US 7360166

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number.

Let me verify whether any 2026 litigation specifically involves this patent number, as distinct from the similarly numbered patents found above.

Let me look specifically for the claim text and any litigation or 2026 docket entries for this exact number.

US Patent 7,360,166 — Summary

Important scope note up front: I found no USPTO or CAFC 2026 docket activity that actually names 7,360,166. The 2026 Salesforce/AIT Federal Circuit case that surfaces in searches (Applications in Internet Time v. Salesforce, Fed. Cir., decided 2026‑03‑16) involves US 7,356,482 and US 8,484,111 — different patents (they descend from 1998 parent application 09/215,898, inventors Sturgeon/Sziklai, originally ASI). Likewise, the W.D. Tex. case MO:25‑cv‑00539‑DC against Salesforce (R&R adopted July 1, 2026) involves a "Patent '079," not '166. I am flagging these explicitly because they are not your patent and should not be conflated with it.

---

Bibliographic data (as recorded on Google Patents, fetched 2026‑09‑24)

Assignment chain on the record: Amplify, LLC (2005) → Clipmarks, LLC (2008‑02‑21) → Clipmarks.com LLC (2008‑02‑27) → Clipmarks LLC (2008‑02‑28) → Clipboard, Inc. (2012‑01‑27) → Clipboard, LLC (2014‑10‑13) → Salesforce.com, Inc. (2014‑10‑15). A separate 2014‑10‑30 record shows an assignment from Clipmarks LLC to Amplify LLC; I cannot authoritatively reconcile that entry with the Salesforce chain (it may be a re‑recording or a separate interest), so treat the ownership picture as uncertain in detail.

⚠️ Term/status caveat: The record lists status "Active" alongside an "adjusted expiration" of 2026‑08‑10 (≈ 20 years from the 2005‑08‑17 filing plus patent‑term adjustment). Those two data points sit awkwardly together relative to your stated current date of April 26, 2026, and relative to the 2026‑09‑24 fetch date. I do not have an authoritative maintenance‑fee or lapse determination, so I will not assert the patent's live status beyond what the database says.

Abstract (as published)

A method, system and apparatus for selecting, displaying, managing, tracking and transferring access to content of Internet web pages and other sources along with custom text messages, with programming permitting a user to (a) create custom selections of image, animation, movie and text content items from the same or different network sources in an independent, resizable, rescalable browser window; (b) transfer access to the custom selection to a recipient; (c) navigate quickly to a source of a content item; and (d) define search keywords for related-content searches. Also disclosed: tracking of viewing and sharing activities; assisted content selection using temporary borders on mouseover; and a "Dynamic Content Display" method for updating selected content items.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Explicit uncertainty: the patent text supplied to me is truncated before the claims (it ends mid‑sentence in the "Enhanced Assisted Content Selection" description at the word "hierarchic"). I therefore could not read the verbatim claim language for independent claims 1 or any other independent claim, and I will not invent it. What follows is an inference from the abstract, summary and detailed description, clearly labeled as such:

1. Core "custom selection window" claim (likely claim 1) — A computing device / software method in which a user selects individual content items (image, animation, movie, text, etc.) from a source page or document containing multiple items; the system captures each item's network location (handling both absolute and relative URLs, and for text either storing the text or storing the source URL plus begin/end coordinates) and loads the items directly from their original network sources into an independent browser window that contains only the selected items plus a toolbar — excluding other content from the source. The window and/or each item is user‑resizable, with content set to occupy defined percentages of frame/window height and width and original aspect ratios preserved.

2. Multi‑item / frame‑division claim — Extends the above to multiple items, each in its own frame, with frames added above/below/left/right of an existing frame, resizable borders that proportionately resize the content in adjacent frames, and per‑frame toolbars (Search, Refresh, Delete, GoTo This Page / This Site, Select/Extract into a new window).

3. Transfer / sharing claim — Sending only a Window Definition (an XML document with a unique window identifier, frameset, per‑frame source info, description, and keywords) to a server; the server assigns/stores the identifier and returns a URL containing it; the recipient clicks the link, the server returns a page that recreates the selection in a standard browser (no plug‑in required) by re‑loading content directly from the original sources — thereby avoiding email/IM size, image, and character limits.

4. Tracking claim — Because the server is contacted whenever a selection is saved, favorited, or viewed (by user or recipient), the system compiles statistics on which items were selected, co‑selected in the same window, viewed, viewed‑with‑frequency, and shared (and by whom, and by which messaging method) — tied to the unique window identifier and optionally the unique user identifier, without cookies or web bugs.

5. Assisted content selection claim — On mouseover (or a mouse‑entered element), a temporary, color‑coded border (distinct color per content type: table vs. image vs. text, etc.) is drawn by repositioning/resizing a transparent "Border Object" in the DOM, or by temporarily swapping the element's own border property; left‑click selects the item and intercepts hyperlink activation; table/row/cell selection prompts offer "Amplify Table / Row / Cell," with formatting and hyperlinks preserved.

6. Dynamic Content Display claim — Building an "Element Address" (e.g., table[0]/tr[0]/td[0], built right‑to‑left by comparing sibling elements up to the Body tag, or terminating early at an Element ID) so a changing item in a fixed location (stock quote, headline) can be re‑located, re‑parsed and refreshed in the window — with a correction for the added Border Object, and optionally on an Auto Refresh schedule.

7. Advertising selection claim — Choosing an ad to display based on targeting information (second‑level domain, keywords, user‑composed message text, or selected item text), where each ad↔targeting‑item association carries a weight, the ad's relative weight is the sum of its matched association weights, and selection is by weighted random draw over a numbered range.

8. Text‑message claim — Composing a user Text Message (with typeface/size/color) into a frame, stored in the frame's HTML so it travels with the saved/sent/received window.

Bottom line: I can confirm the bibliographic record and the subject matter with high confidence from the primary document, but I have low confidence in the exact independent‑claim wording and count because the claims themselves were not in my source. If you need verbatim claim language or an authoritative current ownership/term status, the USPTO PatentCenter/Global Dossier and the USPTO Assignment record for application 11/206,258 are the right primary sources to pull.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 7360166. Let me run several targeted searches.

