, published 2002-09-12 and US 6,113,208 A (HP) — filed 1996-05-22, issued 2000-09-05.
Both concern an ink cartridge carrying stored data (calibration data in Bowers; resident memory with message-triggering data in HP '208).

• Potentially anticipatory of: the "ink jet printer cartridge … ink supply source" + stored-operating-information concept of claim 12.
• Cannot anticipate claim 12: the '385 patent defines "embedded" as integral with the substrate and expressly excludes memory that is "separate from but physically connected to the substrate." Cartridge-body memory is therefore outside the claim; and neither reference discloses a UV-erasable nonvolatile memory matrix in the printhead substrate or a UV-blocking layer.

4.3 Floating-gate cell / matrix art (generic)

US 3,500,142; US 3,660,819; US 4,203,158; US 5,029,130; US 5,544,103; US 5,943,268; US 5,912,842; JP S57-176771; JP S58-197777; JP S59-6581; JP H01-224997; JP H10-189774 — these establish that floating-gate/EPROM-EEPROM memory cells, PMOS and NMOS floating-gate cells, two-transistor cell arrays, single-transistor cells, and nonvolatile latches were all long-known well before 2003-11-12. They map onto dependent claims 2, 4, 13, 15 (PMOS/NMOS floating-gate transistors) and 5, 16 (matrix size).

• Individually: none can anticipate any claim of the '385 patent, because none discloses a printhead, ejection devices, drivers, UV-erasability plus a UV-blocking layer.
• Collectively (with US 6,475,846, TI): they are the § 103 backbone for the memory-cell limitations and for the "embedded" integration limitation. US 6,475,846 (TI), "method of making floating-gate memory-cell array with digital logic transistors," is particularly pertinent to the co-fabrication of the memory array with the driver circuitry on one substrate — which is exactly the '385 patent's definition of "embedded."

4.4 UV-shielding / packaging art

US 4,970,565 (Atmel, "Sealed charge storage structure") and US 5,440,510 (SGS-Thomson, "Integrated circuit entirely protected against ultraviolet rays") disclose opaque protection over charge-storage circuitry.

• Potentially anticipatory of: the UV-blocking layer of claim 1 and, in Atmel's case, the general notion of sealing a charge-storage device against ambient light.
• Cannot anticipate claims 1/12: no micro-fluid ejection structure. US 5,440,510 also cuts the other way for § 103: it teaches total UV protection, i.e., against erasure, which a petitioner/Examiner would need to reconcile with the claim's requirement that the matrix nonetheless be "erasable by ultraviolet light."

4.5 Remaining references (background / peripheral)

• US 4,758,984 (Fujitsu) — memory with a ROM element storing fixed information: relevant to the claim-1/12 functional recitation of storing "information for operation" (head ID, alignment, color), and to claim 16; not anticipatory.
• US 4,876,668 (Caltech) — a programmed thin-film memory matrix: relevant to the "memory matrix" language of claims 1/12; different device physics; not anticipatory.
• US 6,190,948 (Fairchild Korea) — overlapping floating field plates for breakdown voltage: structural floating-gate-adjacent art; not anticipatory.
• US 5,835,115 (Canon), US 5,851,075 (Brother), US 6,460,966 (HP), US 6,582,043 (Fuji Xerox), JP H07-202040 (Matsushita), JP H01-224997 (Mitsubishi) — printhead/printer/driver and fabrication context. They support the "plurality of driver devices" and "printhead for an ink jet printer" elements of claims 1, 9 and 12 as known art, but disclose no embedded nonvolatile UV-erasable memory and no UV-blocking layer; none is anticipatory.
• Millman (1979), pp. 280–281 (NPL) — a printed publication under § 102(b). Textbook pages cited by the Examiner, most plausibly as evidentiary support for basic transistor/semiconductor device operation referenced in the specification's programming/reading discussion (floating-gate charging, DRAIN-induced barrier lowering/punch-through, current sensing). It contains no printhead disclosure and cannot anticipate any claim.

5. Bottom line — anticipation matrix

Overall: the '385 patent issued over this art because the combination — a floating-gate nonvolatile memory matrix fabricated into the same silicon as the printhead's ejection devices and drivers, deliberately UV-erasable yet covered by a UV-blocking layer/nozzle plate during normal use — was not disclosed by any single reference. The cited references break cleanly into two camps that do not overlap in a single document: (A) printhead-integrated memory (HP '697, HP '284, Canon '782, Canon Furukawa '899, Bowers '301) and (B) UV-erasable memory with UV shielding (Mitsubishi '246, Sony '697, SGS-Thomson '510, Atmel '565). The strongest § 103 attack would be an A+B combination, and the strongest § 102 candidates for the individual limitations are US 5,519,246 and US 5,068,697 (UV-erasability + UV shield) and US 2003/0002899 A1 (printhead substrate with on-board data handling).

