US 7353034

I'll verify against live sources before summarizing.

Let me try to retrieve the actual claim text and check for litigation/docket activity.

Let me make one more targeted attempt to retrieve the literal claim text for this specific patent number.

Bottom line

I identified and verified US 7,353,034 B2 ("the '034 patent") against the full patent text you supplied plus live web sources. One important caveat up front: I could not obtain the literal claim text, so I have flagged the claim discussion below as inference rather than verbatim analysis. Details follow.

---

1. Bibliographic data (verified)

Source: Google Patents US7353034B2. Note the '034 patent is the root of a very large family — Google Patents lists 40+ continuation/divisional family members (e.g., US 8,538,458; US 8,385,964; US 8,831,635; US 10,165,059; US 11,356,799; US 11,768,415; US 11,968,590), all claiming priority to this application.

---

2. Abstract (verbatim from the patent)

"A system for exchanging GPS or other position data between wireless devices for purposes of group activities, child location monitoring, work group coordination, dispatching of employees etc. Cell phones and other wireless devices with GPS receivers have loaded therein a Buddy Watch application and a TalkControl application. The Buddy Watch application communicates with the GPS receiver and other wireless devices operated by buddies registered in the users phone as part of buddy groups or individually. GPS position data and historical GPS position data can be exchanged between cell phones of buddies and instant buddies such as tow truck drivers via a buddy watch server. Emergency monitoring services can be set up with notifications to programmable individuals in case an individual does not respond. Positions and tracks can be displayed. TalkControl simplifies and automates the process of joining talk groups for walkie talkie services such as that provided by Nextel."

---

3. Independent claims — ⚠️ NOT VERIFIED

I do not have authoritative claim text for US 7,353,034 and I will not reconstruct it from memory. Two points of evidence:

1. The authoritative full text you provided (Google Patents HTML for US7353034B2) contains the Abstract, Description, and Classification sections but no Claims section — the fetched text terminates partway through the "FIELD OF USE AND BACKGROUND" description.
2. My targeted searches for verbatim claim language (FPO, Justia, Sumobrain, Espacenet, USPTO PTAB documents) returned the specification, the abstract, and family/citation lists, but no claim set for the '034 patent.

⚠️ Explicit warning about a misleading search hit: several search results surfaced claim language reciting "location access rights," "levels of access rights," and a "dating matching profile" (from a ptacts.uspto.gov petition document). That is not the '034 claim set — those claims belong to a different patent. Do not attribute that language to 7,353,034.

What can responsibly be said about the claims (inference, clearly labeled)

Based only on the specification's own structural language, the independent claims most plausibly fall into these families — treat this as characterization, not quotation:

• Location-sharing method/system claims. The specification frames the core invention as a process that "only allows exchanging and mapping of position data with persons on a Buddy List programmed into a Buddy Watch device," where "the user must allow others on his Buddy Lists to 'see' his location (location sharing may be turned off), and user must request to see the location of others on her Buddy Lists."
• Instant Buddy claims. Temporary, ask-and-accept location sharing between two wireless devices that "automatically expires after a configurable interval terminates" (default 24 hours per FIG. 15, steps 142–144).
• Supervisor/parental override claims. Unidirectional, non-disableable tracking where "the worker or child will not be able to disable the Buddy Watch feature nor remove the parent or supervisor from the Watch List."
• Emergency / "personal bread crumbs" claims. Periodic position waypoint storage plus an "Are you OK?" timeout protocol that triggers distress messages to predetermined phone numbers and e-mail addresses.
• TalkControl claims. Automated enrollment/administration of push-to-talk ("walkie talkie") talk groups via a server acting on a carrier's group-management system.

Lead worth pursuing: the specification contains unusual "genus"/"species" language ("All species within the genus of user interfaces will display buddy lists and a list of buddies on each buddy list when that buddy list is selected…", "Some species within the genus will provide icons, menu choices…"). This phrasing is characteristic of claim drafting style and suggests the '034 claims may themselves be drafted in genus/species terms. I flag this as a hypothesis only.

To confirm: patents.google.com/patent/US7353034/en → "Claims" tab, or USPTO PatentCenter for application 11/099,362.

---

4. Litigation and CAFC 2026 docket — ⚠️ NO 2026 CAFC ACTIVITY FOUND

• Google Patents flags that the '034 family has litigation, linking to the Darts-ip global litigation dataset (family ID 37071237).
• The X One, Inc. litigation profile at Plainsite lists the '034 patent alongside the Haney assignment record: plainsite.org/profiles/x-one-inc.
• I located a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit filed March 24, 2020 in X One, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 5:16-cv-06050-LHK (SVK) (N.D. Cal., San Jose Division), appealing an Amended Final Judgment entered February 24, 2020 (Dkt. 360) and the claim-construction/summary-judgment rulings (Dkt. 350). Source: RPX litigation document 13728736.

Caveats I must state plainly:

• I found no CAFC docket activity for US 7,353,034 in 2026, and no CAFC 2026 docket entry of any kind tied to this patent number. Given the patent's adjusted expiration of 2025-05-16, new appellate activity in 2026 would be unusual (though not impossible for back-damages or collateral issues).
• The 2020 Notice of Appeal document does not specify which patents were on appeal. I cannot confirm from the search results whether '034 itself was among the asserted patents in X One v. Uber.
• I cannot independently confirm the outcome of that 2020 appeal from the sources retrieved.
• X One was also reported to have filed a broader 2014 patent campaign (including against Google and Apple), but I did not verify the specific patents or outcomes in those cases and will not assert them.

Per your instruction not to auto-correct identifiers: I interpreted "7353034" literally as US 7,353,034 and did not substitute any look-alike number (e.g., 7,353,043; 7,353,093; 7,353,034-family members such as 8,538,458 or 10,165,059). All family members listed above are cited as related patents, not as the patent you asked about.

---

5. Summary of confidence

I'll search for litigation involving US 7,353,034 specifically, using the sources you named plus others.

Now let me run targeted searches to determine whether the specific number 7,353,034 appears in any litigation record.

I hit the tool-call limit mid-search, so this is based on the sources I did reach. Here is the answer, with the central finding first.

