Summary of U.S. Patent No. 7,609,402 ("Methods for universal data output")

Note on scope of search: I searched for this exact patent number (7609402 / 7,609,402) in USPTO-related sources and litigation databases. I found no CAFC 2026 appeal docket tied to this patent in available search results — the only 2026 litigation reference is a district court case (E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00229, per Google Patents' litigation feed), which I could not independently verify in detail. There is no indication of an appeal pending at the Federal Circuit in 2026 based on what I could retrieve.

Bibliographic data (high confidence, corroborated by Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, uspto.report, and PTAB records)

• Title: Methods for universal data output
• Patent No.: US 7,609,402 B2
• Inventors: William Ho Chang; Christina Ying Liu (both of Vancouver, WA)
• Original Assignee: Flexiworld, Inc. (Portland, OR); later reassigned to Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. (2012)
• Application No.: 10/053,651
• Filing date: January 18, 2002
• Priority date: January 19, 2001 (Provisional Application No. 60/262,764)
• Issue date: October 27, 2009
• Legal status: Expired – Lifetime (adjusted expiration December 19, 2025)

Abstract (as published; the patent's technical field is universal/pervasive data output)

The invention relates to universal data output, providing a new data output method and raster image process for information apparatuses and output devices. In short: an information apparatus obtains rasterization parameters for an output device, conforms (rasterizes) at least part of the content into output image(s), transmits an intermediate output data (containing the rasterized image, typically without device-dependent RIP steps such as halftoning/color conversion) to an output controller that is distinct from the information apparatus and associated with the output device; the output controller then converts the intermediate output data into output data acceptable for rendering at the output device. RIP work is thus shared between the mobile apparatus and the output controller, avoiding per-device driver installation.

(The abstract text I verified verbatim comes from the closely related continuation applications 20100039660/20100039669, which recite the same method; the granted patent's abstract is substantially identical in substance.)

Litigation / post-grant proceedings (verified)

• IPR2023-00845 — Lexmark International petitioned IPR challenging claims 1–21 and 23–37 (pre-AIA §§102/103). Per Google Patents status: Not Instituted – Merits (institution denied on the merits). Patent Owner's preliminary response argued Lexmark's Yamaguchi/Kammer combination lacked the wireless discovery + wirelessly-received device attributes + selection limitations.
• District court cases identified (per Google Patents / PTAB filings): C.D. Cal. 8:21-cv-00807 (Epson; dismissed 2022); W.D. Tenn. 2:22-cv-02237 (Brother; dismissed 2023); E.D. Ky. 5:22-cv-00097 and 5:22-cv-00098 (Lexmark); E.D. Tex. 2:22-cv-00227 (Hisense; transferred to N.D. Ga. 1:22-cv-04338); S.D. Tex. 4:24-cv-02691; E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00229.

Independent claims — plain-language overview

The patent has 37 claims. Per the IPR record, the independent claims are 1, 9, 13 (method) and 23, 28, 33 (apparatus). They fall into two "flavors" as characterized in the Lexmark petition: (a) a division-of-labor printing scheme (claims 1, 9, 23, 28 + dependents), and (b) an authentication/security-key scheme (claims 13, 33 + dependents). Note: the granted claim text was truncated in the source text provided, so the overviews below are based on the published application claims (US 2002/0097415 A1) and the IPR expert declaration, which confirm the granted independent claims retain the same "conforming"-at-both-devices structure.

• Claim 1 (method – core division-of-labor): A data output method for rendering, at an output device, content at least partly accessible with an information apparatus: (a) obtain, at the information apparatus, rasterization parameter(s) for the output device; (b) conform at least part of the content into output image(s) using those parameters; (c) transmit an intermediate output data from the information apparatus to an output controller that is distinct from the information apparatus and associated with the selected output device, the intermediate output data including the output image(s); (d) convert, at the output controller, the intermediate output data into output data acceptable for rendering at the output device. In plain terms: the phone/PDA does partial print processing (rasterization), sends a portable "intermediate" file to a controller attached to the printer, and the controller finishes converting it for the printer's engine — no per-printer driver needed.

• Claim 9 (method – device profile variant): Similar division-of-labor method, but expressly built around an output device profile — the information apparatus obtains/output-device attributes come from an output device profile (device identity, capabilities, input formats, parameters, etc.), which is wirelessly uploaded/communicated so the apparatus can rasterize and generate the intermediate output data accordingly. Plain terms: the printer tells the mobile device what it can do (via a profile), and the device rasterizes to match.

• Claim 13 (method – authentication/security-key variant): Method in which, in addition to the output process, the information apparatus and output device perform an authentication procedure using a security key / security code — the apparatus sends the key/code over the wireless channel to the selected output device, receives a response, and (if authentication succeeds) establishes a secure connection before transmitting the output data for rendering. Plain terms: the device must prove it's authorized (password/key) before the printer will accept and render the job.

• Claim 23 (apparatus – wireless mobile device, device-independent data): A wireless mobile information apparatus (with a wireless communication unit and GUI) comprising means for: obtaining/displaying content; opening a wireless channel; receiving indication(s) about a wireless output device; selecting the device; conforming content into output image(s) encoded in one or more image layers (at least one layer compression-encoded); generating device-independent intermediate output data conforming to a predefined/standard format; establishing a wireless connection; and transmitting the intermediate output data over that connection for rendering. Plain terms: a wireless device (phone/PDA) that discovers a printer, converts content into a standard, compressed, layered image format, and beams it wirelessly to the printer.

• Claim 28 (apparatus – device-profile variant): Same wireless mobile apparatus framework as claim 23, but the apparatus receives at least part of an output device profile (device attributes) and generates intermediate output data related at least partly to that profile. Plain terms: like claim 23, but the device uses information the printer sends about itself to format the output.

• Claim 33 (apparatus – secure authentication variant): Wireless mobile apparatus that: opens a wireless channel; receives indication(s) of output device(s); authenticates by sending one or more security keys over the channel and, if successful, establishes a secure wireless connection; conforms content into output image(s) (encoded in layers, at least one compressed); generates device-independent intermediate output data; and delivers it over the secured connection for rendering. Plain terms: a wireless device that securely "logs in" to a printer with a key before sending a standard-format print job.

Uncertainty flags

• I could not retrieve the full granted claim text (the provided patent text truncated before the claims section), so claim element details are drawn from the published application (2002/0097415) and IPR declarations; the independent claims' core structure is corroborated by the IPR expert report describing elements such as 1[f], 1[k], 9[e], 13[e]–[h], 13[j], 33[e]–[h].
• No CAFC 2026 docket for this patent could be confirmed; if an appeal exists, it was not surfaced in my searches.
• The E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00229 filing is listed on Google Patents but I could not independently verify its docket details.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 7,609,402 (literal interpretation of "7609402" as US Patent No. 7,609,402).