The initial searches returned general patent info, not litigation. Let me dig into likely litigants and the Unified Patents portal.

Litigation Search Results for US Patent 7,360,166

Bottom line: I could not identify any confirmed litigation involving US Patent 7,360,166.

I ran targeted searches for the exact number (both "7360166" and "7,360,166") across general web results, Unified Patents' portal content, PACER-related material, and litigation-tracker sources. No district court case, ITC action, or PTAB proceeding specific to the '166 patent surfaced. I am reporting this as a negative finding rather than fabricating case captions.

What I searched and what came back

Caveat: one search returned a PTAB "real party-in-interest" filing that contained broad lists of IPR filings, but none listed the '166 patent. I could not directly load the Unified Patents caselist page for the patent, so my finding reflects the indexed/searchable results rather than a guaranteed exhaustive docket review.

Relevant context that affects the likelihood of litigation

Even absent a confirmed case, the ownership history is material and worth flagging (per the authoritative Google Patents record):

• Original assignee: Clipmarks LLC
• Intermediate: AMPLIFY, LLC / Clipboard, Inc. / Clipboard, LLC
• Current assignee: Salesforce.com, Inc. (assignment recorded 2014-10-15), with CLIPMARKSCOM LLC also listed
• Legal status: Active; adjusted expiration 2026-08-10 (approximately two months before today's date of April 26, 2026)

Two practical implications:

1. Because the patent is now held by an operating company (Salesforce), it is less likely to appear in the NPE-driven assertion campaigns that dominate the "litigation" databases most search engines index well.
2. With the adjusted expiration in August 2026, the patent's remaining assertion window is very short — meaning any unfiled infringement suit would be time-barred shortly.

Recommended verification steps (since my search was not exhaustive)

If you need a defensible clearance-level answer, these sources should be checked directly:

1. Unified Patents Litigation Portal — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist and the patent-detail page https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-7360166-B1 (if it exists).
2. USPTO PatentCenter for the '166 patent — the "File Wrapper" tab will show any litigation/assignment activity and terminal disclaimers.
3. USPTO Assignment database — confirm the Salesforce chain of title.
4. PACER / CourtListener (RECAP) — run Docket Alarm or CourtListener keyword search on "7,360,166" and "7360166".
5. PTAB — search IPR/PGR case lists (the patent's litigation and PTAB history is often compiled automatically on Docket Alarm).
6. FreeLaw / Google Scholar for any CAFC appeals citing the patent number.

Statement of confidence

• High confidence: No litigation involving patent 7,360,166 appeared in the searches I was able to run.
• Not high confidence: That no litigation exists at all. I was unable to load the Unified Patents caselist page directly, and my conclusions rest on indexed results. I would not certify a "no litigation" conclusion without the docket-level checks above.

I did not invent any plaintiff/defendant names, case numbers, jurisdictions, filing dates, or dispositions, because none were returned as verifiable matches for this specific patent number.

I'll verify the "no PTAB activity" default against public sources before writing.

PTAB proceedings on file — verification result

Before the analysis, one important disclosure about sourcing. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block states the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for US 7,360,166 as of its most recent ingest. I ran targeted web searches to see whether any older or un-indexed proceeding surfaced (queries on the patent number, "Clipmarks"/"Clipboard" + IPR, and Krzanowski + PTAB). Those searches returned nothing linking any IPR, PGR, or CBM to this patent. I did not find a petition number, institution decision, FWD, or appeal for 7,360,166, and I will not synthesize one. Treat the count below as zero, with the caveat that my search tooling returned noisy, mostly off-point results — a firmcheck against PTAB E2E is the right belt-and-suspenders step before you rely on this in a brief.

---

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 7,360,166: 0 — no IPRs, no PGRs, no CBMs (0 active / 0 invalidated / 0 sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials), which leaves the patent jurisdictionally untested at the Board: a defendant gets no free "claim 1 is dead" gift from a prior petitioner, but equally faces no precedential adverse construction and no hardened, twice-affirmed patent — and, per the structured record, the enforceable term appears to have run out on 2026-08-10, which matters far more today than any IPR would.

---

Proceedings

There are no proceedings to itemize. Per the task constraints, I am not creating placeholder entries or inferring proceeding numbers.

Items I checked and excluded (do not confuse these with 7,360,166)

If a demand letter or an IPR petition caption cites any of the above as "the PTAB case on this patent," that is a citation error worth exploiting.

---

What the absence of PTAB activity actually tells you

1. Claim status: everything is UNTESTED, and that cuts both ways.
No claim of 7,360,166 has been canceled, and none has been sustained. So there is no claim-level FWD language to quote, no surviving-claim list, and no Board construction you can borrow. A defendant cannot open with "claim 1 is already dead." The offsetting point is that the patent has never been through adversarial claim construction or a § 103 obviousness attack on a developed record — the claim set is broad (the specification describes a toolbar/plug-in, an independent "Custom Selection Window," frame toolbars, an XML Window Definition with a unique Window Identifier, server-mediated link sharing, and server-side tracking), and broad, never-litigated claims of this vintage are often vulnerable on both § 101 and § 103 grounds. Your invalidity case will be built from scratch, not imported.

2. Estoppel landscape is clean — all grounds remain open.
No IPR or CBM produced a final written decision, so 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel never attached to anyone. Any defendant is free to raise, in district court and in a fresh IPR, any § 102/§ 103 ground over patents and printed publications, plus § 101 and § 112 in court (and § 112 in a CBM/PGR-type vehicle, if one were even available — see below). Conversely, the patent owner is not estopped from anything, and there is no prior petitioner whose claim constructions you can pin them to.

Practical consequence: no § 315(b) one-year clock has been spent by any prior party, but your own one-year § 315(b) clock starts when you are served — and with the term apparently expired (below), the IPR ROI calculus changes dramatically.

3. Vehicle availability is narrow for this patent.
The application was filed 2005-08-17 (priority date per the record), so this is a pre-AIA patent. PGR is unavailable (post-AIA patents only, within 9 months of issuance). The transitional CBM program (AIA § 18) expired 2020-09-16, so CBM is off the table today regardless of whether these claims qualify as a "covered business method" set — and a browser plug-in that selects and shares web content looks like a "technological invention," which would have been a contested CBM gate anyway. That leaves IPR (available anytime), ex parte reexamination, and district court.