Bottom line

No litigation asserting U.S. Patent No. 7,353,034 has been located. In every record I retrieved, the "7353034" string resolved either to a different patent that rhymes with it or to a continuation sibling of '034 — never to '034 itself as an asserted patent. I am reporting this as a negative finding, with the near-misses set out below so the number is not conflated.

Because I ran out of search steps, I could not directly query the Unified Patents caselist portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist), PACER, or the CAFC docket for the literal string "7353034." That is a genuine coverage gap in this report, not a verification.

---

Why I believe the negative finding

1. Consistency with the family's own litigation documents. In every X One pleading and order I retrieved — the N.D. Cal. claim-construction order (Dkt. 73), the § 101 order (Dkt. 52), the summary-judgment order (Dkt. 350), and the X One v. Uber opinion at 957 F.3d 1334 — the asserted patents are US 8,798,593 and US 8,798,647. '034 is not asserted. Both are continuations of the same 2005-04-04 application (11/099,362) that issued as '034 and share its specification.
2. **'034 appears in the record as prior art, not as an asserted patent.** The patent's own front page was filed as an exhibit in PTAB proceedings (e.g., Ex. 1005 in IPR2016-01061 and IPR2017-00574, captioned "Haney prior art"). That is the opposite posture from a plaintiff's asserted patent.
3. The 2026 X One filings target continuations. X One, Inc. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 2:26-cv-00311 (E.D. Tex., filed 2026) is a live patent case (PACER Monitor case 64192991, nature of suit 830, 35:271); the prior sections of this analysis associate the 2026 campaign with continuation patents such as the '402, '705, and '415 patents — not '034.

---

⚠️ Look-alikes and family members — do NOT attribute these to 7,353,034

I am listing these because each is a real litigation record that a number-string search for "7353034" will surface, and each is not the patent you asked about.

Litigation on different patents whose numbers rhyme with 7,353,034

Litigation on continuation siblings of 7,353,034 (same specification, different claims)

Appeals from the '593 / '647 IPRs (not '034):

• Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc., No. 2019-1164 (Fed. Cir. May 5, 2020) — reversed PTAB; server-side vs. terminal-side plotting an obvious design choice (KSR). Family: IPR2017-01255 ('593).
• Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc., No. 2019-1165 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 3, 2020) — reversed-in-part/affirmed-in-part. Family: IPR2017-01264 ('647).

⚠️ The prior sections of this analysis correctly flagged these as family siblings, not '034, and I confirm that. Earlier sections also stated the 2016 filings had "no known litigation asserting '034 specifically" — my search is consistent with that.

---

One unresolved item I will not attribute

A PTAB paper (ptacts.uspto.gov petition 1547570) refers throughout to "the '034 patent" in connection with fifteen asserted patents and over 170 claims in parallel district court litigation, and lists the owner side as having asserted "at least claim 1" from each patent. I could not verify which patent that '034 refers to. The surrounding facts (Fintiv factors, fifteen patents, 2,400 products) do not match anything X One is known to have filed. Do not import that record onto 7,353,034 without independent confirmation.

---

Confidence

To close the gap

1. Unified Patents caselist — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist, search 7353034. (I could not reach this query within my step budget; it is the single highest-value remaining check, and it is one of the sources you named.)
2. CourtListener RECAP full-text docket search for the literal string 7,353,034 across district dockets — this catches complaints that name the patent without it reaching the opinion layer.
3. PACER in the three districts X One has sued in (N.D. Cal., E.D. Tex., D. Del.) — pull the complaints in any 2026 X One case and read the asserted-patent paragraph rather than relying on secondary summaries.
4. USPTO PatentCenter, application 11/099,362 — the "Patent Litigation Activity" and "Assignment" tabs give the official litigation and ownership record for the patent number itself.
5. CAFC docket — no 2026 appellate activity for this patent number is needed for validity/ownership purposes given the 2025-05-16 adjusted expiration, but confirm there is nothing collateral.

I'll verify the canonical (empty) proceedings list against live sources before writing, and check for any family-level AIA proceedings I should flag separately.

Important flag: a search hit referenced an IPR2024-01205 on "U.S. Patent No. 7,593,034" (Stellar, LLC / Motorola Solutions) — a look-alike number, not our patent. I'll exclude it. Let me now specifically probe for AIA trials on 7,353,034 and its family.

PTAB / AIA Trial Proceedings — US 7,353,034 B2

Reading note on sources: The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block supplied with this prompt — sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal — returns no AIA trial proceedings for US 7,353,034. That is the canonical list, and I treat it as controlling. I ran live searches to look for proceedings the ODP may not have indexed (older filings, recent filings, Director Review actions). I found nothing naming 7,353,034 as a challenged patent, which corroborates the structured data.

Because the format below demands per-proceeding detail, I have supplied it only for proceedings that are family-adjacent or that appear in the same PTAB records — each one is explicitly labeled as NOT a proceeding on 7,353,034. I have not relabeled a sibling-patent IPR as a '034 IPR, because that would be wrong in a way that matters: § 315(e)(2) estoppel, claim-level outcomes, and IPR certificates all attach patent-by-patent, not family-by-family.

---

Proceedings overview

On US 7,353,034 itself: zero AIA trial proceedings of any type (no IPR, no PGR, no CBM). The breakdown is therefore 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials.

Bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB record to work with, because nobody ever petitioned against this patent through the AIA — and the practical reason is that the patent expired 2025-05-16 (Google Patents adjusted-expiration entry). If a demand letter cites 7,353,034 specifically, the first thing to check is whether any asserted act post-dates expiration, because the patent can carry no prospective injunction and only a shrinking backward-looking damages window. Separately: because the claims were never construed or tested at the Board, there is no FWD, no IPR certificate, and no estoppel to lean on. The useful PTAB intelligence sits one level up the family tree, in Uber v. X One, and I set that out below with a hard warning not to conflate it with '034.

---

Proceedings on 7,353,034

None. No petition, no institution decision, no FWD, no Director Review, no appeal. I could not find a single document in PTAB E2E, in the PTAB petition archives surfaced by search, or in Federal Circuit / CourtListener records naming 7,353,034 as a challenged patent.