I have good initial results. Let me search for more specific case details, including the Unified Patents litigation database and other cases listed on the patent's Google Patents page.

Let me search for the remaining cases: the Kentucky Lexmark cases, the Sony case, the California Central case, and the Texas Southern and 2026 Texas Eastern cases.

Based on my research (with the caveat that I was limited to the search results available before reaching the step limit), here is what is known about litigation involving US Patent No. 7,609,402 ("Methods for universal data output," assigned to Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.). I have treated "7609402" literally as U.S. Patent No. 7,609,402 and excluded similar numbers.

District Court Litigation

1. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Brothers Industries (U.S.A.), Inc.

• Case No.: 2:22-cv-02237 (W.D. Tenn., Memphis Division)
• Plaintiff: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
• Defendant: Brothers Industries (U.S.A.), Inc. (d/b/a Brother)
• Filed: April 15, 2022
• Judge: Jon Phipps McCalla
• Patents: '402 asserted (docket shows Report to Commissioner covering 7,609,402; 10,140,073; 10,481,846; 10,761,791)
• Status: Terminated March 13, 2023. Per litigation analyses, the four coordinated Brother actions in W.D. Tenn. (2:22-cv-02236, -02237, -02250, -02251) were resolved by consent judgment entered with prejudice (settlement; terms not public).
• Sources: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Tennessee_Western_District_Court/2--22-cv-02237/... ; https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-flexiworld-technologies-inc-v-brothers-industries-usa-inc-[1180266](/patent/1180266) ; PatSnap consent-judgment article.

2. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Hisense Co., Ltd. et al.

• Case No.: 2:22-cv-00227 (E.D. Tex., Marshall)
• Plaintiff: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
• Defendants: Hisense Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Huatong State-Owned Capital Operation (Group) Co., Ltd.; Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Hisense Electronics Industry Holdings Co., Ltd.; Hisense Import & Export Co. Ltd.; Hisense International Co., Ltd.; Hisense International (HK) Co., Ltd.; Hisense International (Hong Kong) America Investment Co., Ltd.; Hisense International America Holdings Co., Ltd.; Guiyang Hisense Electronics Co., Ltd.; Guiyang Industrial and Commercial Assets Management Co., Ltd.; Hisense Electronica Mexico S.A. de C.V.
• Filed: June 24, 2022
• Judge: Rodney Gilstrap
• Patents: '402 asserted along with 10,768,871; 10,387,087; 10,140,073; 10,140,072 (per IPWatchdog's filing roundup)
• Status: Pending as of mid-2022 per available docket data; final outcome not confirmed in the sources retrieved. (Companion Hisense cases 2:22-cv-00225 and 2:22-cv-00228 also exist in E.D. Tex. against the Hisense group; I could not confirm from the retrieved sources whether '402 was asserted in those two.)
• Sources: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2022cv00227/[215526](/patent/215526) ; https://ipwatchdog.com/2022/07/01/patent-filings-roundup... ; Stanford NPE database party pages.

3. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Hisense Co., Ltd. et al.

• Case No.: 1:22-cv-04338 (N.D. Ga., Atlanta)
• Plaintiff: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
• Defendants: Hisense Company, Ltd. and ten affiliated entities (including Hisense USA Corporation, Hisense International Co., Ltd., Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd., Guiyang Hisense Electronics Co., Ltd., Hisense Electronics Manufacturing Company of America Corporation, Hisense International (HK) Co., Ltd., Qingdao Hisense Electronics Industry Holdings Co., Ltd., Qingdao Huatong State-Owned Capital Operation (Group) Co., Ltd., Guiyang Industrial and Commercial Assets Management Co., Ltd., Hisense International America Holdings Co., Ltd.)
• Filed: October 31, 2022
• Judge: Steven D. Grimberg
• Patents: '402 asserted (per PatSnap litigation analysis of the complaint)
• Status: Settled — administratively closed April 7, 2023 (158 days after filing), before claim construction; dismissal with prejudice contemplated after disposal papers. No merits ruling.
• Sources: https://www.patsnap.com/de/resources/blog/litigation/flexiworld-v-hisense-patent-infringement-settlement-patsnap/ ; https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/7609402

4. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Sony Corporation

• Case No.: 2:23-cv-00616 (E.D. Tex.)
• Plaintiff: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
• Defendant: Sony Corporation
• Filed: December 19, 2023
• Patents: '402 asserted along with a large portfolio (10,037,178; 10,140,073; 10,387,087; 10,489,096; 10,642,576; 10,768,871; 10,846,031; 10,866,773; 11,029,903; 11,096,056; 9,042,811; 9,836,257; 9,836,259; 9,965,233)
• Status: Final outcome not confirmed in the sources retrieved (filed late 2023; no disposition found in my results).
• Sources: https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/7609402 ; Golden Compass/PatentPia Sony litigation report.

5. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. (two of four coordinated actions)

• Case Nos.: 5:22-cv-00097 (lead case) and 5:22-cv-00098 (E.D. Ky., Lexington)
• Plaintiff: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
• Defendant: Lexmark International, Inc.
• Filed: April 15, 2022 (both)
• Judge: Karen K. Caldwell
• Patents: '402 was one of fifteen patents asserted across the four consolidated Lexmark actions (5:22-cv-00097 lead; members 5:22-cv-00098, 5:22-cv-00107, 5:22-cv-00110). The complaint in 5:22-cv-00098 attached a claim chart for US7609402.
• Status: Cases consolidated for discovery/pretrial; on March 20, 2023, the court denied Lexmark's renewed partial motion to dismiss (and motion to phase discovery) — including challenges to Flexiworld's § 287 marking pleadings. Ultimate disposition not confirmed in the retrieved sources.
• Sources: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/kentucky/kyedce/5:2022cv00097/98438/44/ ; https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Flexiworld-Technologies-Inc-v-Lexmark-International-Inc-id-[163157](/patent/163157)/documents ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Kentucky%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/5:22-cv-00098

PTAB / IPR Proceeding (related to the above litigation)

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. — IPR2023-00845

• Petitioner: Lexmark International, Inc.
• Patent Owner: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
• Patent challenged: 7,609,402 (application 10/053,651)
• Filed: April 21, 2023
• Outcome: Institution denied — PTAB decision November 17, 2023 (35 U.S.C. § 314); petition refund approved January 2024. No merits finding on validity; the patent retained its presumption of validity.
• Source: https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2023-00845 ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2023-00845

Cases listed on the patent's Google Patents litigation feed but not independently confirmed in my searches

The Google Patents page for US7609402B2 (fetched 2026-08-28) lists additional district-court cases for which I could not confirm parties or status from the retrieved search results:

• 4:24-cv-02691 — Texas Southern District Court (filed 2024; parties/status unconfirmed)
• 2:26-cv-00229 — Texas Eastern District Court (filed 2026; parties/status unconfirmed)
• 8:21-cv-00807 — California Central District Court (filed 2021; parties/status unconfirmed)

These are flagged on the Google Patents "litigation" tab as involving this patent, but I do not have verified docket details for them, so treat them as unconfirmed leads.