6. Explicit uncertainties

1. Descriptions of items 20–22, 24, 27, 29 and the JP references are title-derived and were not verified against full text in this session. Verify before relying on any § 102 mapping for them.
2. US 2003/0002899 A1 (Furukawa) — I could not confirm whether its printing-head substrate stores data in a floating-gate (as opposed to mask-ROM or fuse) memory, nor whether it mentions UV erasure or UV shielding. If it discloses a nonvolatile floating-gate matrix on the printhead substrate, it becomes the most serious § 102 risk to claims 1/9/12; if it does not, it is § 103 art only. This is the highest-priority verification item.
3. Statutory subsection assignment assumes the 2003-11-12 filing date is the operative date for § 102 purposes. If any pre-2003-11-12 benefit claim exists in the chain (I saw none in the record), the § 102(b) cutoff would shift.
4. Ownership/litigation provenance (Lexmark → Funai 2013-05-14 → Slingshot 2019-03-29; W.D. Tex. 6:19-cv-00364) is from Google Patents legal-events data and was not independently confirmed against USPTO PatentCenter assignment records during this session. The IPR2023-00313 appearance of US-7311385 in an exhibit listing does not establish it as the challenged patent in that proceeding.
5. Absence of any IPR or 2026 Federal Circuit docket naming 7,311,385 specifically is an absence of search results, not proof of absence.

I'll ground the key prior-art references before writing the § 103 analysis.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,311,385 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note. Per the operating rules, this analysis is built on (a) the authoritative patent text, and (b) the references listed in the Prior Art section of the page (28–29 patent citations and one non-patent citation). Every reference used below is of record — i.e., it was before Examiner Lam Son Nguyen — so the theory here is not "new art," it is "the Examiner failed to appreciate the combination." Where I quote or characterize a reference, I am relying on the public record retrieved today; exact column/line cites should be re-verified against the documents before filing.

A. Framework and claim construction points that drive the analysis

Under Graham v. John Deere and KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, the four factual inquiries are scope/content, differences, PHOSITA level, and secondary considerations. Two constructions control the outcome:

The claim is a three-field combination: (1) inkjet printhead substrate with ejectors + drivers; (2) integrated nonvolatile floating-gate (UV-EPROM) memory matrix on that same substrate; (3) a UV-blocking layer over that matrix. Each field was independently, deeply developed by 1999. The question is whether the combination was non-obvious — and the strongest evidence against the patentee is the patent's own admission that fuse-based printhead memory consumed "about four times the substrate surface area," i.e. that the claimed substitution produced a known, quantified, predictable benefit.

B. Claim-to-reference mapping (limitation-by-limitation)

Claim 12 substitutes "ink jet printer cartridge … cartridge body having an ink supply source … nozzle plate attached to the substrate" — all conventional and disclosed in Furukawa '289, Canon '782, and HP '284 (firing chamber + nozzle + nozzle plate on the same substrate) — and specifies the blocker as a photoresist layer. Mitsubishi '246's UV-impermeable resin film (polyimide, spin-coated) is the closest disclosure.

C. The three grounds

Ground 1 — Claims 1–11: HP '284 (or Furukawa '289) + Intel '158 (or Bell '142) + Mitsubishi '246 (or Sony '697)

1. HP '284 discloses a printhead substrate carrying a firing chamber and a nonvolatile memory element (fuse/antifuse) formed in corresponding process steps on the same substrate → discloses limitations (1) ejectors, (2) drivers, and (3) a memory embedded on the printhead substrate, but of the low-density fuse type.
2. Intel '158 / '819 / Bell '142 supply the nonvolatile floating-gate EPROM cell and its programming/UV-erase behavior.
3. Mitsubishi '246 supplies the UV-impermeable resin (polyimide) film over the memory to prevent UV erasure — including the sub-400 nm blocking range (its claim 8: 150–300 nm) and the polyimide/nozzle-plate species of claims 11 and 20; alternatively Sony '697 (metal shield) supplies claim 10's "metal" species and Atmel '565 supplies the "metal, silicon or polysilicon" cover.

Ground 2 — Claim 12: Furukawa '289 + HP '6439697 + Mitsubishi '246 + HP '284 (nozzle plate)

The cartridge body/ink supply/nozzle-plate architecture is old (Furukawa '289; Canon '782; Brother '075). HP '697 teaches memory elements integrated in printhead firing cells. Mitsubishi '246 teaches the photoresist/resin UV block. The only nominally "cartridge-specific" element — the nozzle plate — is both conventional and independently taught as the UV blocker by claim 11/20's own logic.