The closest thing to a "'034" hit in PTAB records is a look-alike number warning, which I flag because it is exactly the trap this analysis is meant to catch:

The '593/'647 numbers below are also easy to mistype as '034. They are different patents with different claims, sharing only a specification.

---

Family-adjacent proceedings — ⚠️ NOT proceedings on 7,353,034

These are continuations claiming priority to the same 2005-04-04 disclosure as 7,353,034. They share the '034 specification (the N.D. Cal. court confirmed the '647 patent "is a continuation of the '593 Patent, and thus the two patents share the same specification"). Their outcomes say nothing about the validity or scope of the '034 claims.

IPR2017-01255 — Uber Technologies, Inc. v. X One, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (challenged patent: US 8,798,593 B2 — a continuation, not 7,353,034)
• Filed: 2017-04-07
• Status: Final Written Decision issued; appealed; Federal Circuit reversed the Board's non-obviousness holding (Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc., 957 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2020)).
• Judge panel: PTAB APJ panel not verified from the sources retrieved. The Federal Circuit panel was Chief Judge Prost, Judge Dyk, and Judge Wallach.
• Petition grounds: Obviousness under § 103 — (i) claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 19 over Japanese App. Pub. 2002-10321 ("Okubo") + Japanese App. Pub. 2002-352388 ("Konishi"); (ii) claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 19 over Makoto; (iii) claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 over Okubo + Konishi + U.S. 6,636,803 ("Hartz"); (iv) claim 6 over Makoto + Hartz.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2017-10-16 under § 314(a) on all four grounds.
• Final Written Decision: 2018-10-12. The Board held Petitioner failed to prove any challenged claim unpatentable. It found the combination of Okubo + Konishi did not render obvious the claim limitation "software ... to transmit the map with plotted locations to the first individual" (FWD at 24), and because that limitation appears in independent claim 19 as well and all other challenged claims depend from claim 1, the Board found all challenged claims not unpatentable. It did not reach the remaining limitations or the dependent claims. It called the proposed substitution of Konishi's server-side plotting into Okubo a "wholesale modification" amounting to "impermissible hindsight."
• Settlement / termination: None identified; the case went to FWD and appeal.
• Appeal: Fed. Cir. No. 19-1164, opinion 2020-05-05, 957 F.3d 1334. Reversed and remanded. The court held the Board erred as a matter of law: server-side plotting and terminal-side plotting were "the only two identified, predictable solutions," so substituting one for the other in Okubo was an obvious design choice under KSR. The court also noted Uber waived the Makoto grounds on appeal. I could not verify from the sources retrieved what the Board did on remand, nor whether an IPR certificate cancelling the '593 claims has issued. Do not assume cancellation without checking PTAB E2E.
• Defensive value: High for a defendant facing the '593 patent — the Federal Circuit's "finite number of predictable solutions" reasoning is directly reusable. Zero direct value for 7,353,034, because the '034 claims were never part of this record and no estoppel attaches to them.

IPR2017-01264 — Uber Technologies, Inc. v. X One, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (challenged patent: US 8,798,647 B1 — a continuation, not 7,353,034)
• Filed: 2017-04-11
• Status: Final Written Decision issued; reversed-in-part and affirmed-in-part on appeal.
• Judge panel: Not verified (same caveat).
• Petition grounds: Obviousness under § 103 over Konishi and Mitsuoka (Japanese App. Pub. 2003-168190) as to independent claims 1, 22, 28, with additional art for dependents. Claims challenged: 1, 4–11, 13, 22–25, 27, 28, 31–37, 39–42, 45.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2017-10-16 (same day as the '593 IPR).
• Final Written Decision: 2018-10-12. The Board construed "responsive to launching" (claims 1, 28) as "during or near" launch, and "in association with" (claim 22) as "some relationship," then held neither Konishi nor Mitsuoka taught those limitations, and thus no challenged claim was shown unpatentable. It did not separately analyze the dependent claims. (Oral hearing had been held 2018-08-13.)
• Settlement / termination: None identified.
• Appeal: Fed. Cir. No. 19-1165, opinion 2020-03-03 (nonprecedential). The panel found the Board's "during or near" construction impermissibly excluded the specification's preferred embodiment (a method invoked minutes or hours after launch), refined the construction, and on the corrected construction held the prior art did teach the "responsive to" limitation — reversing as to certain claims and affirming as to others (including the treatment of claim 22). Link: https://cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-1165.Opinion.3-3-2020_1543755.pdf
• Defensive value: Notable as a claim-construction trap: X One's own IPR arguments distinguishing Konishi created prosecution disclaimer that the district court then applied against X One to find non-infringement. For a defendant facing a family sibling today, the lesson is that the patent owner's PTAB arguments are admissible against it. Again — this does not touch '034.

Where the '034 disclosure surfaces at the Board — as prior art, not as the challenged patent

Several Verizon/Cellco petitions against AGIS Software Development LLC patents relied on a "Haney" reference as the primary prior-art ground — including IPR2018-00817 and IPR2018-01081 (challenging US 9,445,251 B2), IPR2020-00870, and IPR2022-01349 (Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless v. AGIS). The petition citations to "Haney" reference figures and columns (e.g., Figs. 5, 13A, 14A, 23, 27; the "center point XXX within radius YYY" passage; "Map centered on selected user"; "Choose center") that appear to correspond to the 7,353,034 specification.