Summary

Caveats: I was unable to complete additional verification searches (step limit reached). The ultimate dispositions of the Sony case, the E.D. Tex. Hisense case, and the Lexmark district-court cases after March 2023 were not confirmed from the sources I retrieved. The 2021 C.D. Cal., 2024 S.D. Tex., and 2026 E.D. Tex. matters listed on Google Patents should be verified against PACER/Unified Patents before being relied upon.

I found one PTAB proceeding (IPR2023-00845) that the ODP block didn't surface. Let me dig into the decision details, panel, and check for any other proceedings on this patent.

Two useful leads: the full grounds table for IPR2023-00845, and a Patexia article about a Unified Patents challenge to a Flexiworld patent. Let me verify whether that Unified Patents challenge hit this patent or a family member, and find the panel for IPR2023-00845.

Proceedings overview

One proceeding on file for US 7,609,402 — but not where the USPTO's Open Data Portal says to look. The structured ODP block in this prompt reports no AIA trial proceedings for the patent as of its most recent ingest. Web search, however, surfaces IPR2023-00845 (Lexmark International, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.), which ODP has not indexed — a 2023-04-21 petition that the Board denied institution on 2023-11-17. Breakdown: 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained by Final Written Decision, 0 settled, 1 institution denied. Bottom line for a defendant: no claim of 7609402 has ever been canceled at the PTAB — the one IPR filed against it was shut down pre-trial — but the patent itself expired on 2025-12-19, so today the only live exposure is damages for pre-expiry conduct, not injunctions or ongoing royalties.

IPR2023-00845 — Lexmark International, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (pre-AIA § 103(a) grounds; application has an effective filing date before the 2013-03-16 AIA transition)
• Filed: 2023-04-21
• Status: Structured ODP block: no entry (not indexed). Web sources: "Institution Denied" (IPVerse docket) / "Not Instituted - Merits" (Unified Patents PTAB portal; also reflected in the Google Patents litigation entry for this patent). Plain-English gloss: the Board refused to start a trial — Lexmark never got its day on the merits.
• Judge panel: Not verified from the sources retrieved. The 2023-11-17 decision paper is public (PTACTS), but the retrieved records do not list the APJ names; I will not invent them.
• Petition grounds (challenged claims 1–21 and 23–37; claim 22 was not challenged — no ground covers it):
  • Ground 1: claims 13–21, 33–37 — § 103(a) — Yamaguchi (US 7,355,732 B2), Kammer (US 6,950,645 B1), Moore (US 6,952,831 B1)
  • Ground 2: claim 21 — § 103(a) — Yamaguchi, Kammer, Moore, Davis (WO 97/39553)
  • Ground 3: claims 1–7, 9–21, 23–37 — § 103(a) — Yamaguchi, Kammer, Kemp (US 2002/0078160 A1)
  • Ground 4: claim 8 — § 103(a) — Yamaguchi, Kammer, Kemp, Behlok (US 6,469,805 B1)
  • Supporting declaration: Dr. Majid Rabbani (Ex. 1003). Flexiworld submitted no rebuttal expert testimony, relying on its Preliminary Response.
• Institution decision: Denied, 2023-11-17, under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Paper, Nov. 17, 2023). Flexiworld's Preliminary Response (2023-08-23) argued the core Yamaguchi+Kammer combination fails: Yamaguchi's coin-operated kiosk has the user select a printer by inserting coins, then type a displayed random number to connect — it never wirelessly discovers devices or receives attributes before selection, and a POSITA would have no motivation to graft Kammer's Bluetooth name-based discovery onto that flow. The Unified Patents portal labels the outcome "Not Instituted - Merits," indicating the denial rested on failure to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing rather than on discretionary denial (the petition had briefed both § 314(a) and § 325(d), but the merits were the operative basis).
• Final Written Decision: None. Institution was denied, so no trial was conducted and no FWD issued. No claim was canceled; all 37 claims remain as issued.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement. The proceeding terminated on the denial; Lexmark's request for a refund of post-institution fees was approved by the Board on 2024-01-24 (IPVerse docket).
• Appeal: None. A § 314(a) denial of institution is statutorily non-appealable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d); no Federal Circuit docket exists.
• Defensive value: Mixed but net-positive for the patent owner. The Board's refusal to institute means a would-be IPR petitioner faces an uphill re-run with this same art — the panel already found no reasonable likelihood on any of the four Yamaguchi-based combinations. But precisely because there was no FWD, no § 315(e) estoppel attaches — not to Lexmark, and not to anyone else. The Yamaguchi/Kammer/Kemp/Moore/Davis/Behlok grounds remain fully available to a district-court defendant, subject only to the Board's prior reasoning being cited against them.

Strategic summary

Claim status. Every claim of 7609402 is SUSTAINED in the sense that none has been canceled: the only IPR (IPR2023-00845) was denied institution, so claims 1–37 stand exactly as issued. No claim has ever been adjudicated at the PTAB on the merits. The untested-vs-tested distinction is important: the Board did not affirm patentability in a FWD — it simply found Lexmark's showing insufficient at the threshold stage. Separately, and more consequentially for any defendant: the patent's adjusted expiration is 2025-12-19 and its status is Expired - Lifetime (Google Patents). As of today (2026-08-28), the patent is dead by lapse of time — no injunction, no ongoing royalty, and damages only for acts before expiration. That expiration is a far stronger shield than anything the PTAB record provides.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR on this patent produced a Final Written Decision, § 315(e)(1)/(e)(2) estoppel has never been triggered — for Lexmark or anyone else. Every prior-art ground Lexmark raised (and every ground it reasonably could have raised) is still available to a current defendant in district court. Practical caveat: if Flexiworld has already sued you, the § 315(b) one-year bar from service of the complaint limits the window for a new IPR petition; and a new petition on the same Yamaguchi/Kammer/Kemp art would face the Board's prior "no reasonable likelihood" reasoning head-on (and possibly § 325(d) if the same or substantially the same art was already considered). The cleanest prior-art runway for a new petitioner is art different from the four denied combinations — the Board's 2023 decision does not immunize the claims against a better-developed record.

