US 7628515

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent, including any CAFC litigation.

Let me try a couple more targeted searches to check for any litigation or assignment records.

Summary: US Patent 7,628,515

Source note: The authoritative text I have is the Google Patents record fetched from https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7628515](/patent/US7628515)/en. I searched for USPTO records and CAFC 2026 dockets; I found no evidence of any litigation or Federal Circuit appeal involving this patent. (A search did surface an unrelated Westlaw cite, "2011 WL 7628515" — that is a case citation number, not this patent, and must not be conflated with it.) No results for similar-sounding patent numbers were substituted.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (as issued)

A lamp shade includes a lower support ring, an upper support, a shade body, a plurality of connecting members, and a plurality of support bars. Each of the connecting members is formed with an opening and a protruding straddle portion. The straddle portion of each of the connecting members has an insertion slot and two breaches. Each of the distal ends of each of the support bars is formed with a protruding insert inserted through either one of the two breaches into the insertion slot of the respective connecting member of the upper support ring and the lower support ring respectively so that the insert of each of the support bars is inserted into the insertion slot of the respective connecting member easily and quickly.

Prior art cited on the face of the patent

• US 6,604,846 B2 — Jerry Strickland, "Collapsible lamp shade" (2003-08-12)
• US 2003/0142498 A1 — Lu Chin Lung, "Structure of a foldable lampshade" (2003-07-31)
• US 7,210,824 B2 — Chin-Lung Lu, "Collapsible lampshade structure" (2007-05-01)

Cited by (third party): GB 2,492,835 A — Butler and Gebbett Ltd, "Detachable lampshade frame" (2013-01-16).

Independent claims — plain-language overview

The patent has 17 claims, of which only claim 1 is independent; claims 2–17 all depend (directly or indirectly) on claim 1 or 2.

Claim 1 — A lamp shade with six elements working together:

1. A lower support ring;
2. an upper support ring above it;
3. a shade body (the fabric/cover) spanning between the two rings;
4. a set of connecting members mounted on both the upper and lower rings (multiple on each);
5. a set of support bars, each spanning between the two rings to hold the shade body up, where each end of each bar is inserted into, and can swing within, one of the connecting members (so both top and bottom ends are pivotally/loosely held, not fixed);
6. the key structural feature — each connecting member has an opening and a protruding "straddle portion" located opposite to and facing the opening; the straddle portion has an internal insertion slot; each bar end has a protruding insert that goes into that slot; and the straddle portion has two "breaches" on opposite sides, each connected to the insertion slot, so the insert can be pushed in through either breach.

Plain-language gist: instead of requiring the bar tip to line up exactly with a single slot (the stated problem in the two prior-art embodiments), each connecting clip is a stamped metal bracket with a slot you can slide the bar tip into sideways through either of two side openings, letting you assemble the frame by feel and speed up assembly.

Notable dependent-claim limitations (for context)

• Claim 2: a protruding catch portion at the middle of the straddle portion, between the two breaches, located outside the insertion slot, which abuts the insert — i.e., it retains the bar end and stops it from detaching (this is asserted in dependent claim 9 as the anti-detachment feature).
• Claims 3–8: details of the mounting end of each connecting member — a connecting tongue secured to the ring by spot welding, flanked by two bent reinforcing walls resting on the ring's inner rim to give a three-point contact; the tongue is narrower than the member and is offset from the reinforcing walls and points opposite the catch portion.
• Claims 10–13, 17: geometry of the slot/insert — a sheath-shaped insertion slot, an insert smaller than the slot so it slides left/right and fore/aft (a two-dimensional range of motion), an arch-shaped straddle cross-section, and the slot being connected to the opening and located between the opening and the two breaches.
• Claims 14–16: each connecting member is stamped from a single bent metallic plate, has a U-shaped cross-section, and the connecting members are equally spaced around the rings.

Uncertainty / caveats

• I could not locate any USPTO file-history detail beyond the Google Patents record (no examiner citations beyond the three listed, no office-action text), so any statement about prosecution history should be treated as unverified.
• I found no CAFC 2026 docket, district-court complaint, ITC action, or IPR naming this patent. My searches returned only unrelated matters (e.g., a 2024-1374 Eden Park Illumination appeal, and Headwater Research v. Verizon dockets) — none of which involve US 7,628,515. If you need this confirmed to a litigation-standard level, that would require a paid docket database (PACER/Docket Navigator/Lex Machina), which I cannot reach here.
• Assignee is recorded as "Individual" rather than a company; Google Patents expressly disclaims any assignment analysis, so the true current ownership (if assigned) is not established by this record.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 7628515.