Caveat: I could not confirm from the retrieved excerpts that the cited "Haney" reference is US 7,353,034 rather than another Haney/X One family member. Treat this as a lead to verify, not a finding. The direction matters: in these proceedings '034 would be exhibit art being used to kill someone else's patent — it is not the target. In IPR2018-01081 the Board denied institution; institution was also denied in IPR2018-00817.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status of 7,353,034. Every claim of 7,353,034 is UNTESTED. Not one claim has been cancelled, confirmed, or even construed by the Board. There is no IPR certificate for this number. Anyone telling you "'034 was invalidated" or "'034 survived the PTAB" is almost certainly talking about 8,798,593 / 8,798,647 (family siblings) or about 7,593,034 (an unrelated patent). Both errors are common in this family because the numbers rhyme.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR was ever instituted on 7,353,034, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is empty as to this patent. The Uber IPRs estop Uber (and its privies) only as to the '593 and '647 claims they raised or reasonably could have raised — estoppel runs patent-by-patent, and a ground attacking a '593 claim does not estop an attack on a '034 claim, even though they share a specification. For a defendant being asserted on 7,353,034 today: the entire universe of prior art is available, unconstrained by anything. Practically, the real bars are (a) expiration on 2025-05-16, which scuttles prospective relief, and (b) the one-year § 315(b) clock if you have already been served.

Pattern signals. The family shows a coordinated multi-patent petitioner strategy: Uber filed two petitions four days apart (2017-04-07 on the '593, 2017-04-11 on the '647) against sibling patents from the same specification, won nothing at the Board, but then won both appeals on the strength of Federal Circuit obviousness law. The patent owner (X One) has litigated aggressively in district court and has kept asserting later continuations — the 2026 complaints (e.g., X One v. Domino's Pizza, E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00311; X One v. H-E-B LP, 2:26-cv-00313) assert continuation patents such as the '402, '705, and '415 patents, not '034. I found no evidence of a defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) funding a challenge anywhere in the '034 chain, but I cannot rule that out from available sources.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Start from the negative finding. No PTAB activity exists on 7,353,034 — that absence is itself the signal. A patent that was asserted and never IPR'd is either (i) expired or near-expired by the time asserters got serious, or (ii) not the number being asserted. Here it is both: the adjusted expiration is 2025-05-16, and the 2026 assertions target continuations.
2. Verify the expiration and the demand-letter target. Confirm the adjusted-expiration entry and confirm whether the letter cites 7,353,034 or a family member. If it cites '034 for post-2025-05-16 conduct, there is no infringement theory. If it cites '034 for earlier conduct, the damages window is closed-ended and short.
3. If instead you are facing a family sibling, pull the actual decisions rather than relying on summaries:
   • Board FWDs: USPTO PTAB Decisions / PTAB E2E — https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions
   • Fed. Cir. No. 19-1164 ('593): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[4751411](/patent/4751411)/uber-technologies-inc-v-x-one-inc/
   • Fed. Cir. No. 19-1165 ('647): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[4731842](/patent/4731842)/uber-technologies-inc-v-x-one-inc/ and the opinion PDF linked above.
   • Open item I could not close: the Board's remand disposition in IPR2017-01255 and the resulting IPR certificate, if any, are not verified in this report.
4. If, contrary to my search, a proceeding on 7,353,034 is later located (e.g., a recently filed petition not yet in ODP), the trial-stage clocks to note are: institution decision due ~6 months from the petition's filing date; FWD due within 1 year of institution (§ 316(a)(11)), extendable up to 6 months for good cause; oral hearing typically ~2–3 months before FWD.
5. Do not mix this record with US 7,593,034 (IPR2024-01205, Stellar/Motorola). If that number appears in your own diligence, it is a different patent with a different owner and different claims.

Confidence. High on the negative finding for the '034 number (corroborated by the ODP-derived structured list plus independent web searches). High on the family IPR identities, filing/institution/FWD dates, and appeal dispositions. Moderate on the "Haney-as-prior-art" lead (figure/column correspondence looks right, but the specific family member used as the exhibit is unconfirmed). Low/none on PTAB APJ panel composition and on the post-remand outcome of IPR2017-01255 — I did not obtain those and have not guessed them.

I'll research the assignment/ownership record for US 7,353,034 using the sources specified. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig into the specific assignment records and the current ownership status.

Let me pull the detailed assignment records and check for any post-2006 transfers.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 7,353,034 B2

Analyst note on method / a gap you should see before the findings. I ran targeted searches against the sources in your instruction (Google Patents legal events, the Plainsite X One assignment index, Espacenet INPADOC, Unified Patents portal, and the assignment-record reproductions that surface in PTAB exhibits). I hit the session's tool-call ceiling before I could open the Assignment Center record itself. As a result I have confirmed the existence, direction, and date of the chain, but I did not retrieve the reel/frame numbers or the correspondent-of-record. I flag that as a hard gap rather than guess at either — the correspondent field is precisely the field your instruction says matters most, and I will not invent one.

---

Inventors

Determination of employer: The patent names Haney individually; the specification repeatedly refers to "the assignee of the present invention" as the party that develops/downloads the Budge Watch ("BuddyTracker") and TalkControl applications, and Google Patents records the assignment of Haney's interest to X One, Inc. on 2006-03-31. Standing alone that establishes assignment, not employment. I could not retrieve a 10-K, employee agreement, or comparable corroboration, so the "employer at filing" call rests on the assignment and the specification's self-description.

Pattern flags — none of the textbook warning signs:

• No inventor departure pattern. Haney assigned to X One roughly 12 months after the 2005-04-04 filing — a routine lag between filing and assignment recordation, not a divestiture. More tellingly, Haney kept executing assignments to X One for the continuation family for years afterward (a family record shows a Haney→X One assignment effective 2013-05-08, recorded 2019-11-27, reel 051133/0972, "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:HANEY, RICHARD D." per the Espacenet INPADOC legal-status entry for family member US 10,750,309). A lone inventor who is still papering assignments 14 years later was not departing.
• No co-inventor fragmentation, no orphaned inventor, no post-filing inventor additions/removals surfaced.
• ⚠️ One literal-reading flag: Unified Patents' data for the family lists the priority date as 2005-04-03, while Google Patents lists 2005-04-04. I have not auto-corrected either; the one-day discrepancy is likely a time-zone artifact in one index, but per your rule I report both.

---

Original assignee

X One, Inc. (originally "X One Inc"; also rendered "Xone, Inc." in one filing — I have not normalized it).

⚠️ Do not conflate with "X-1 Audio, Inc." (San Diego) — a different entity that appeared in the same search results. Different company, different patents.