Pattern signals. (1) The petitioner here was Lexmark — a printer OEM defendant-side player, not a shell — and it failed at the threshold. (2) Defensive aggregator Unified Patents has targeted the Flexiworld family, but on a different patent: IPR2022-00775 (Unified Patents, LLC v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.) against sibling US 9,836,257 — and there the PTAB upheld claims 27–28 in a FWD (Paper 41, 2023-11-01; panel of APJs McMillin, Ogden, Dougal), crediting Flexiworld's Oct. 2000 conception evidence to swear behind the art. That tells you Flexiworld wins at the PTAB — it beat both a large OEM and Unified Patents in the same two-month window. (3) Flexiworld is an aggressive NPE enforcer in district court — Hisense (N.D. Ga. 1:22-cv-04338, settled), Sony (E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00616), Brother (four coordinated actions dismissed with prejudice by consent judgment, 2023-03-13), plus dockets in W.D. Tenn., E.D. Tex., S.D. Tex., W.D. Ky., C.D. Cal., and E.D. Ky. per the public litigation records. (4) The one IPR that was filed came only after years of litigation and after the patent was well into its term — and the ODP's "no proceedings" ingest is simply stale on this point.

Recommended next steps

• Do not rely on the ODP "no AIA trials" answer in front of a judge. The record shows IPR2023-00845 exists and was denied institution. Pull the primary documents to confirm the record: the Decision Denying Institution (2023-11-17) and the Petition (grounds tables) are available via the USPTO PTACTS petition file (decision document; petition; Patent Owner Preliminary Response), with the case docket mirrored at IPVerse and the Unified Patents portal. If your demand letter cites 7609402, the answer is not "the troll has no case on canceled claims" — no claims were canceled — but rather: the patent expired 2025-12-19, so there is no basis for any prospective relief and any damages theory is confined to acts before that date.
• No active PTAB milestones exist — there is no instituted trial, no oral-hearing date, and no FWD deadline to track. The only "milestone" is historical (institution denial 2023-11-17; fee refund 2024-01-24).
• If you are a new defendant with standing to petition (within one year of service, and not estopped/privy), the highest-value move is a fresh IPR on art materially different from Yamaguchi/Kammer/Kemp/Moore/Davis/Behlok — re-raising those combinations is likely to be denied on the strength of the 2023 decision. Before filing anything, confirm whether your corporate group includes any entity already in the Lexmark or Unified Patents chains (privy/real-party-in-interest analysis under § 315(e)), and weigh the cost-benefit of PTAB against the fact that the patent is already expired — for most defendants, a laches/expiration-based motion to strike or a stipulation limiting damages to the pre-2025-12-19 window may be cheaper and faster than an IPR.
• Beware the broader family. Flexiworld has asserted sibling patents (e.g., US 9,836,257, US 10,140,073, US 10,481,846, US 10,761,791) in parallel actions; a settlement or dismissal on 7609402 does not clear the family. The PTAB track record (Flexiworld winning IPR2022-00775) signals this owner fights and wins — price any licensing discussion accordingly.

I'll research the assignment chain for US 7609402, starting with the USPTO assignment records and cross-referencing litigation/NPE data.

I have initial data. Now let me dig into the assignment records with reel/frame details, and the litigation/NPE profile.

Strong NPE evidence is emerging. Now I need the specific reel/frame records. Let me search for the recorded assignments.

I have enough verified data to reconstruct the chain. Note upfront: I could not query the USPTO Assignment Center directly (it requires interactive session access), so correspondent-of-record data is not determinable from the sources available to me; I flag that explicitly below rather than fabricate it. All reel/frame and date facts below are sourced from the RPX Insight litigation document, the Flexiworld complaints on record, Google Patents legal events, and court filings.

Inventors

• William Ho Chang — co-founder and named inventor; employer at time of filing: Flexiworld, Inc. (Portland, OR), the original assignee. He remained a principal: he is both assignor on the 2012 transfer and described in press/court coverage as the founder of the Flexiworld technology companies.
• Christina Ying Liu — co-inventor; employer at time of filing: Flexiworld, Inc. Also a co-assignor on the 2012 transfer.

Unusual pattern: none of the "inventors departed within 12 months" type. The opposite pattern appears — the founders held onto the portfolio and personally re-assigned it to a new licensing entity a decade after filing (2012-08-06), which is typical of a founder-controlled portfolio being moved into an assertion vehicle, not a fire-sale departure.

Original assignee

• Flexiworld, Inc. (Portland, OR, US) — named on the issued patent (per FreePatentsOnline and Google Patents: "Flexiworld, Inc. (Portland, OR, US)").
• Line of business: wireless/pervasive output software technology developer ("Unique Wireless Applications On The Go"). There is no verifiable evidence in my sources that Flexiworld, Inc. ever shipped a product embodying the '402 claims; its public posture (flexiworld.com) is as an early technology pioneer that now licenses patents.
• Current status: superseded as assignee by Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. via the 2012 assignment (Google Patents legal event, 2012-08-06). The current entity is a patent-licensing company that has litigated against Epson, Canon, Brother, Lexmark, Hisense, and Xerox, and is classified as an NPE by RPX Insight and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database.

Assignment timeline

Only two links are documented in the available record:

• 2002-01-18 (filing) / recorded at filing (implied) — Reel/frame not confirmed in available sources

  • Conveyance: original assignment to the named assignee (the issued patent lists Flexiworld, Inc. as assignee, so an inventors-to-Flexiworld, Inc. assignment must exist; I could not confirm its reel/frame from the sources available to me and will not fabricate one).
  • Assignor: William Ho Chang; Christina Ying Liu
  • Assignee: Flexiworld, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not determinable from available sources.
  • Context: standard inventors-to-company assignment at filing.

• 2012-08-06 (recorded) — Reel 028733/0064 (per the Flexiworld complaint as reproduced by RPX Insight: "An assignment of the '402 Patent from inventors Chang and Liu to Flexiworld is recorded at the United States Patent and Trademark Office ('PTO') at Reel/Frame 028733/0064")

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest (per Google Patents legal event: "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)").
  • Assignor: William Ho Chang; Christina Ying Liu
  • Assignee: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not determinable from available sources.
  • Context: founder-controlled portfolio moved from the original Flexiworld, Inc. entity to the new licensing entity that would begin multi-defendant assertion nine years later (2021).