4. The dominant fact today is the expiration date, not PTAB.
The structured record shows legal status Active with an adjusted expiration of 2026-08-10 (filing 2005-08-17 + 20 years, plus PTA). Today is 2026-10-01, which is after that date. If the adjusted expiration is correct and all maintenance fees were paid, the patent's enforceable term has lapsed. I flag this as a record-based observation, not a legal conclusion — expiration and fee status should be confirmed on USPTO Patent Center before you rely on it, because (a) the Google Patents legal-status field is an assumption-flagged data point, and (b) a lapsed-term patent still supports past damages within the 35 U.S.C. § 286 six-year lookback. What it does strip out: injunctive relief (eBay factors collapse when there is no post-expiration right to exclude) and all forward-looking royalties. If a demand letter is threatening an injunction or an ongoing royalty, that threat is facially stale.

5. Ownership chain is muddled — verify standing.
The assignment record in the structured data shows a tangled chain: Clipmarks LLC → Amplify, LLC (2005-08-29) → CLIPMARKS, LLC (2008-02-21) → CLIPMARKS.COM LLC (2008-02-27) → CLIPMARKS LLC (2008-02-28) → CLIPBOARD, INC. (2012-01-27) → CLIPBOARD, LLC (2014-10-13) → SALESFORCE.COM, INC. (2014-10-15), followed by a further assignment back to AMPLIFY LLC recorded 2014-10-30 — while the "current assignee" field lists both CLIPMARKSCOM LLC and Salesforce Inc. That is inconsistent on its face. Before responding to any assertion, pull the USPTO Assignment record and Patent Center's current-owner-of-record field, and demand the demand-letter sender prove it holds all substantial rights. Missing or split ownership is a routine killer of small-portfolio assertions.

6. Pattern signals.
There is no petitioner history to analyze (no serial filer, no defensive aggregator such as Unified Patents in the chain, no Patent Owner appeal history at the CAFC on this patent). The only "pattern" signal is negative: this is a 2005-filing, 2008-granting software patent that changed hands four-plus times and never attracted a single AIA petition during the entire 2012–2020 window when CBM/IPR activity in this technology space was at its peak. For a patent that was reportedly held by a clip-and-share startup and then a large CRM company, the absence of any challenge is weak evidence about quality — but the absence of any PTAB-proven validity is a real absence.

---

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant and the patent appears expired:

1. Confirm expiration and fee status on USPTO Patent Center (Maintenance Fee / "Expiration" tab). If the term lapsed on 2026-08-10, move immediately to knock out injunction and ongoing-royalty theories, and cap exposure to pre-2026-08-10 damages under § 286.
2. Demand the full assignment chain from the asserting party; the 2014-10-30 re-assignment to Amplify LLC in the record is a standing question worth pressing in a Rule 12 motion or a § 285 posture letter.
3. If they assert past infringement, your validity defenses are entirely unconstrained (no estoppel), so build § 101 (a browser plug-in and frameset-generation system of this era is a strong Alice/Mayo target) and § 103 (pre-2005 clip/scraping and frameset art) attacks for the district court — and consider a parallel IPR only if significant pre-expiration damages are genuinely in play, since IPR no longer buys you an injunction defense you'd otherwise need.

If a proceeding does turn out to exist that the ODP ingest missed:

• Run the following checks before filing anything: PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/) trial-number search by patent number; USPTO Patent Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/) for the "PTAB trials" tab; CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/) for any CAFC appeal from a Board decision; and Docket Alarm / Unified Patents portal for parallel district-court activity. I could not verify these results myself due to search limitations, and I would rather tell you that than hand you a proceeding number I cannot ground.

Trial-stage milestones: not applicable — there is no pending proceeding, so there is no institution decision deadline, no oral hearing, and no statutory 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) one-year FWD deadline running.

Bottom line for a defendant: there is nothing on the PTAB docket for this patent. The absence is itself the signal — and here it is reinforced by an apparently expired term and an inconsistent ownership record. You are not facing a "hardened by two IPRs" patent; you are facing an untested, pre-AIA, broad software claim set whose biggest current vulnerability may be that it no longer has any term left to enforce.

I'll research the assignment history and entity details for this patent before reconstructing the chain.

Let me dig into the corporate history and the assignment records in more detail.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US Patent 7,360,166

Critical source caveat before the timeline. The USPTO Patent Assignment Search / Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov; assignment.uspto.gov) is not directly queryable from this session, and my web searches did not return the reel/frame numbers, execution dates, or correspondents of record for this patent. The dates and conveyance types below are drawn from the Google Patents legal-events table (fetched 2026‑09‑24), which reports recording events, not execution dates, and which does not expose reel/frame or correspondent fields. I have therefore left every Reel/Frame and Correspondent field marked [not retrieved] rather than fabricate them. To complete the record, the examiner should pull the abstract of title at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ for application 11/206,258. Two of the recorded steps below are also internally inconsistent (flagged), so the ownership picture is not fully clean.

---

Inventors

Pattern notes:

• The patent's sibling, US 7,562,287 B1 (application 11/207,177, filed the same day, 2005‑08‑17, issued 2009‑07‑14), lists inventors Eric Goldstein (New York, NY) and Derek Krzanowski, assigned to Clipmarks LLC, New York, NY. Goldstein was Clipmarks' co‑founder/CEO; Krzanowski was Chief Technologist. So '166 names only Krzanowski while the companion lists both — the two patents are one family/prosecution pair.
• Google Patents' assignee profile shows Clipmarks with 2 grants and 2 published applications, sole top inventors Krzanowski (2) and Goldstein (1) (https://www.patents-review.com/assignee/[669778](/patent/669778)-clipmarks-llc-new-york-ny-us.html). This is a small, single-startup portfolio, not a mass-aggregated one.
• I found no evidence that either inventor departed the original assignee within 12 months of the 2005‑08‑17 filing — the opposite pattern: both remained through the 2007–2008 Forbes/Clipmarks→Amplify phase (Goldstein was still publicly identified as Clipmarks' founder in 2012 coverage). No fire-sale-precursor signal.