Continuity check against the earlier sections of this analysis: those sections independently identified the current assignee as X One, Inc. and the inventor as Richard D. Haney. No contradiction. The ownership conclusion is consistent across every section generated so far.

---

Assignment timeline

The '034 patent has one recorded assignment in its chain. That is the complete timeline.

• Executed: NOT RETRIEVED / recorded 2006-03-31 — Reel NNNNNN/NNNN — NOT RETRIEVED
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: Haney, Richard D. (sole inventor)
  • Assignee: X One, Inc.
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED — I will not name one. Flag: unverified, and this is the field you most wanted.
  • Context: Original inventor-to-company assignment, recorded ~12 months after filing. Not a sale, not a fire-sale, not a transfer to an asserter.

No further records were located for US 7,353,034. I found no security agreement, merger, change-of-name, license, release, correction, or subsequent assignment tied to this patent number, in either Google Patents legal events (which shows only the 2006-03-31 reassignment entry) or the Plainsite X One assignment index (whose Haney entries trace the continuation filings, with application 11/099,362 / pub 20060223518 / patent 7353034 appearing only under the 3/31/2006 entry).

Family-adjacent record — explicitly NOT an '034 record: the 2019-11-27 / effective 2013-05-08, reel 051133/0972 Haney→X One assignment belongs to continuation application 16/698,831 (US 10,750,309). The 2013 effective date paired with 2019 recording suggests a nunc-pro-tunc / confirmatory papering — a housekeeping pattern, not an ownership change. Do not enter it on the '034 timeline.

Practical reading: the chain terminates at the original assignee. X One, Inc. still owns US 7,353,034.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7353034
    2005 : Application filed 2005-04-04
    2006 : Haney assigns interest to X One Inc
    2008 : Patent granted 2008-04-01
    2016 : X One asserts family patents against Uber
    2025 : Adjusted expiration 2025-05-16
    2026 : X One files new suits on family patents

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Note on signal 2 (the one live thread). X One does not match a listed NPE directory, but it is externally documented as a high-frequency patent plaintiff — RPX Insight hosts its litigation documents (X One v. Uber, N.D. Cal. 5:16-cv-06050-LHK, notice of appeal filed 2020-03-24), and Plainsite maintains an X One litigation profile. Its observed activity is assertion of an expired patent family against unrelated defendants (Domino's, H-E-B, and DJ posture regarding Apple's "Find My"). I treat this as one weak-to-moderate signal, not two — and I am explicit that it comes from the litigation record, not from the assignment chain.

---

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

Justification. The assignment chain itself is clean: one link, inventor → company, 2006-03-31, with the patent never transferred, no shell entity, no cascading LLCs, no bankruptcy, and no defensive aggregator. What drives the call is the entity, not the transfers: X One, Inc. has held US 7,353,034 since 2006 with no established commercial product embodying the claims, and its observable activity is serial assertion of this expired family — the 2016 Uber action (RPX-documented) and the April 2026 E.D. Tex. filings against Domino's and H-E-B. That is one moderate signal on the asserter profile and zero signals on the transfer profile, which lands at moderate rather than high confidence.

The competing reading I want on the record: under your own taxonomy, a chain consisting of "only the original assignment" maps to Insufficient data. If you weight the assignment record alone — which is defensible given the instruction not to infer NPE status from anything but concrete ownership evidence — Insufficient data is the more disciplined label. I chose "NPE — moderate confidence" because you expressly directed cross-referencing the RPX/Unified asserter sources, and those sources document X One as a repeat plaintiff. Flagging the tension rather than hiding it.

Verify the record yourself (and close my reel/frame gap):

• USPTO Assignment Center — search the patent number: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (also indexed at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html)
• Google Patents legal events: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7353034/en
• Plainsite X One assignment/litigation index: https://www.plainsite.org/profiles/x-one-inc/

Highest-value items still open: (a) the reel/frame of the 2006-03-31 Haney→X One assignment; (b) the correspondent of record on that recording — the single most diagnostic field here, and the one most likely to reveal whether the same filing attorney runs the X One family recordings; (c) confirmation that no security agreement or license encumbers the patent (none surfaced, but I could not query the recording database directly).

I'll research the prior-art citations of record for US 7,353,034 and verify each reference. Let me run several targeted searches.

Good — I found an OCR of the '034 front page showing part of the "References Cited" list. Let me retrieve the complete list and verify each reference.

Let me pull the complete "References Cited" list from additional sources.

Bottom line

I located the "References Cited" list printed on the face of US 7,353,034 B2 ("the '034 patent," Haney, X One, Inc., filed/priority 2005‑04‑04, issued 2008‑04‑01) — but only partially, via an OCR of the printed patent. I have 6 U.S. patent references, 7 U.S. pre‑grant publications, and 2 WO entries, and I flag below that this may be an incomplete capture. Critically, the literal claim text of the '034 patent is still not in hand (consistent with the earlier sections of this analysis), so the §102 mapping below is done at the claim‑family level, not claim‑by‑claim, and is labeled as such.

Two housekeeping notes before the substance:

• Date discrepancy: your task prompt says "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while my session date is 2026‑09‑21. I have not auto‑corrected either; flagging per your literal‑interpretation rule.
• Identifier discipline: I interpreted 7353034 literally as US 7,353,034 and excluded look‑alikes that polluted results: US D735,034‑style design numbers, JP 7353034 B2 (Samsung Display amine compounds, granted 2023‑09‑29), OSTI ID 7353034 (Sandia sewage‑sludge report), LOC bibframe 7353034, and US 7,353,139 / 7,355,528 / 7,359,706 etc.

---

1. What I actually searched and what it returned

The single usable primary source for the citation list is:

Exhibit 1005 ("Haney prior art") — Petitioner's exhibit, filed 2016‑05‑19, in IPR2016‑01061, Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 8,223,012 — the exhibit is a printed copy of US 7,353,034 whose first page includes the "(56) References Cited" block.

A useful side‑finding: this means the '034 patent was itself relied on as prior art in an IPR against a third party's patent (US 8,223,012). I inferred the IPR number and parties from the URL and docket title, not from the document body — treat that as moderate confidence.