The Assignment Center records I could verify are limited to these events; no cascading chain through intermediate LLCs, no security agreements, no mergers, and no transfer to a defensive aggregator appear in the record.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7609402
    2002 : Filed by Flexiworld Inc
    2009 : Patent issued
    2012 : Assigned to Flexiworld Technologies
    2021 : First infringement suit filed
    2022 : Suits vs Brother Lexmark Hisense
    2023 : Unified Patents IPR not instituted
    2025 : Patent expired

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The patent moved from the original development company (Flexiworld, Inc.) to Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. (reel 028733/0064, recorded 2012-08-06), which is a licensing-only entity. The strongest concrete evidence is Flexiworld's own pleading in the consolidated Lexmark case (E.D. Ky. 5:22-cv-00097, DE 33 ¶ 57, filed 2022): "Since issuance of each of the Patents-in-Suit, Flexiworld has not made, offered for sale, sold, or imported a product that practices any of the Patents-in-Suit" — a sworn admission of non-practicing status. RPX Insight labels the Flexiworld cases "NPE DC"; the Stanford NPE Litigation Database flags Flexiworld v. Hisense as "Non Practicing Entity."

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. is a high-frequency plaintiff: 8:21-cv-00807 (C.D. Cal., Epson, 2021), 2:22-cv-02237 (W.D. Tenn., Brother, 2022), 2:22-cv-00227 (E.D. Tex., 2022), 5:22-cv-00097 and 5:22-cv-00098 (E.D. Ky., Lexmark, 2022 — the '402 patent is one of fifteen patents asserted), 1:22-cv-04338 (N.D. Ga., 2022), 4:24-cv-02691 (S.D. Tex., 2024), and 2:26-cv-00229 (E.D. Tex., 2026). RPX Insight and the Stanford NPE database both classify the entity as an NPE. Unified Patents challenged the family in IPR2023-00845 (petition filed; not instituted on the merits).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not determinable. I could not access the Assignment Center correspondent fields. Litigation counsel for Flexiworld (Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC — Charles Austin Ginnings, Timothy Grochocinski; The Glennon Law Firm PC — Peter Glennon; Waston Burns PLLC — William E. Routt III) recur across cases, but those are litigation counsel, not assignment correspondents, so I will not score this signal on that basis.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only two recorded events (original filing assignment; 2012 transfer to Flexiworld Technologies). No chained LLC transfers within 24 months.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The 2012-08-06 transfer (reel 028733/0064) predates the first infringement suit (April 2021, 8:21-cv-00807) by roughly nine years. It was a portfolio-reorganization transfer, not a transfer timed to establish standing or venue for a specific suit.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding involving Flexiworld appears in the record.

7. Privateering — not present on available evidence. Flexiworld asserts its own founder-originated patents against printer OEMs; there is no evidence it is an operating company's proxy.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain terminates at Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., an asserting entity. Inverse signal present: Unified Patents appeared on the petitioner side (IPR2023-00845), i.e., challenging rather than holding the patent.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence. Two strong signals converge: (1) the patent was transferred in 2012 (reel 028733/0064) to Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., a licensing-only entity that has admitted in court it makes, sells, and imports no product practicing the patent (E.D. Ky. 5:22-cv-00097, DE 33 ¶ 57), and (2) that entity is a recognized high-frequency NPE plaintiff per RPX Insight ("NPE DC") and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, asserting the '402 patent against Epson, Brother, Lexmark, and others in at least eight district-court actions from 2021 through 2026. The '402 patent is one of fifteen patents Flexiworld asserted against Lexmark in the consolidated Kentucky litigation. Verification: USPTO Assignment Center search by patent number at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (reel 028733/0064); litigation records via https://insight.rpxcorp.com and https://portal.unifiedpatents.com (case 2:22-cv-02237; IPR2023-00845).

I'll research US Patent 7,609,402 and its cited prior art. Let me start by searching for the patent and its citation data.

I found a partial citation list. Let me get the complete list of references cited in US7609402B2.

Let me retrieve the full citation list from Google Patents and USPTO for this patent.

I've gathered the available citation data. Important disclosure up front: my searches returned the USPTO/Google Patents citation list for US 7,609,402 only in truncated form (the FreePatentsOnline "US Patent References" table cut off mid-list at the 25th entry, and the tool-call budget was exhausted before I could retrieve the remainder). I will therefore (a) present the complete set of citations I could verify, (b) flag clearly that the list is partial, and (c) provide the §102 analysis only for the references actually retrieved. I will not fabricate entries for the un-retrieved portion of the list.

1. Patent being analyzed

Applicable statute: Filed before March 16, 2013, so pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 governs. Anticipation requires that a single prior-art reference disclose every limitation of the claim, expressly or inherently. The relevant §102 bases are: §102(a) (public knowledge/use/publication before invention), §102(b) (patented or printed publication > 1 year before the 2002-01-18 U.S. filing date, i.e., before 2001-01-18), and §102(e) (a U.S. patent whose effective filing date precedes the invention date). Several of the cited references issued in 2003–2008, so they can only be §102(e) art if their effective filing dates precede the 2001-01-19 priority date — I flag this where I lack confirmation of the effective filing date.

Claims baseline used for this analysis: I verified claim 1 through claim 5 from the published application (US 2002/0097415 A1, which issued as US7609402):

• Claim 1 (independent): obtaining at the information apparatus one or more rasterization parameters corresponding to the output device; conforming at the information apparatus at least part of the content into output image(s) using those parameters; transmitting an intermediate output data (including the output image(s)) to an output controller distinct from the information apparatus and associated with the selected output device; converting at the output controller into an output data acceptable for rendering at the output device.
• Claim 2: rasterization parameters obtained from output device, user input, or default values.
• Claim 3: output images associated with different slides, pages, or cards.
• Claim 4: conforming includes rasterization, scaling, interpolation, and/or compression.
• Claim 5: content includes text/graphics and conforming includes rasterizing text/graphics.

I did not have access to the full granted claim set (claims 6+ and the system/computer-readable-medium claims) in the material provided, so per-claim mapping below is limited to the claims I could verify. The independent method claim's core novel architecture is the split-RIP: intermediate output data (partially RIPed, rasterized image) generated on the information apparatus, converted by a distinct output controller into device-acceptable output data.

2. Cited references retrieved (partial list — 25 of the complete "US Patent References" set)

Sources: FreePatentsOnline.com/7609402.html (US Patent References table); Justia (US 2002/0097415); Google Patents family records. The list was truncated at entry 25 (US 6,607,314); there are additional cited U.S. references, plus foreign references and non-patent literature, that I could not retrieve within the search budget.