---

Original assignee

• As issued (73 assignee per the printed patent and Google Patents): Clipmarks LLC, New York, NY.
• Operative entity at filing: The very first recorded transfer (2005‑08‑29) runs from inventor Krzanowski to AMPLIFY, LLC — i.e., the company the inventor assigned into was Amplify, LLC, which was then renamed Clipmarks, LLC in 2008. Google Patents' "current assignee" field simultaneously lists CLIPMARKSCOM LLC and Salesforce Inc, reflecting the 2008 Clipmarks.com LLC name entry rather than a clean final state.
• Product that embodies the claims: Yes. Clipmarks shipped a browser plug‑in/bookmarklet for clipping and sharing selections of web pages; Amplify was the later sibling service for posting clips to social networks. Both were live commercial products. This is a genuine operating-company invention.
• Primary line of business: social bookmarking / web-content clipping (a consumer web service), NYC-based, founded ~2003.
• Current status: The Clipmarks and Amplify consumer services were shut down in February 2012 when their assets were absorbed by rival Clipboard (TechCrunch, 2012‑02‑17; GeekWire, 2012). Clipboard itself was acquired by Salesforce.com in 2013 (~$10–20M) and its service was shuttered June 30, 2013 (TheNextWeb, 2013‑05‑09; BIIA newsletter). The original Clipmarks/Amplify LLC entities appear defunct; their patents now sit with Salesforce.com, Inc. I found no bankruptcy filing for any link in the chain.

---

Assignment timeline

All rows below are recording events per the Google Patents legal-events feed. [not retrieved] = field the feed does not expose and that I could not confirm.

• 2005-08-29 (executed date [not retrieved]) / recorded 2005-08-29 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Assignment of interest (inventor → company)
  • Assignor: Derek Krzanowski (inventor)
  • Assignee: Amplify, LLC
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: founder assignment of the invention into the operating startup.

• 2008-02-21 / recorded 2008-02-21 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: Amplify, LLC
  • Assignee: Clipmarks, LLC
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: internal reorg — startup rebrands its legal name only.

• 2008-02-27 / recorded 2008-02-27 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Clipmarks, LLC
  • Assignee: Clipmarks.com LLC
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: internal reorg/housekeeping associated with the 2007–2008 Forbes Media relationship and the spin-out of the Amplify service.

• 2008-02-28 / recorded 2008-02-28 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: Clipmarks.com LLC
  • Assignee: Clipmarks LLC
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: second name correction within the same 8‑day chain (housekeeping).

  (Patent issues 2008‑04‑15 — no assignment associated with issuance.)

• 2012-01-27 / recorded 2012-01-27 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Amplify LLC
  • Assignee: Clipboard, Inc.
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: asset acquisition — Clipboard absorbs Clipmarks/Amplify (announced 2012‑02‑17; "more partnership than outright acquisition," no employees or tech assets per GeekWire; the patent rights nonetheless moved).

  ⚠️ Contradiction flagged: this 2012 assignment runs from Amplify LLC, yet the 2008 chain shows Amplify, LLC renamed away to Clipmarks, LLC. Either a second, distinct Amplify LLC existed by 2012 (Patsnap shows a Minnesota "Amplify LLC," founded 2003, linked to clipmarks.com), or the recording is a re-record of the operating brand rather than the legal entity that held '166. Not reconcilable from available records.

• 2014-10-13 / recorded 2014-10-13 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: Clipboard, Inc.
  • Assignee: Clipboard, LLC
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: internal corporate conversion ahead of the Salesforce sale.

• 2014-10-15 / recorded 2014-10-15 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Clipboard, LLC
  • Assignee: Salesforce.com, Inc.
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: acquisition by an operating company — Salesforce's purchase of Clipboard (announced 2013‑05‑09) recorded through the LLC; the patent ends in a large public operating company.

• 2014-10-30 / recorded 2014-10-30 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Clipmarks LLC
  • Assignee: Amplify LLC
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: [unexplained / possible re-recording or unrelated interest]. This runs backward relative to the 2012 Clipmarks→Clipboard transfer and cannot be sequenced with the Salesforce chain; treat the 2014‑10 entries as an unresolved overlap.

• 2026-08-10 — Adjusted expiration (term, not an assignment; ≈20 years from the 2005‑08‑17 filing plus PTA). Legal status shown as Active at fetch.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7360166
    2005 : Filed 17 Aug 2005
         : Krzanowski assigns to Amplify LLC
    2008 : Amplify LLC renamed Clipmarks LLC
         : Reorg via Clipmarks.com LLC
         : Patent issues 15 Apr 2008
    2012 : Clipmarks and Amplify assets to Clipboard Inc
    2014 : Clipboard Inc merges into Clipboard LLC
         : Clipboard LLC assigned to Salesforce.com Inc
         : Separate Clipmarks to Amplify record
    2026 : Adjusted expiration 10 Aug 2026

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The only LLCs in the chain (Amplify, LLC; Clipmarks, LLC; Clipmarks.com LLC; Clipboard, LLC) are the operating startup and its corporate conversions, each tied to a real shipped product (the Clipmarks plug‑in, the Amplify service). No "IP / Licensing / Ventures / Holdings" suffix, no registered‑agent address, and the chain terminates at a public operating company. The 2008 LLC steps (2008‑02‑21 / 27 / 28) are a change-of-name / reorg sequence, not an operating→shell migration.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. None of the enumerated asserters (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, Spangenberg entities, etc.) appears at any step. Current assignee Salesforce.com, Inc. is not on any NPE registry. (Note: the 2026 Federal Circuit case Applications in Internet Time v. Salesforce involves US 7,356,482 / 8,484,111 — different patents — where Salesforce is a defendant, not an asserter; and the W.D. Tex. matter concerns "Patent '079." Neither names '166. Do not conflate.)

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR. Correspondent-of-record data was not retrievable (see caveat). This is the single highest-value missing field; it must be pulled from the Assignment Center before this signal can be scored.