Caveat on completeness: the OCR strings run together without page structure. The list I recovered may omit entries (particularly earlier 5,xxx,xxx patents that would normally precede US 5,890,064). A page with only 6 U.S. patents + 7 publications is thin for a 2005 filing, so I would not represent this as the exhaustive list. Verify against the PDF at patentimages US7353034.pdf.

---

2. References cited on the face of US 7,353,034 (as recovered)

Asterisks indicate references flagged in the OCR as examiner‑cited (*).

2a. U.S. Patent Documents

2b. U.S. Patent Application Publications

2c. WO entries recovered

---

3. Ranked assessment — most relevant prior art of record

Ranked by likelihood of §102 challenge to the '034's independent claims, given the claim families identified in the earlier sections:

1. US 2002/0169539 A1 (Menard) — navigation/position‑information exchange (701/200). Closest of‑record art to the location‑sharing method/system claims.
2. US 6,504,503 B1 (Saint‑Hilaire) — satellite/GPS position determination (342/357.09). Supplies the "GPS position data" element.
3. US 2002/0151316 A1 (Kato) — SMS (455/466). Supplies the "position data carried in short text messages" element.
4. US 6,292,671 B1 (Mansour) — dispatch/group call (455/518). Primary art against the TalkControl claims.
5. US 2003/0217150 A1 (Roese) — group/access management (709/225). Relevant to buddy‑list administration and permissioning.
6. US 2006/0035647 A1 (Eisner) and US 2006/0030339 A1 (Zhovnirovsky) — location services, but §102(e)‑only because they post‑date the filing.
7. US 6,615,134 B2 (Ando) — map/navigation display; relevant only to the mapit/history‑display species.
8. US 5,890,064 A (Widergen) — call routing; peripheral, unless a claim recites packet routing to the correct cell/device.
9. US 2002/0123327 A1 (Vataja) — messaging; peripheral.
10. US 6,718,503 B1 (Lerner) — error correction; peripheral and date‑limited (§102(a)/(b) yes, 2004).
11. US 7,219,303 B2 (Fish) — UI/conferencing; §102(e)‑only.
12. US 2006/0221968 A1 (Razdan) — packet routing; §102(e)‑only, timing marginal.

Combination note: the single most obvious §103 attack the examiner or a challenger would assemble from this list is Saint‑Hilaire (GPS position) + Kato or Vataja (messaging transport) + Roese (group management) — i.e., the "swap position data over SMS among a managed group" combination. No single reference on the list appears to disclose the Instant Buddy (ask‑and‑accept, auto‑expiring) or personal bread crumbs / "Are you OK?" timeouts, so those claim families look weakly supported by this art of record.

---

4. Problems with this list I am obligated to flag

1. I do not have the '034 claims. Anticipation under §102 requires that a single reference disclose every limitation of a claim. Without the claim text I cannot say a reference anticipates; I can only say it is relevant to a claim family. The earlier sections' warning stands: the claims were not obtained, and the "genus/species" drafting suspicion was expressly labeled a hypothesis.
2. The list may be incomplete. OCR concatenation likely dropped entries.
3. Post‑filing‑date references on the face of the patent. US 2006/0030339, US 2006/0035647, US 2006/0221968 and US 7,219,303 all issued/published after 2005‑04‑04. Their appearance is explicable only as §102(e) citations. This is a real (and curable‑only‑by‑verification) anomaly.
4. The WO 2006108071 A2/A3 entries are anomalous — they are the applicant's own PCT publication. Possible explanations I cannot distinguish among: (a) an OCR/merge error in the exhibit copy; (b) the front page belongs to a later continuation in the family whose specification matches; (c) a supplemental IDS. Verify on the printed patent image.
5. Several reference titles/assignees are unverified. I confirmed classes and dates from the OCR; I did not independently confirm the titles of US 5,890,064, US 6,292,671, US 6,504,503, US 6,615,134, US 6,718,503 or US 7,219,303 in this session. Do not treat those descriptions as verified quotations.
6. Relevance is now largely historical. Per the earlier sections, the '034 patent is Expired – Lifetime with adjusted expiration 2025‑05‑16. Prior‑art analysis of '034 matters today chiefly (i) as §102/§103 art the '034 itself constitutes against the ~40 continuation family members (e.g., 8,538,458; 8,798,593; 9,167,558; 10,165,059; 11,356,799), and (ii) for the pending 2026 E.D. Tex. and N.D. Cal. matters that assert family members, not '034. It does not revive the '034 term.

---

5. What I would do to close the gaps

• Pull the PDF image of US7353034 front page at patentimages … US7353034.pdf to get the full (56) block verbatim.
• Pull the Claims tab at patents.google.com/patent/US7353034/en or USPTO PatentCenter for application 11/099,362 to obtain literal claim text.
• Run each of the 13 references through USPTO Patent Public Search by number to confirm title, assignee, and effective filing date (needed to test §102(e) eligibility).

Confidence summary

I'll first try to retrieve the actual claim text and the "References Cited" (Prior Art) section for the '034 patent, then analyze obviousness.

I found the claim text and the front-page references. Now let me retrieve the complete claim set (the patent has 9 claims) and the full "References Cited" list.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,353,034 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analysis date: April 26, 2026 · Patent: US 7,353,034 B2 ("the '034 patent") · Inventor: Richard D. Haney · Assignee: X One, Inc. · Filed: 2005-04-04 · Granted: 2008-04-01 · Status: Expired – Lifetime (adjusted expiration 2025-05-16)

---

0. Scope note on the "Prior Art" section before I begin (please read)

You asked me to use the results from the Prior Art section of the Google Patents page for US7353034. Two things must be flagged before I rely on anything:

1. The authoritative text supplied for the '034 patent does not contain a Prior Art section. The fetched Google Patents HTML you provided terminates inside the "FIELD OF USE AND BACKGROUND" portion of the description. Google Patents renders prior art under "References Cited," "Cited By," and "Similar Documents." None of those tables appeared in the authoritative text I was given.
2. I therefore reconstructed the front-page "References Cited" list from public reproductions of the '034 patent's own face — specifically OCR copies of the granted patent document filed as exhibits in PTAB proceedings (docketalarm Ex. 1005, IPR2016-01061 and Ex. 1005, IPR2017-00574).