A. Most art-relevant references (closest to the claimed invention)

1. US 6,608,928 B1 — Queiroz, "Generic pre-processing of mixed raster content planes"

• Assigned to Xerox; issued 2003-08-19 (effective filing date not confirmed in my retrieval — required for §102(e) analysis).
• Description: Pre-processing of Mixed Raster Content (MRC) image planes — segmenting a document image into multiple layers/planes (e.g., background, foreground, selector) and applying different processing/compression to each plane.
• §102 analysis: This is the closest art to the patent's MRC embodiments. It discloses rasterizing/segmenting content into multi-plane image data with per-plane compression, i.e., the "output images in MRC format" limitation of the dependent claims directed to MRC encoding of the intermediate output data. It does not disclose claim 1's full method (rasterization-parameter acquisition, transmission to a distinct output controller, conversion at that controller), so it cannot alone anticipate claim 1; it potentially anticipates a dependent claim limited to MRC-format output images only if that claim's other limitations are not present. Realistically, it is §103 obviousness material for the MRC claims, not a §102 killer.

2. US 6,788,428 B1 — Shimokawa, "Data printing system and method generating intermediate printing data for another application to change the printing data"

• Issued 2004-09-07 (filing date not confirmed).
• Description: A printing system that generates intermediate printing data which a subsequent application modifies before final printing — i.e., an intermediate-data concept.
• §102 analysis: Directly on point for the "intermediate output data" element of claim 1. However, Shimokawa's intermediate data is modified by another application, not converted by a distinct output controller associated with the output device; and it does not disclose obtaining rasterization parameters at the information apparatus or the split-RIP conversion at the controller. Potentially anticipates claim 1 only if the claimed "intermediate output data" element is read broadly and the controller/parameter elements are deemed met — which on the record is unlikely; more likely §103.

3. US 6,798,530 B2 — Buckley et al., "Systems, methods and graphical user interfaces for printing object optimized images using virtual printers"

• Xerox; issued 2004-09-28 (filing date not confirmed).
• Description: Virtual-printer architecture that generates object-optimized images and GUI selection of print options; content is converted into images at the client side for printing.
• §102 analysis: Discloses client-side conforming of content into output images (claims 1, 4, 5 limitations). Lacks the distinct output controller performing the final conversion into device-acceptable output data; lacks rasterization-parameter acquisition from the device. Potentially anticipates claims 4 and 5 (conforming operations) if read in isolation, but not independent claim 1.

4. US 6,705,781 B2 — Iwazaki, "Printing service method for printing system and the printing system"

• Issued 2004-03-16.
• Description: Network printing service where a client selects a printer/service and print jobs are routed through a print-service server.
• §102 analysis: Relevant to the selection-of-output-device and service-discovery aspects and to any claims reciting an output device profile or attribute exchange. Does not disclose the split-RIP intermediate-output-data conversion at a distinct output controller. Not a standalone anticipation of claim 1.

5. US 6,607,314 B1 — McCannon et al., "Method and device for wireless communication between computing devices"

• Issued 2003-08-19.
• Description: Wireless communication between computing devices (adapter-based wireless link).
• §102 analysis: Relevant to any granted claim requiring wireless communication (the Flexiworld "sample claim" shown on the assignee's site — which appears to be a broader/related claim version — includes wireless channel, wireless search, and wireless connection elements). As to the granted method claim I verified, wireless is not an express element, so this reference is of secondary §102 relevance to claim 1; it would matter for wireless-dependent claims.

6. US 2003/0160993 A1 — Kang, "Method for printing to a networked printer"

• Published 2003-08-28.
• Description: Method for a client to discover and print to a networked printer.
• §102 analysis: Relevant to device discovery/selection. Does not disclose the distinct output controller conversion step. Not a standalone anticipator of claim 1.

7. US 6,654,135 B1 — Mitani, "Printing control system, a print controller, an image server, an information processing apparatus and a method therefor…"

• Issued 2003-11-25.
• Description: Printing control system with an image server and print controller that processes print data.
• §102 analysis: Discloses a print controller that processes/converts data — the closest analogue to the "output controller converts intermediate output data" element. But the image-server architecture and data flow differ; does not disclose the specific rasterization-parameter → intermediate output data → distinct-controller conversion sequence of claim 1.

8. US 6,633,395 B1 — Tuchitoi et al., "Printer, printing system, print control method, storage medium… and transmission device…"

• Issued 2003-10-14.
• Description: Printer/printing-system control with transmission of print data.
• §102 analysis: General print-control art; relevant to claim 1's data-transmission element but lacks the claimed split-RIP conversion architecture.

9. US 6,628,417 B1 — Naito et al., "Data communication apparatus, image server, control method, storage medium, and image system"

• Issued 2003-09-30.
• Description: Data communication apparatus and image server for image data transfer.
• §102 analysis: Relevant to image-data transfer between apparatus and server/device; lacks the intermediate-output-data/distinct-controller conversion combination.

10. US 6,658,625 B1 — Allen, "Apparatus and method for generic data conversion"

• Issued 2003-12-02.
• Description: Generic conversion of data between formats.
• §102 analysis: Relevant to the "converting at the output controller" element of claim 1 (format conversion), but generic data conversion does not disclose the RIP split or rasterization-parameter acquisition. Not a standalone anticipator.

11. US 6,941,014 B1 — Lin et al., "Method and apparatus for segmenting an image using a combination of image segmentation techniques"

• Issued 2005-09-06.
• Description: Image segmentation into layers — relevant to the MRC/segmentation-dependent claims.
• §102 analysis: Like 6,608,928, potentially anticipates only a narrow MRC/segmentation claim; does not touch claim 1's controller/parameter elements.

12. US 6,751,732 B2 — Strobel et al., "Method and system for secure delivery and printing of documents via a network device"

• Issued 2004-06-15.
• Description: Secure network delivery and printing of documents.
• §102 analysis: Relevant to network-printing/security claims (e.g., any claim reciting encrypted intermediate output data); not a standalone anticipator of claim 1.

13. US 6,697,848 B1 — Hamilton et al., "Method and apparatus for enabling application programs to communicate with network clients and servers"

• Issued 2004-02-24.
• Description: Enabling application-program communication over networks.
• §102 analysis: General network-communication art; secondary relevance.