4. Cascading transfers — WEAKLY PRESENT, but explained. Two tight clusters exist: three recordings in eight days (2008‑02‑21, 02‑27, 02‑28) and three recordings in eighteen days (2014‑10‑13, 10‑15, 10‑30). Both clusters map to identifiable corporate events (the Clipmarks name reorg; the Clipboard merger→Salesforce sale), not to an assertion-motivated shell cascade, and there are no shared-principal or "clean record for venue" indicia. I score the raw pattern present but the NPE-signal interpretation not present.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. I found no infringement suit naming US 7,360,166 at any date, so there is no 6‑month pre-suit transfer to anchor this signal. The last transfer (2014‑10‑15) predates the present by ~12 years.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 found for Clipmarks, Amplify, or Clipboard. The services wound down by voluntary shutdown/acquisition, not insolvency.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. Salesforce acquired Clipboard for internal product integration (Flake became Salesforce VP/CTO; the team moved to Seattle). There is no evidence Salesforce transferred or licensed '166 to an NPE to assert on its behalf, and no NPE in the chain asserts on anyone's behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at Salesforce — an operating-company holder, not a neutralizer. The patent should not be presumed neutralized.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion (with an explicit definitional caveat).

Justification. The chain terminates at a large public operating company, Salesforce.com, Inc. (recorded 2014‑10‑15 from Clipboard, LLC), through a documented acquisition path — Clipmarks/Amplify → Clipboard, Inc. (2012‑01‑27) → Clipboard, LLC (2014‑10‑13 merger) → Salesforce — and none of the eight NPE signals scores present on the available records: no shell entity, no registered asserter, no bankruptcy, no privateering, no assertion-linked transfer, and no defensive aggregator. The date-driven evidence (the 2008‑02‑21/27/28 name-reorg cluster and the 2014‑10‑13/15 merger-and-sale cluster) is fully explained by ordinary corporate transactions, so the earlier summary's "LLC-heavy chain" is not a troll indicator here.

Caveats the reviewer must weigh: (i) the "assertion" prong of this verdict is unverified — I found no suit asserting '166, so what is actually established is operating-company ownership, not active assertion; (ii) reel/frame and correspondent fields were not retrievable in this session, so signal #3 (repeat correspondent) is unscored; and (iii) the 2014‑10‑30 Clipmarks LLC → Amplify LLC record cannot be reconciled with the 2012 Clipmarks→Clipboard transfer, leaving a genuine gap in the tail of the chain. If, on pulling the Assignment Center abstract of title, that 2014‑10‑30 entry turns out to sit between the Clipboard and Salesforce steps under a common correspondent, re-scoring signals #3 and #4 would be warranted.

Verify at: USPTO Patent Assignment Search — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 7,360,166 or application 11/206,258); mirrored index at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html.

I'll research the prior-art citations on the face of US 7,360,166. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me try to surface the front-page citation list and related prior-art references.

Prior-art analysis for US 7,360,166 — with an important retrieval caveat

Caveat that governs this section (please read first)

The full patent text supplied to me for US7360166B1 is truncated before the claims and does not contain the front-page "References Cited" section. The Google Patents rendering I retrieved reproduces the background, summary, detailed description and figure list, but cuts off mid-sentence in the "Enhanced Assisted Content Selection" passage — it never reaches the (56) References Cited block or the claims. Consequently:

• I could not read 7,360,166's own face-of-patent citation list verbatim, and I will not reconstruct it from memory.
• What follows is built from the closest authoritative proxy I could retrieve: the front page of the sibling patent US 7,562,287 B1 (Goldstein & Krzanowski, issued Jul. 14, 2009, assignee Clipmarks LLC) which bears the identical title, the same assignee, and an overlapping specification, and which does reproduce a (56) References Cited block. Those references are the natural candidate set for '166, but I have not verified they are identical to the list printed on '166's face.
• Because I also do not have '166's verbatim claim language (flagged as low-confidence in the earlier summary section), I cannot cite claim numbers with certainty. I therefore map each reference to the subject-matter of '166 and label the mapping as inferential.

This is a negative/partial finding with explicit uncertainty, not a certified citation list.

---

Candidate prior-art references (from the sibling US 7,562,287 front page)

Source: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/0e/83/9d/c653deac8f6254/US7562287.pdf

U.S. Patent Documents

Other Publications

• Sarawagi, Sunita, et al., "Learning to Extract Information From Large Domain-Specific Websites Using Sequential Models," ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, Vol. 6, Issue 2, Dec. 2004, pp. 61–66. (This is the reference expressly marked with an asterisk as the most material "OTHER PUBLICATIONS" item on the sibling patent.)

Note on scope of this list: These are references the applicant disclosed; being on the face of a patent does not establish that any of them anticipates. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, anticipation requires a single reference disclosing every element of a claim, arranged as in the claim.

---

Potential § 102 mapping to 7,360,166 subject matter (inferential)

Because I lack the verbatim claims, the following pairs references to the disclosed functional clusters of '166 and states whether a § 102 (anticipation) theory is realistic.

Bottom line on § 102: On the evidence I could retrieve, no single cited reference appears to disclose all elements of the '166 disclosure's core "custom selection window loaded directly from original sources" concept, so a clean § 102 anticipation challenge premised on these citations is not supported. The references are best characterized as § 103 (obviousness) background art, with Doyle et al. (5,838,906) and Sarawagi et al. being the two most substantive items.

---

Contradiction / data-integrity flags

1. Truncated primary source. The '166 text I was given omits the claims and the References Cited block — so any statement mapping citations to claim numbers would be fabricated. I have deliberately avoided that.
2. Proxy list. I substituted the '287 front page for the '166 front page. Both patents share title and assignee, but '287 lists two inventors (Goldstein & Krzanowski) versus one for '166 (Krzanowski), so the citation sets are not guaranteed identical.
3. "Patent Citations (38)" figure appeared in a Google Patents page for a citing document (US20100095208A1), not a verified count of '166's own cited references. I have not treated "38" as '166's citation count.

Recommended verification (to make this defensible)

• Pull the face page image of US7360166B1 from patentimages.storage.googleapis.com (the (56) block is on sheet 1) — this is the only authoritative source for '166's own citations.
• Cross-check the same list at USPTO PatentCenter for application 11/206,258 (References Cited / File Wrapper).
• For each confirmed reference, retrieve the claims of the reference and compare element-by-element to '166's actual independent claim(s) (which must likewise be pulled verbatim) before asserting any § 102 position.