Let me run additional targeted searches on litigation databases.

Litigation Search Results for US Patent 7,628,515

No litigation involving US patent 7,628,515 was found.

I searched for the specific patent number across patent litigation resources (including Unified Patents litigation coverage, CourtListener/RECAP, PACERMonitor, Justia dockets, and general IP-news sources). Nothing indicating an infringement suit, declaratory judgment action, ITC action, or appeal involving the '515 patent turned up.

Patent identification (confirming I searched the correct number)

• Patent: US 7,628,515 B1 — "Lamp shade that is assembled easily and quickly"
• Application: US 11/825,574, filed 2007-07-09
• Inventor / Assignee: Ting-Sheng Lee; original and current assignee listed as Individual
• Granted: 2009-12-08
• Legal status: Expired – Fee Related. Maintenance-fee reminder mailed 2013-07-19; lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees 2013-12-08; patent expired due to nonpayment under 37 CFR 1.362 (recorded 2014-01-03/2014-01-06).
• Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7628515/en

Other proceedings

• No known litigation (district court, CAFC, or ITC).
• No known post-issuance proceedings (no IPR/PGR/CBM attributable to this patent).
• The only US patent documents linked to the '515 patent are prior-art citations, not litigation:
  • US 6,604,846 B2 — Collapsible lamp shade (Jerry Strickland)
  • US 2003/0142498 A1 — Structure of a foldable lampshade (Lu Chin Lung)
  • US 7,210,824 B2 — Collapsible lampshade structure (Chin-Lung Lu)
• It is cited by GB 2 492 835 A — Detachable lampshade frame (Bulter And Gebbett Ltd) — a later patent citation, not a court proceeding.

False positives I excluded (to avoid mismatches on "7628515")

• "2011 WL 7628515" — This is a Westlaw citation to Smith v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. 10-3077-CL (D. Or. Oct. 26, 2011), a bank-fraud/RICO case. The digits coincide with the patent number but it is unrelated to US 7,628,515.
• A Brazilian JUCISRS corporate filing referencing "7628515 MAIS TELECOM EIRELI" — a company registration number, not the patent.

Caveats

• Because the patent is an individually owned, low-profile lamp-shade design issued in 2009 and already expired for nonpayment of maintenance fees, it is unsurprising that no assertion activity exists.
• My conclusions rest on the searches performed; I cannot rule out the existence of a court or PTAB filing that is not indexed in the public sources searched. I found no evidence of any such case, and I have no high-confidence knowledge of any litigation involving this patent from training data either.

Bottom line: To the best of the available evidence, US patent 7,628,515 has no known litigation history. If you need a definitive negative, the authoritative check would be a PACER docket search by patent number and a USPTO Patent Assignment/PTAB proceeding search under application 11/825,574.

I'll verify the structured "no proceedings on file" result with targeted searches before writing the analysis.

Let me run a few more targeted verification searches, since the first query returned an unrelated "…851" patent.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 7,628,515: zero. The canonical source in this prompt — the USPTO Open Data Portal structured record — returns no IPR, no PGR, and no CBM naming this patent, and my independent searches (PTAB petition documents, PTAB E2E/PTACTS, general web, CourtListener) surfaced nothing to the contrary. Breakdown by status is therefore: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0.

Bottom line defensive posture: this is not a "hardened by PTAB" patent — it is an untested patent, and specifically one that no third party ever bothered to challenge, almost certainly because it lapsed for nonpayment of maintenance fees effective 2013-12-08 and is now expired. That gives a defendant an unusually strong hand, but for different reasons than the IPR playbook (see Strategic summary): the winning arguments are expiration, the 35 U.S.C. § 286 damages bar, and chain of title — not a PTAB FWD.