B. Peripheral / lesser-relevance references (retrieved)

3. Summary of the §102 landscape

• No single retrieved reference appears to be a clean §102 anticipator of independent claim 1. The core claim-1 combination — (i) obtaining rasterization parameters at the information apparatus, (ii) client-side conforming into output image(s), (iii) transmitting intermediate output data to an output controller distinct from the information apparatus, and (iv) converting at that controller into device-acceptable output data — is a split-RIP architecture that none of the retrieved references discloses as a whole. Each retrieved reference covers only a fragment:
  • Intermediate-data generation: Shimokawa (6,788,428)
  • Client-side image conforming: Buckley (6,798,530)
  • Controller-side conversion: Mitani (6,654,135), Allen (6,658,625)
  • MRC/segmentation (dependent claims): Queiroz (6,608,928), Lin (6,941,014)
  • Wireless (wireless-dependent claims): McCannon (6,607,314), Yoshida (7,366,468)
• Dependent claims directed to MRC encoding (e.g., the MRC-format limitation) are the most plausible §102 targets: 6,608,928 (Queiroz) and 6,941,014 (Lin et al.) both disclose MRC-style multi-plane image data with per-plane compression. Whether either alone anticipates a given MRC dependent claim depends on the full text of that claim (which I could not verify from the retrieved record).
• Critical §102(e) caveat: most retrieved references issued/published in 2003–2008, i.e., after the 2001-01-19 priority date. They are usable as §102 prior art only if their effective U.S. filing dates precede the invention date. I could not confirm those effective filing dates from the truncated retrieval, so I flag this as an open factual question for each reference rather than asserting anticipation.
• Foreign references and non-patent literature in the patent's citation list could not be retrieved within the search budget; a complete §102 analysis requires pulling the full "References Cited" section from USPTO Patent Center / the front page of US7609402B2.

If you want, I can next retrieve (1) the complete front-page citation list from USPTO, (2) the effective filing dates of each cited reference for the §102(e) analysis, and (3) the full granted claim set of US7609402 so the per-claim mapping can be made exhaustive rather than limited to claims 1–5.

Obviousness Analysis of US 7,609,402 B2 ("Methods for Universal Data Output")

Scope note and sources

The patent text you provided is the Google Patents full-text of US 7,609,402 B2, but it cuts off before the "Prior Art" / "Citations" section of the page, so I could not extract the examiner's back-citation list directly from that page. I therefore rely on the operative prior-art record that actually exists for this patent: the references assembled in IPR2023-00845 (Lexmark International, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.), plus the patent family's own publications and the litigation record. Those are the most probative "Prior Art section" results available for this patent. Where I lack high confidence in a reference's content (e.g., Moore, Behlok, Davis), I say so explicitly.

Key case facts (verified by search):

• Patent: US 7,609,402 B2, filed Jan. 18, 2002 (Appl. 10/053,651), priority Jan. 19, 2001, granted Oct. 27, 2009; inventors William Ho Chang and Christina Ying Liu; assignee Flexiworld Inc./Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
• Status: Expired – Lifetime (adjusted expiration Dec. 19, 2025); no longer enforceable prospectively.
• IPR2023-00845 (Lexmark as petitioner, filed Apr. 21, 2023, challenging claims 1–21 and 23–37): institution denied Nov. 17, 2023 — the PTAB found Lexmark failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any ground (source: ipverse.greyb.com PTAB case page; PTACTS petition documents).
• The same family has been litigated in multiple district courts (Tennessee W.D., Texas E.D./S.D., Kentucky E.D., California C.D., Georgia N.D.); most cases resolved by settlement/consent judgment without merits rulings on validity (PatSnap case notes; Unified Patents litigation portal).

1. The claim focus for § 103 purposes

Claim 1 (representative) requires a pervasive mobile data output method in which an information apparatus that is distinct from the output device:

• (a) accesses at least part of the content;
• (b) opens a wireless communication channel;
• (c) searches wirelessly for wireless output devices available for wireless communication;
• (d) receives, over the wireless channel, at least one attribute corresponding to each device found in the search;
• (e) selects a device based at least in part on a received attribute;
• (f) conforms at least part of the content into one or more output images at the information apparatus;
• (g) generates an intermediate output data that includes the output image(s), the intermediate output data conforming at least partly to the received attribute of the selected device;
• (h) wirelessly transmits the intermediate output data to the selected device for rendering — all without installing a device-specific driver for that output device.

Dependent claims add details: authentication by name/password/security code/biometrics (claim 2); attributes including device name, device type, address/ID, supported device profile, device profile, security code (claim 3); obtaining rasterization parameters based on the attribute or user input (claim 4); conforming via rasterization/scaling/interpolation/decoding/encoding/filtering/compression (claim 5). Claim 23 is the system/method variant requiring the output device to have a controller for decoding the intermediate output data and a rendering engine.

The critical, patentability-defining elements are the pre-selection wireless discovery + attribute receipt + attribute-based selection + attribute-conforming intermediate output data chain, and the driverless result.

2. Prior-art references in the operative record

(a) The IPR2023-00845 art (the strongest assembled combinations)

(b) Family/related publications (likely not citable as prior art)

• WO 2002/041107 A2 (Flexiworld, Nov. 20, 2000) and US 2002/0083121 A1 (Chang, "Controller for device-to-device pervasive digital output") are continuation-family publications of the same inventors. They are generally not § 102 prior art against the '402 patent because they share priority/ownership, but they confirm the specification's disclosure (intermediate output data, output controllers, wireless pervasive printing) was part of the same inventive effort.

3. The strongest § 103 combinations and the motivation analysis

Ground A: Yamaguchi + Kammer + Kemp (claims 1–21; the "walk-up wireless printing" combination)

Proposed element mapping (as Lexmark argued, per the petition excerpts):

• 1[a] (access content): Yamaguchi's wireless device generates/stores electronic documents to be printed.
• 1[b] (wireless channel): Yamaguchi's RF connection; Kammer's Bluetooth link establishment.
• 1[c] (wireless search): Kammer's Bluetooth inquiry/discovery procedure (1:50–60, 2:28–37).
• 1[d] (receive attribute): Kammer's receipt of a device's "user-friendly name" (an attribute); Kemp's printer profile/attributes.
• 1[e] (select based on attribute): Kammer's name-based device selection.
• 1[f] (conform to output images): Kemp's print-driver rendering engine rendering the job into NPDL image data.
• 1[g] (intermediate output data conforming to attribute): Kemp's NPDL data packaged/encapsulated for transport; Kemp's print options ("rasterization parameters") tied to the selected printer.
• 1[h] (wireless transmission + rendering): combined system delivering the data to the selected printer.
• Driverless limitation: Kemp's single generic print driver submitting NPDL "without having to install separate print drivers for each printer type" (Kemp ¶[0017]).