I'll first pull the actual prior-art citations of record for this patent, since the prior-art listing wasn't included in the text supplied to me.

Let me try to retrieve the actual cited-references list and any PTAB challenges directly.

Obviousness Analysis — US 7,360,166 B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Inputs, scope, and what I could not obtain (read this first)

Two things materially limit the confidence of everything below, and I am stating them up front rather than papering over them:

(a) The claim text was not in my authoritative source. The patent text supplied to me (and the Google Patents fetch of 2026‑09‑24) is truncated before the claims, ending mid‑sentence in the "Enhanced Assisted Content Selection" description at the word "hierarchic." I therefore do not have verbatim claim 1 or any other claim, and I will not fabricate it. The claim set I analyze in §3 is the inferred claim set from the previously-generated summary, clearly labeled as inference. A §103 opinion is only as good as the claim language, so this analysis is framework-level, not a claim chart.

(b) The patent's own "References Cited" list was not retrievable. I attempted to pull the cited-references/prior-art section for US 7,360,166 specifically. My searches returned the patent's body text, its bibliographic record, and third-party search reports, but not the '166 front-page list of cited U.S. patents/publications. The only "Prior Art section" content that actually appears on the '166 Google Patents record is this:

Prior art keywords: user; content items; selection; content; content item
Prior art date: 2005‑08‑17

I treat those keywords as the page's prior-art section content (as instructed) and build on them, supplementing with (i) the applicant's own admissions in the Background, which are prior art by admission, and (ii) well-known references I can identify with confidence.

⚠️ Flag — contradiction/caution to avoid conflation: One of my searches returned a Unified Patents prior-art listing (for US-11288338-B2, "Extracting a Portion of a Document…," R2/Petnote lineage) that contains many on-point web-content-selection references. That listing is not the '166 record. Separately, the earlier litigation summary correctly warned that US 7,354,482 / US 8,484,111 (the Applications in Internet Time v. Salesforce patents) and the "Patent '079" in W.D. Tex. MO:25‑cv‑00539‑DC are different patents. Nothing below should be read as a finding about those.

⚠️ Flag — date conflict: My operating instructions give today as 2026‑10‑01, while this task states April 26, 2026. The patent record shows an "adjusted expiration" of 2026‑08‑10. Under either date the remaining term is at or near zero, which sharply limits the practical stakes of this analysis and any assertion window. I flag the discrepancy rather than resolve it.

---

1. Governing law and the framework applied

• Pre‑AIA §103(a) governs (filed 2005‑08‑17). Prior art must therefore predate the 2005‑08‑17 critical date — and, for printed publications/public use/sale, predate 2004‑08‑17 to be a statutory §102(b) bar. §102(e) art may rely on an earlier filing date.
• Graham v. John Deere factors: scope/content of the prior art; differences; level of ordinary skill; secondary considerations.
• KSR Int'l v. Teleflex (2007) governs the combination question as of any present-day validity challenge: a claimed combination is obvious where it does "no more than yield predictable results" using known methods; the "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" and "design incentives / market forces" rationales apply; a teaching away, not mere absence of explicit suggestion, is what rebuts.
• Predictable, well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) techniques (e.g., DHTML event handling, HTML framesets, OS window APIs) require no separate reference — they are within the knowledge of a POSITA.

Person of ordinary skill (POSITA): by 2005, a software engineer/developer with ~2–3 years of experience in browser-based (HTML/DHTML/JavaScript) web application development, familiar with HTML framesets, DOM manipulation, browser extension/plug-in architectures (IE BHOs, Netscape plug-ins), HTTP, and basic server-side web application development. This is a low‑to‑moderate skill level; the art is largely integration/application engineering.

---

2. Prior art landscape (grouped by reliability)

Group A — Applicant‑admitted prior art (highest reliability; admissions in the '166 Background)

These are the applicant's own characterizations, usable as prior art without third-party proof:

Group B — Well‑known, pre‑2005 references I can state with high confidence (publicly documented techniques/specifications)

Group C — Specific patent references (moderate confidence; verify against the '166 record before relying on them)

These surfaced in a Unified Patents prior-art listing for a different patent (US‑11288338‑B2), not in the '166 record. They are real documents and squarely on-point, but I cannot certify them as cited art of '166 and their §102/§103 date status against a 2005‑08‑17 critical date must be independently checked:

Bibliographic detail I did verify: the '166 application published as US 2005/0246651 A1 on 2005‑11‑03 (Krzanowski). This is the pre‑grant publication of this very application, not prior art to it.

Net: the true §103 attack on '166 will rest primarily on Group B general knowledge + Group A admissions, with Group C supplying documentary corroboration if those documents' dates and disclosures check out.

---

3. Claim set analyzed (INFERRED — not verbatim)

The numbered items below are my inference from the abstract/summary/detailed description (per the earlier section), not the patent's actual claim language. Each is analyzed in §4.

---

4. Combination-by-combination §103 analysis

For each grouping I state: (i) what is disclosed in the art, (ii) what (if anything) is not expressly shown, (iii) the motivation to combine, and (iv) a strength assessment (strong / moderate / weak / defensible-point).

Ground 1 — The core "Custom Selection Window" (inferred claims 1 & 2)

Combination: C1/C2/C3/C4 (multi-page-in-one-window art) + A1 + B1 (framesets) + B2/B4 (DHTML) + A6 + Group‑B general knowledge.

• Disclosed: Putting multiple independently-loaded pages/regions into a single browser window (C1–C4, B12); framesets with resizable borders (B1); selecting elements in a page via context menu and DOM traversal (A6, B4).
• Difference to bridge: The '166 twist is that the window contains only the user-selected items (not whole pages), with items loaded directly from their original sources and sized to defined percentages, preserving aspect ratios.
• Motivation: (1) A1's admitted motivation — screen real estate and the documented failure of "resize the browser, not the content"; (2) the well-known limitation that frames/tables distort content across resizes; (3) the "finite number of predictable solutions" to presenting a subset of a page in a dedicated window. Setting content to 100% of its frame and preserving aspect ratio is an ordinary CSS/HTML layout choice (WURC). Loading from the original source rather than caching is the default behavior of a browser <img>/<iframe>; the patent itself calls for nothing more.
• Assessment: STRONG. Claims 1–2 read as an aggregation of well-known presentation techniques, and the "independent window with only selected content" is the kind of predictable result KSR treats as obvious. The only arguable hook is the specific proportional-resize behavior, but proportional scaling on resize is conventional.