OCR integrity warning (per your "do not auto-correct identifiers" rule): the two OCR copies disagree on two reference numbers. I am presenting both variants rather than silently choosing one:

I treat the reference list as a whole as reliably indicative of what the examiner cited, but I do not assert a specific correct number for those two entries.

---

1. The claim at issue (this time, verbatim — corrected from the earlier section)

The previously generated "Patent summary" section stated that no claim text could be obtained and declined to reconstruct it. That gap is now closed for claim 1. RPX Insight reproduces the granted claim set, and the '034 patent itself is confirmed to contain 9 claims over 48 drawing sheets. Claim 1 reads (verbatim, as reproduced at insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/US7353034B2):

1. A method for sending a GPS (Global Positioning System) position data from a first wireless device to one or more second wireless devices, the method comprising:

• receiving in the first wireless device a position update request;
• looking up addresses of the one or more second wireless devices to which a position update is to be sent;
• reading and encrypting GPS information to generate encrypted GPS information;
• encapsulating the encrypted GPS information into payload portions of one or more packets in a message protocol format and addressing the one or more packets to the one or more second wireless devices to which position updates are to be sent;
• transmitting the packet data to a first transceiver in a first cell in which the first wireless device is registered;
• receiving signals containing the packet data and recovering the one or more packets of the packet data at the transceiver;
• routing the one or more packets to a central switching unit;
• in the central switching unit routing each packet of the one or more packets to one or more transceivers in one or more corresponding cells in which the one or more second wireless devices to which the packet are addressed is registered;
• in each of the one or more transceivers which received the one or more packets from the central switching unit, processing the data of the one or more packets to generate radio frequency signals and transmitting the radio frequency signals to the one or more second wireless devices in their corresponding cells;
• in the one or more second wireless devices to which the packet is addressed, recovering the packet data of the one or more packets and reassembling the packets;
• reading the header data of the one or more packets and routing the one or more packets to a GPS position data sharing software application; and
• in the GPS position data sharing software application decrypting the GPS information and using the header information of the one or more packets to determine the identity of a person whose GPS position data was decrypted and using the decrypted GPS information to update displayed position data of the person.

Critical observation for § 103: claim 1 does not recite a server, a map server, a buddy list, a group, a subscription, a request/accept handshake, privacy controls, or any of the features the specification advertises as the invention (instant buddies, parental override, bread crumbs, TalkControl). It recites the ordinary operation of a cellular packet-data network carrying an encrypted GPS payload between handsets, with the payload demultiplexed to an application by header/port number. That framing makes the § 103 analysis unusually clean.

⚠️ Claims 2–9 were not obtained (only claim 1 is verbatim). Everything below about dependents is inference from the specification and labeled as such.

---

2. The prior-art record actually on the '034 face

From the reconstructed front page (classes shown in parentheses; descriptions are drawn from the classification codes, not from my recollection of the references' contents):

On the three 2006-published U.S. publications (Zhovnirovsky, Eisner, Razdan): although they published after the 2005-04-04 filing date, their ~18-month publication lag places their filing dates in 2004–early 2005, which is consistent with their being cited as § 102(e) prior art. I flag this because a reader glancing at the dates might wrongly discount them.

2.1 The applicant's own admissions are prior art under § 102(a)/(b)

The '034 specification contains unusually damaging admissions, quoted verbatim in the authoritative text and in the SumoBrain reproduction:

• "The one way location sharing prior art includes On Star and the Mercedes Benz TeleAid services where, via GPS receivers and cellular phone capability built into a car, an aid center can track cars all over the world…"
• "Other commercial services allow parents to track the locations of their children in a one way location sharing manner."
• "FIG. 12 is a block diagram of a typical prior art cellular system infrastructure in which the teachings of the invention… can be practiced."
• "No two way position information sharing technology currently exists as far as the applicant is aware."

That last sentence is a statement of a known, unmet market need — exactly the "design need or market pressure" that KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007), treats as a motivation to combine.

2.2 Corroboration that two-way "buddy finder" location services pre-dated the filing

Independent of the '034 face, the background of EP 2328326 A1 (in the patentimages PDF I retrieved) expressly identifies, as known art for buddy-finder services: US 2002/0183052 A1; JP 2003-153522; EP 1 691 565 — and describes a server that receives uploaded mobile locations and alerts a registered "buddy," rendering the location "as a certain mark in a geographic map rendered at the mobile telephone of person 'B'." (EP2328326A1.pdf) This is third-party evidence that two-way, map-rendered buddy location sharing was known before April 2005 — directly undercutting the applicant's "no two way… exists" framing as of the filing date.

2.3 The family's own litigation history is evidence of obviousness

• In X One, Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 5:16-cv-06050-LHK (N.D. Cal.), the court granted summary judgment of non-infringement and found the asserted claims (from continuations of the '034 application — US 8,798,593 and US 8,798,647) patent-ineligible; the claim-construction order is public at archive.org …304306.73.0.pdf.
• On appeal, the Federal Circuit in Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc., No. 2019-1164 (Fed. Cir. May 5, 2020) reversed the PTAB's finding and held that server-side vs. terminal-side plotting was an obvious design choice (appeal from IPR2017-01255 on US 8,798,593). That is a Federal Circuit obviousness holding on the same specification as '034.
• A PTAB petition reproduced at ptacts.uspto.gov …petitions/1550152 runs "Ground 1: Haney in combination with Fumarolo and Choi" and argues that combining selectable communication-unit representations (Fumarolo) with Haney's "mapit" functionality is obvious because both address "map-based systems for providing location and/or communication information between wireless units." The '034 patent itself is used as the primary prior-art reference against later family members — which tells you how the field viewed this disclosure's incremental character.

I note plainly: I could not confirm which case that petition belongs to, and I am not asserting its claims map onto '034 claim 1.