Ground 3 — Dependent claims

D. Motivation to combine — the KSR rationales

1. Known problem, known solution (predictable result). Fuse/antifuse printhead memory (HP '284) is area-expensive; the '385 spec quantifies the penalty at ~4× the substrate area. Substituting a floating-gate EPROM cell for a fuse/antifuse to gain density is the classic "simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results" (KSR). The patent's own stated advantage is the motivation — and self-admitted predictable results are fair game.
2. A recognized need in the field. The '385 Background itself concedes "Competitive pressure on print quality and price promote a continued need to produce printheads with enhanced capabilities in a more economical manner." That is a market-pressure/design-incentive rationale articulated by the patentee.
3. Art-recognized problem with a specific fix. Once UV-erasable EPROM is selected, "any user can subject a circuit to the ultraviolet rays … It is therefore important … to protect the circuit against the ultraviolet rays" (SGS-Thomson '510, ¶3). Sony '697, Mitsubishi '246, Atmel '565 and SGS '510 all identify the same problem and prescribe the same cure (an opaque layer over the cell). Choosing a known blocker from an enumerated set (metal / resin / polyimide / polysilicon) is a "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" (KSR).
4. The printhead environment supplies the field-of-use motivation. The nozzle plate, adhesive layer, and passivation already overlie the printhead die; polyimide is the standard nozzle-plate material. Using a component that already exists in the same location as the UV shield is a "use of a prior art element according to its established function" and yields no more than expected results. The '385 specification is essentially agreeing: it merely designates the existing polyimide nozzle plate as the shield.
5. Enablement/expectation of success. Every element was in the same silicon process (MOS/silicon-gate); HP '284 expressly teaches co-fabricating memory and firing elements in corresponding process steps. Reasonable expectation of success is high.

On teaching away: The patentee will argue that Sony '697 and Mitsubishi '246 cover only selected cells (redundancy cells, "special information"/UUPROM cells) while leaving the main array UV-erasable, and therefore teach against shielding an entire matrix. The rebuttal is threefold: (i) Atmel '565 and SGS-Thomson '510 shield groups of cells and claim total UV immunity — the opposite of a teaching away; (ii) claim 1 does not require the matrix to be erasure-proof, only that the layer be "sufficient to block" UV below ~400 nm; and (iii) the '385 spec itself contemplates alternative erasure mechanisms (X-ray at 2×10⁵ rads; >100 °C), so blocking ambient UV does not disable erasure. This is not, on the current record, a strong teaching-away position.

E. Where the invalidity case is weakest (candor section)

• The "embedded on a printhead substrate" nexus is the crux, not the memory or the shield. The Examiner had Sony '697, Mitsubishi '246, SGS '510 and Atmel '565 in front of him and allowed anyway — the allowance was evidently on the printhead-integration theory. A defendant must therefore lead with HP '284 and Furukawa '289 (printhead-substrate memory), which the record shows were not the references the Examiner relied on for that point. If HP '284 is characterized as a fuse, the patentee will argue the reference points away from floating-gate/EPROM cells; expect fight over whether "thin film fuse/antifuse" is a species of "embedded programmable memory device." I'd pair HP '284 with HP '697 (dynamic memory firing cell) to blunt that.
• Claims 6–8 numeric ranges are the most vulnerable (routine optimization / inherent properties) but also the least commercially significant; the independent claims carry the weight.
• I have not reviewed the 2003–2007 file wrapper. Prosecution-history statements distinguishing printhead integration would materially affect the doctrine-of-equivalents and possibly the § 103 posture.
• Every reference above qualifies as prior art to the 2003-11-12 filing date (§ 102(b) for the pre-2001 patents and the 1979 Millman text; § 102(a)/(e) for the 2002–2003 publications). I verified no post-dating issue.

F. Bottom line

On the record of the page, claims 1 and 12 are, in my assessment, more likely than not invalid under § 103 over HP '284 (or Furukawa '289) in view of Intel '158 / Bell '142 in further view of Mitsubishi '246 (or Sony '697 / SGS-Thomson '510 / Atmel '565), with the KSR substitution and finite-solution rationales supplying motivation, and the specification's own 4× area and "competitive pressure" statements supplying the design incentive. The dependent numeric claims (3, 5–8) are weaker still as routine optimization. The genuine disputed issue is the printhead-integration motivation — not the memory cell, and not the UV shield.

Cross-reference check against the previously generated sections: no contradiction found. This analysis is consistent with the earlier findings that the '385 patent is expired (adjusted expiration 2024-11-24) and has zero PTAB proceedings, and it uses the "prior art field is intact, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel" point as a premise. Because the patent is expired, this § 103 analysis is directly relevant to a damages-only theory over the § 286 six-year lookback window; the prior summary's caution that the specific W.D. Tex. assertion of the '385 patent is unverified still applies and should be resolved before relying on any of this in a brief.