Ground 2 — Frame division, per-frame toolbars, GoTo This Site/Page (inferred claim 2)

Combination: B1 + A1 + B12 + standard browser context menus.

• Dividing a frameset into sub-frames and dragging a FRAMESET/FRAME border to resize is literally the HTML frameset specification (B1). Per-frame controls are ordinary UI partitioning. "GoTo This Page" and "GoTo This Site" are document.referrer/URL-truncation-to-second-level-domain operations — trivial (WURC).
• Search from a frame using domain + title + keywords is search-engine query composition (A4; C6 for search‑result handling).
• Assessment: STRONG. This is the weakest part of the patent portfolio.

Ground 3 — Server-mediated sharing by unique-ID link (inferred claim 3)

Combination: B8 (redirect/unique-ID tracking links) + A5 (admitted email/IM limits) + C6/A4 (search) + standard XML serialization.

• Disclosed: Sending a unique‑ID URL that a server resolves, redirects, and logs — the fundamental mechanism of affiliate/click‑tracking links since the mid‑1990s (B8). Serializing a page composition as XML is conventional. Server-side generation of a frameset page is ordinary server-side scripting (ASP/JSP/CF, all pre‑2005).
• Motivation: A5 is itself the express motivation — email/IM size, image, and character limits. "Send to a Friend" links were ubiquitous in 2004–05 e‑commerce. The '166 solution — send a link, not the content — is the first thing a POSITA would reach for, and it is the classic §103 "recognized problem → known solution."
• Assessment: STRONG, with one nuance: if a claim requires that the recreated recipient page render in a standard browser without the plug‑in, that is disclosed/obvious given server-side frameset generation (B1 + server scripting). The "senses whether recipient has the software" step is a routine capability-detection script.
• Possible defensible point: the specific content of the Window Definition (frameset + per-frame source + description + keywords) as an interchanged object — but that is a data‑format choice, generally obvious absent unexpected results.

Ground 4 — Content-attribution‑based tracking without cookies (inferred claim 4)

Combination: B8 + B9 + A3 (admitted cookie/web‑bug art).

• Disclosed: Server‑side logging of unique IDs to compile view counts, frequency, and referral/sharing statistics — the core of web analytics (B9) and click tracking (B8). "By whom, and by which messaging method" is simple HTTP header / referring‑URL parsing.
• The "without cookies/web bugs" limitation: A3 shows the applicant knew of cookie/web‑bug tracking. A claimed alternative that achieves the same predictable result (server‑side ID logging) is obvious. Careful: a limitation phrased as a negative ("does not rely on cookies") may not be given patentable weight if it is merely the absence of an old element with no change in function. The patent's own text supplies the reason (privacy objections to cookies/web bugs) — which is a motivation to modify, cutting against patentability.
• Assessment: STRONG.

Ground 5 — Assisted content selection with temporary color-coded borders (inferred claim 5)

Combination: B2 (DHTML mouseover/CSS border) + B4 (DOM) + standard browser context menus (A6).

• Disclosed: On hover, temporarily alter/toggle an element's border; use onmouseover/onmouseout. This is textbook DHTML (B2). Color‑coding by content type (table=green, image=text=yellow) is arbitrary visual design.
• The clever bit: intercepting hyperlink activation on left‑click while the mode is active. That is an ordinary onclick handler returning false / preventDefault() — trivially known.
• The border-implementation nuance: the patent distinguishes (i) relocating/resizing a transparent Border Object vs. (ii) swapping the element's own border property and restoring it. Both are routine; the "Border Object added last in HTML so it lies over all other objects" is ordinary z-order/DOM ordering.
• Assessment: STRONG for element hover-border; MODERATE if a claim is narrowed to the coverage-completion logic for tables/rows/columns (left/top/bottom of the left‑most cell; top/bottom of intermediate cells; right/top/bottom of the right‑most cell) — that is a specific, if mundane, implementation and would need the reference set to show it or a POSITA to derive it, which is straightforward.
• Possible defensible point: the column selection when HTML has no column object ("virtual" COL, TBODY-skipping) — but see Ground 6; XPath + DOM traversal supplies this.

Ground 6 — Dynamic Content Display / Element Address (inferred claim 6)

Combination: B3 (XPath) + B4 (DOM) + B11 (screen scraping/HTML parsing) + B2 (the Border Object of the same system).

• This is the most interesting ground, and the one where the patent's own disclosure helps the challenger.
• "Element Address" table[0]/tr[0]/td[0] is functionally XPath (B3: /html/body/table[1]/tr[1]/td[1]). XPath's explicit purpose is addressing a node for reliable re‑navigation. A POSITA seeking a persistent pointer to a re‑loadable page region in 2005 would first reach for XPath or getElementById — a "finite number of identified, predictable solutions."
• Building the address right‑to‑left by comparing sibling elements up to Body is a direct, mechanical implementation of DOM sibling indexing (B4). Terminating early at an Element ID is using getElementById as an anchor — plainly known.
• Motivation: B11 shows the general demand for refreshing a bounded region of a changing page (stock quotes/headlines — exactly the patent's stated use case). Screen‑scraping tools were commercial products pre‑2005.
• Nuance that cuts both ways: the Border‑Object index correction (subtract 1 when the Current Element is a div whose parent is Body). This is a self‑inflicted complication — the added Border Object is the patent's own artifact. Correcting for an artifact introduced by the same system is at best a design choice / predictable adjustment; it is hard to characterize as an inventive contribution over the art.
• Assessment: MODERATE‑TO‑STRONG. The generic "address + navigate + refresh" concept is strongly obvious over XPath/DOM. A narrow claim reciting the exact right‑to‑left construction order plus the border‑object subtraction might survive as a specific implementation claim, but such narrowness limits its value.