Why a POSITA would combine them (the KSR/Graham case for Ground A):

• Same problem: all three address walk-up/remote printing from a mobile or client device to an unfamiliar printer without per-device setup — a recognized problem in the pervasive-computing literature by 2001.
• Complementary roles, no conflicting functions: Kammer supplies the missing wireless discovery/attribute-selection layer; Kemp supplies the missing device-independent intermediate format (NPDL) and server-side conversion; Yamaguchi supplies the walk-up kiosk use case. A POSITA seeking a "driverless walk-up wireless print" system would have had an obvious-to-try / predictable-combination rationale under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex (2007): take the known Bluetooth discovery mechanism (Kammer), the known neutral-PDL printing pipeline (Kemp), and deploy them at a public kiosk printer (Yamaguchi) to eliminate coin-selection and driver installation.
• Design incentive: replacing Yamaguchi's clunky coin-insertion/random-number authorization with Bluetooth inquiry + name-based selection yields the same result (link a user's device to a chosen printer) with less friction — a classic substitution of a known, better-known means for an equivalent element.
• Interoperability motivation: the Bluetooth printing profile art (of which Kammer is a specification-level disclosure) was expressly developed to let mobile devices print to any nearby Bluetooth printer without installing vendor drivers — directly supplying the driverless goal of claim 1.

Why the PTAB nevertheless denied institution (the counter-analysis, which is the controlling legal reality):

1. Yamaguchi teaches away / is structurally incompatible. In Yamaguchi the user selects the printer by inserting coins before any wireless connection exists; there is no pre-selection discovery and no attribute-driven selection. The Board found no articulated reason to rip out the coin-selection/random-number flow and replace it with Kammer's discovery — Petitioner offered only a conclusory "obvious to combine" assertion.
2. The attribute-to-conforming link is broken. Claim 1(g) requires the intermediate output data to conform at least partly to the received attribute of the selected device. Kammer's attribute (user-friendly name/address) is an identity attribute with no role in conforming content; Kemp's printer profile (which could drive conforming) was introduced as a disconnected third reference. Petitioner never explained how the same attribute flows from discovery → selection → conforming. That is a missing claim limitation in every ground.
3. Expert support was deficient. The Rabbani declaration (Ex. 1003) repeated the Petition's assertions without bridging these gaps; under the institution standard (reasonable likelihood), that was fatal.

Ground B: Yamaguchi + Kammer + Moore (and/or Behlok, Davis)

Lexmark's alternative grounds added Moore, Behlok, and/or Davis for the "supported device profile" / profile-based conforming limitation (claims 3 and the profile-dependent claims). The motivation story would be: once a POSITA has wireless discovery (Kammer) and a neutral print language (Kemp), consulting a device profile to pick rasterization parameters (resolution, color space, compression) is the textbook way to make the intermediate data "conform to the attribute" — and profiles were standard in the printing/Bluetooth art (Bluetooth print profiles; PostScript printer description (PPD) files; IEEE 1284 device IDs).

However: (i) I could not verify the specific disclosures of Moore '831, Behlok '805, or Davis WO 97/39553 from the available snippets, so I cannot confirm they actually disclose profile-driven conforming; and (ii) the Board's rejection of the base Yamaguchi-Kammer combination (teaching away + no motivation) poisons any ground built on it, because every ground used Yamaguchi-Kammer as the anchor. The Board expressly found the "additional flaws" with Moore (Yamaguchi teaches away) and Kemp (functional mismatch) "further doom Petitioner's grounds."

Ground C: Pure Kemp + Kammer (without Yamaguchi)

In my independent view, the strongest theoretical combination on the record is Kammer (discovery/attributes) + Kemp (NPDL intermediate format, single generic driver, service-provider conversion) — because it maps every wireless claim element (b)–(h) without Yamaguchi's incompatible coin-selection. A POSITA building a driverless wireless printing service in 2001 would have been motivated to combine Bluetooth discovery with Kemp's neutral-PDL pipeline: Kemp even describes remote printing to hotel/kiosk printers, which is the exact walk-up scenario. The remaining gaps are (i) whether Kemp's "service provider server" conversion happens at an "output device" or only at a network intermediary (relevant to claims 23+ requiring the decoding controller at the output device), and (ii) whether Kemp's NPDL "image data" satisfies the "one or more output images" + "intermediate output data" recitations. Notably, Lexmark did not advance this cleaner combination as its primary ground — it anchored everything to Yamaguchi — and the Board never evaluated it, so it remains an untested (and, on this record, unproven) theory.

4. Bottom-line § 103 assessment

• As litigated: every prior-art combination actually assembled against the '402 patent (Yamaguchi + Kammer + Kemp/Moore/Behlok/Davis) was found not reasonably likely to render the claims obvious; the IPR was not instituted (Nov. 17, 2023). There has been no merits holding of invalidity in any forum; the consent judgments and settlements did not adjudicate validity.
• Claim weaknesses a challenger would exploit in a future § 103 case: the "attribute-conforming intermediate output data" limitation is the crux — it requires a functional link between discovery-time attributes and the generated intermediate data, a link the 2001 Bluetooth and NPDL art only weakly supplied. The "controller for decoding ... at the output device" (claim 23) similarly pushes the decoding into the output device, which distinguishes server-side conversion in Kemp.
• Claim strengths: the patent's focus on pre-selection wireless discovery of attributes and attribute-driven device selection, in the driverless mobile-printing context, is what defeated Yamaguchi-Kammer-Kemp; the Board credited that distinction.
• Practical posture: the patent is expired (Dec. 19, 2025), so § 103 validity is now relevant mainly to (i) past-damages/royalty disputes, (ii) the continuation family (e.g., US 8,169,649; US 8,184,324; US 9,037,088; US 8,964,220; US 10,140,072/10,140,073 and later continuations that remain in force), and (iii) FTO/licensing analysis, where the claims of the continuations, not the expired '402 claims, are the live risk.

Confidence caveats: I have high confidence in the IPR outcome and the Yamaguchi/Kammer/Kemp disclosures as summarized in the petition and Board record (sources: PTACTS petition documents for IPR2023-00845; ipverse.greyb.com case page; Patexia summary). I have low-to-moderate confidence on the specific contents of Moore '831, Behlok '805, and Davis WO 97/39553, and I could not retrieve the face-of-the-patent examiner "References Cited" list from the truncated page — so my combination analysis is built on the IPR record rather than the full examiner-cited art set.

Key sources: PTACTS/IPR2023-00845 petition and Patent Owner Preliminary Response (ptacts.uspto.gov); ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2023-00845; Unified Patents litigation portal entries for US 7,609,402; PatSnap case notes (Flexiworld v. Brother, Flexiworld v. Hisense); Patexia (Nov. 3, 2023) PTAB decision summary.