No proceedings exist — and three of the four AIA tracks were never available anyway

Because there are no proceeding numbers to report, I will not manufacture any. What follows is the availability analysis, which is the substantive part of the answer:

• IPR (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319): Legally available. § 311(c) permits a petition any time after 9 months from issuance, and there is no one-year § 315(b) bar absent service of a district-court complaint. The pre-AIA filing date (2007-07-09) is not a barrier; retroactive IPR of pre-AIA patents is constitutional. Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2019). So an IPR against this patent was theoretically filable from 2009-09-08 onward. None was filed, and today the practical incentive is near zero: the patent expired 2013-12-08, and a patent owner cannot amend the claims of an expired patent, so there is nothing to save.
• PGR (35 U.S.C. §§ 321–329): Unavailable. PGR applies only to patents with an effective filing date on or after 2013-03-16. Application 11/825,574 was filed 2007-07-09.
• CBM (AIA § 18): Unavailable. The patent is a lamp shade — not "a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service." Separately, the CBM transitional program sunset on 2020-09-16.
• Derivation (35 U.S.C. § 135): No evidence of any proceeding; likewise nothing in the record.

Search-integrity note (important — do not let anyone conflate these):

1. Patent-number conflation. Several PTAB filings and search hits refer to "the '851 Patent" in the wireless communications art (PDMA/MIMO, March 2002 priority, challenged over Paulraj and Reudink). That is a different patent whose number happens to end in 851. It is not US 7,628,515. I found no petition, FWD, or appeal involving the Lee lamp-shade patent.
2. A distinct hit, US 8,517,585 B1 (Bezel et al.), appeared in an unrelated international search report. Different patent, different number.
3. A case citation, "2011 WL 7628515" (e.g., Smith v. U.S. Bank, N.A., D. Or.), is a Westlaw citation number, not this patent. The prior section of this analysis already flagged this; my searches confirm it recurs frequently and is a trap.
4. The Google Patents record for this patent lists only one "Cited By" item — GB 2,492,835 A (Butler and Gebbett Ltd, "Detachable lampshade frame," 2013-01-16) — and no "Cited By" PTAB or CAFC documents.

Prior-art references on the face of the patent (relevant to any future challenge)

These remain fully available as § 102/§ 103 art because no IPR was ever filed, so no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to anyone:

• US 6,604,846 B2 — Jerry Strickland, Collapsible lamp shade (2003-08-12)
• US 2003/0142498 A1 — Lu Chin Lung, Structure of a foldable lampshade (2003-07-31)
• US 7,210,824 B2 — Chin-Lung Lu, Collapsible lampshade structure (2007-05-01)

Caution: two of these are directed at the same assignee-family/inventor (Lu). Whether the examiner substantively applied them or merely listed them is not verifiable from the Google Patents record — I could not obtain the file history, so treat any § 325(d) "same art previously considered" argument as unassessed rather than assumed.

Strategic summary

Claim status: all 17 claims are UNTESTED, none CANCELED, none SUSTAINED. No PTAB panel has ever construed "straddle portion," "breaches," "catch portion," "three-point contact," or "two-dimensional direction," and no claim has been canceled by the Board. That cuts both ways: a defendant cannot point to a FWD and say "claim 1 is dead," but the patent owner equally cannot point to a FWD survivor and claim the claims are "PTAB-hardened." The absence of any IPR on an unremarkable, individual-owned mechanical lamp-shade patent with a 2007 priority date is unsurprising and is itself the signal — well-asserted patents with commercial value attract IPRs; this one never did, and it lapsed in 2013.

Estoppel landscape: clean. There is no § 315(e)(2) IPR estoppel and no § 325(e)(2) PGR estoppel against any party, because no trial was ever instituted. A defendant today therefore retains the full invalidity toolbox — § 102 anticipation and § 103 obviousness on patents and printed publications; plus the grounds the PTAB cannot reach: § 112 written description/enablement/definiteness, § 101, the pre-AIA on-sale and public-use bars, prior public use, and inequitable conduct. Two procedural levers, though, cut the other way if anyone files now: (i) the new Director-centric institution policy (Squires memorandum, 2025-10-16) concentrates institution in the Director, and (ii) the "settled expectations" doctrine (Stewart memorandum, 2025-03-26; Acting Director decisions from June–July 2025) makes a patent in force for six or more years a strong candidate for discretionary denial. A 2007-filing patent that expired in 2013 would likely be denied on settled-expectations grounds — and note that expiry for nonpayment of maintenance fees is itself one of the listed reasons for overcoming the settled-expectations presumption (cf. Globus Medical v. Spinologik, June 2025). Either way, institution is a poor bet.