---

3. Legal framework applied

• Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966): scope and content of prior art; differences; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations.
• KSR, 550 U.S. at 416–421: "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious"; a "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" supports obviousness; combination of familiar elements yielding predictable results is likely obvious; motivation may come from market demand.
• MPEP § 2143 (exemplary rationales): (A) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) simple substitution of one known element for another; (C) use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way; (D) applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement; (F) "obvious to try."
• PHOSITA definition I apply (must be stated explicitly, it drives everything): a person with a bachelor's degree in electrical/computer engineering or computer science and 2–3 years' experience in wireless data communications, cellular network architecture, and location-based services, or the equivalent. That person in early 2005 was intimately familiar with: GPS receivers in handsets, SMS and TCP/IP-over-cellular data bearers, cellular network topology (BTS → BSC/MSC → HLR/VLR), TCP/UDP port demultiplexing, JA2ME/BREW application programming, and commercial map-rendering APIs. Claim 1's entire network half is first-year-of-work knowledge for this person.

---

4. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 (strongest) — Widergen § 5,890,064 in view of Saint-Hilaire § 6,504,503, Kato § 2002/0151316, Menard § 2002/0169539, and Lerner § 6,718,503

Element-by-element:

Motivation to combine (must be articulated, and here it is essentially self-evident): every reference is in the same field of endeavor — wireless communications and mobile positioning — and each is being used for no more than its established function. Widergen already routes cellular traffic between cells; Saint-Hilaire already produces a GPS fix in a wireless device; Kato/Vataja already carry addressed data messages between handsets; Menard/Ando already render a position on a map display; Lerner already makes packet transport reliable. The only "invention" in claim 1's network half is applying standard cellular data transport to a GPS payload — and the specification concedes that infrastructure is prior art. Under KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, this is "a combination of familiar elements according to known methods… [yielding] predictable results."

---

Ground 2 — Vataja § 2002/0123327 in view of Saint-Hilaire § 6,504,503, Ando § 6,615,134, Roese § 2003/0217150 and Lerner § 6,718,503

Vataja supplies the mobile-to-mobile addressed messaging architecture and delivery semantics; Saint-Hilaire supplies GPS position determination in the handset; Roese supplies the address-lookup step; Ando supplies the position/map display and update; Lerner supplies the coded-packet transport that the claim's "processing the data… to generate radio frequency signals" step presupposes.

Motivation: the design need was explicit and public — the '034 background identifies an unmet demand for mutual location awareness among groups, families, and co-workers, and third-party buddy-finder services (US 2002/0183052; JP 2003-153522; EP 1 691 565) had already solved it server-side. A POSA looking to implement mutual phone tracking on an existing cellular data network would have had a finite, predictable set of implementation choices (SMS bearer vs. TCP/IP bearer; port-header demultiplexing vs. payload-type flagging; handset-side vs. server-side rendering) — the very "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" of KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. The Federal Circuit's 2020 decision in Uber v. X One — holding server-side vs. terminal-side plotting an obvious design choice on this same specification — is direct support for this rationale.

---

Ground 3 — Admitted prior art (OnStar / TeleAid / kid-locator services, per the '034 specification) in view of the buddy-finder services identified in EP 2328326's background, in view of Mansour § 6,292,671

The specification concedes one-way GPS tracking of vehicles and children over cellular was known. Adding the second direction is a simple substitution/duplication of the known reporting step (MPEP § 2143 rationale B), with no new hardware, no new network infrastructure (the spec expressly says so: "the teachings of the invention do not require development of new cell phone or PDA technology nor do they require development of new cellular communication infrastructure"), and a predictable result. Mansour's group/dispatch communication class (455/518) further supplies the multi-party group configuration that dependent claims likely recite.

Motivation: the specification's own stated benefits — "Parents can keep track of where their kids are. Friends can keep track of where their buddies are" — are precisely the commercial pressures KSR recognizes.

---

Ground 4 (for the likely dependent claims — inferential)

Because only claim 1 is verbatim, I label this explicitly as inference:

---

5. Secondary considerations (§ 103 rebuttal) — none appear available

• No unexpected results: the specification asserts only the ordinary benefits of location awareness and expressly disclaims any new hardware or network design.
• No evidence of copying: the '034 family's own litigation history (Uber, Google, Apple campaigns) suggests accused products implemented well-known location-sharing architectures independently.
• Commercial success nexus: X One's family was extraordinarily prolific procedurally (40+ continuations, per Google Patents), but I found no verified evidence of commercial success attributable to the '034 claims' specific limitations — and prolonged continuation practice is not itself a secondary consideration.
• Industry skepticism: affirmative evidence runs the other way — the Fed. Cir. found an obvious design choice in this family (No. 2019-1164), and PTAB petitioners used Haney '034 as the base prior-art reference against later family members.

---

6. Contradictions with the previously generated sections (flagged as required)

---

7. Bottom line and confidence

Conclusion: Claim 1 of US 7,353,034 B2 would very likely have been held obvious under § 103 over (i) Widergen in view of Saint-Hilaire, Kato, Menard and Lerner, or (ii) Vataja in view of Saint-Hilaire, Ando, Roese and Lerner, or (iii) the applicant's admitted OnStar/TeleAid prior art in view of known buddy-finder services. The claim's dominant content — cellular packet transport from handset to handset, demultiplexed by header to an application, carrying an encrypted GPS payload — was the routine operation of the 2005 cellular infrastructure, and the '034 specification itself concedes that infrastructure is prior art (FIG. 12, described as "typical prior art"). The only non-trivial element, encryption, is a known privacy technique applied to a known payload type.

Two honest caveats: (1) I did not read the full disclosure of any cited reference in this session — the element mapping above relies on each reference's field and the face classification codes; a formal invalidity contention would require pin cites into each reference. (2) The '034 patent expired 2025-05-16; a retrospective § 103 challenge would today have practical significance only for back-damages or collateral estoppel purposes, not for prospective injunction relief.

Highest-value next steps if this analysis is to be formalized: pull the certified front page from USPTO PatentCenter (application 11/099,362) to resolve the Lerner/Ando OCR variants; obtain the full text of claims 2–9; and pull the prosecution history to see what art the examiner actually applied and whether any Rule 132 declaration or secondary-considerations evidence was filed.