Ground 7 — Weighted-random advertisement selection (inferred claim 7)

Combination: B10 (weighted/roulette-wheel selection) + standard ad servers (B8/DoubleClick DART lineage) + A3.

• Disclosed in full: assign weights to ad↔targeting-item associations; sum matched weights for relative weight; build a cumulative range [1..Σweights]; draw a random number; display the ad in the corresponding sub-range. This is exactly fitness‑proportionate (roulette‑wheel) selection — a textbook algorithm decades old (B10), and weighted ad rotation was standard in ad servers.
• Motivation: Choosing among multiple eligible ads while controlling relative frequency is the advertiser's core requirement; weighted rotation is the obvious, standard solution.
• Assessment: STRONG. Absent a demonstrated unexpected result, this claim group is highly vulnerable. (Note the applicant concedes the goal — "a desirable degree of variance" — which is the definition of randomized weighted selection, not a discovered benefit.)

Ground 8 — Composed text message in a frame (inferred claim 8)

Combination: B13 (desktop sticky notes) + B4 (DOM content insertion) + standard HTML font/CSS.

• Inserting user text into a frame's HTML so it persists with the window is ordinary template/HTML content handling. Typeface/size/color selection is standard rich‑text UI (WURC).
• Assessment: STRONG.

Ground 9 — Always‑On‑Top, System‑Tray, Clipboard link, MRU/History list (dependent features)

Combination: B5, B6, B7 + standard MRU-list UI (ubiquitous since the 1980s).

• HWND_TOPMOST (B5) literally implements a window that "remains the top window irrespective of active window." Shell_NotifyIcon (B6) implements the System Area Icon and menu, including the "available when the browser is not running" behavior. Clipboard copy (B7) is a two‑call OS API. MRU lists are a pervasive UI convention.
• Assessment: STRONG; effectively dispositive against any claim built on these.

---

5. Motivation-to-combine synthesis (the KSR showing)

A single, coherent narrative supplies motivation for all the above combinations:

1. Recognized problem (admitted, A1–A5): web pages are layout-constrained; users cannot view multiple items side-by-side without spawning full browser instances; email/IM cannot carry rich/multi-item content; cookies/web bugs are privacy-toxic; search engines operate at page, not element, granularity.
2. Known toolkit (B1–B13): framesets, DHTML, DOM/XPath, OS window APIs, redirect/unique-ID tracking, analytics, weighted ad rotation, personalizable multi-source portals, sticky notes.
3. Predictable results / finite solutions: each claimed function maps to a single obvious known technique; the claims combine familiar elements by known methods producing no unexpected result (KSR).
4. Design incentives / market forces: portal personalization (My Yahoo, Web Parts), social sharing, e‑commerce comparison shopping, and online advertising all pushed toward exactly these features in 1999–2005.
5. The applicant's own framings are motivations, not inventions: the Background's critiques of cookies/web bugs and of email limits are problem statements that direct a POSITA to the claimed fixes.

---

6. Where the patent is least vulnerable (possible defensible points)

Candidly identifying the counterarguments, since a one-sided analysis is worthless:

1. Dynamic Content Display's full package (inferred claim 6): the specific combination of right‑to‑left sibling-index construction, early termination at an Element ID, TBODY/column special cases, and the Border‑Object index correction, as an integrated refresh mechanism, is the most "system-like" teaching. A challenger must produce a reference or reasoning for the border‑object compensation specifically.
2. Assisted Content Selection's cross‑cutting interactions: simultaneous multi-item borders (multiple Border Objects), row/column coverage‑completion logic, and multi‑row non‑adjacent selection with persistent borders — narrow but concrete.
3. Secondary considerations (must be evaluated, not assumed): Clipmarks/Amplify achieved real commercial use and the patent was acquired (2012–2014) by Clipboard/Salesforce. But (a) acquisition alone is weak evidence of non‑obviousness absent a nexus, and (b) there is no evidence of record I can cite of unexpected results, industry praise, copying, or a long‑felt‑but‑unsolved need tied to the claimed features. The features' crowding by contemporaneous products (portal customization, DHTML annotators, web clipping, screen scrapers, ad servers) suggests the art was moving in the same direction — which undercuts secondary considerations.

---

7. Bottom line

• For the bulk of the inferred claim set (claims 1–5, 7–9, and the dependent features), a §103 rejection/validity challenge is strong. Each element maps to well‑known, pre‑2005 art (HTML framesets, DHTML, DOM/XPath, redirect tracking, analytics, weighted selection, OS window APIs), with motivation supplied by the applicant's own admissions and by obvious market/design pressures.
• The most credible attack grounds, in descending order of strength: (G9) OS‑level features; (G1/G2) core window + frames; (G3) link‑based sharing; (G4) server‑side tracking; (G7) weighted ad selection; (G5) hover‑border selection; then (G6) Element Address / Dynamic Content Display — the last being the only ground where the specific integrated implementation might resist a clean obviousness finding.
• Confidence is materially capped by the two input gaps in §0: I have no verbatim claim language and no verified '166 cited‑references list. Treat the claim mapping as provisional and the Group C references as unverified for this patent.

8. What must be pulled before this opinion can be relied on

1. Full claim text (all claims, with dependencies) — from USPTO PatentCenter / Google Patents "Claims" section. Everything above must be re‑mapped once obtained.
2. The '166 front‑page "References Cited" list and the examiner's cited art / any 1449s from the file wrapper — this is the true "Prior Art section" for this patent and was not retrievable in my searches.
3. File wrapper for appl. 11/206,258 (any §103 rejections and the art overcome) — the most efficient roadmap to the best art.
4. Date verification for Group C references (C1–C8) against the 2005‑08‑17 critical date, especially US 2005/0264694 A1 (published 2005‑12‑01 — §102(e) only if its filing predates the critical date).
5. Term/status confirmation given the 2026‑08‑10 adjusted expiration and the date discrepancy I flagged.

Explicit uncertainty statements: I could not retrieve this patent's claims or its cited prior art, so I have not quoted or paraphrased any claim verbatim, and I have not asserted that any Group C document is cited art of '166. The Group B references are publicly documented techniques/specifications I state with high confidence as pre‑2005 art; if a live search contradicts any date above, prefer the search result.