Pattern signals: none. No repeat petitioner, no multi-petition campaign, no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents, RPX, or similar) involvement anywhere in the record, no Patent Owner appeal to the Federal Circuit, and no Director Review. The patent's entire public footprint is: filed 2007-07-09, issued 2009-12-08, maintenance-fee reminder 2013-07-19, lapse 2013-12-08, expiration 2014-01-28, and a single third-party GB citation. That is the profile of a dormant, abandoned asset.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant and received a demand letter citing this patent, the PTAB is not your lead argument — expiration is. Per the record at Google Patents, the patent lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees effective 2013-12-08 (REM I 2013-07-19; LAPS 2013-12-08; STCH 2014-01-03/2014-01-06; FP lapse effective 2013-12-08; expiration 2014-01-28). There is no FWD to quote, because no proceeding exists. Instead:
   • Verify no revival occurred. The record shows no petition to accept delayed payment and no revival event, but confirm this in USPTO Patent Center before relying on it — that is the single most important factual check, and I could not fully verify the absence of a revival petition from the sources available to me.
   • If unrecovered, all accused acts after 2013-12-08 are non-infringing (no subsisting patent right), and any suit filed today (2026-10-01) is time-barred as to all acts under 35 U.S.C. § 286, since the last conceivable infringing act occurred more than six years before filing.
   • Demand an explanation and preserve a § 285 exceptional-case / Rule 11 record.
2. Pull the file history. The Google Patents record gives no office-action text and no examiner-citation detail; ODP/Patent Center will show whether the Strickland and Lu references were substantively applied. That determines whether a § 325(d) argument exists if anyone were to contemplate a proceeding.
3. Verify chain of title. Google Patents records the assignee as "Individual" (Ting-Sheng Lee) and expressly disclaims any assignment analysis. Before negotiating, confirm via USPTO Assignment / Patent Center that no assignment or other transfer confers standing on the asserting party — a demand from a non-owner is a fast, cheap disposal.
4. If you nonetheless want a Board proceeding (e.g., to build an estoppel or clearing record): only IPR or ex parte reexamination are open. PGR is barred by the 2007 filing date; CBM is both substantively inapplicable and time-barred by the 2020-09-16 sunset. Statutory timing for any IPR: institution decision due within 6 months of the preliminary-response deadline, trial completed within 1 year of institution (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)); but expect a discretionary-denial fight given the patent's age and expired status — and recognize that an expired patent offers the patent owner no amendment path, which is precisely why nobody filed one.
5. Sanity-check any adverse assertion against the record yourself: Google Patents record, USPTO PTAB E2E / PTACTS, USPTO PTAB Decisions, CourtListener. The absence of a single PTAB or CAFC document for this patent is itself confirmable in under a minute on E2E by searching application 11/825,574.

Caveat. I searched public web sources, PTAB petition documents, and the structured ODP data provided. I cannot reach PACER/Docket Navigator/Lex Machina or the full ODP API from here, so I cannot give a litigation-standard negative on district-court activity — but on AIA trial proceedings specifically, the answer is a confident zero, corroborated by the structured source and by the fact that the patent expired before any challenger had a financial reason to act.

I'll investigate the assignment records and cross-reference sources for this patent.

Let me try several more targeted approaches.

I'll research the prior-art references cited on the face of US 7,628,515 and verify the patent's USPTO record.

Let me verify the bibliographic details of the cited references more precisely.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 7,628,515 B1

0. Scope and sourcing note

Per the task, I looked up the record for US 7,628,515 specifically (not a similar number). The USPTO-derived record is reproduced at:

• https://patents.google.com/patent/US7628515/en (authoritative text supplied)
• https://patents.justia.com/patent/[7628515](/patent/7628515) (mirror of the USPTO grant, same three citations)

Important limitation: the only prior-art references on the face of this patent are the three listed below (confirmed in both records). I was unable to retrieve the underlying PatentCenter/IFW file wrapper (e.g., any separate IDS or examiner's non-patent-literature citations) within this session, so I cannot rule out additional references that may exist in the file history but are not reflected on the printed patent. Everything below is grounded in the printed citations and the references' own disclosures.

Because the patent's filing/priority date is 2007-07-09, all three cited references (all published/granted 2003–2007) qualify as prior art — the 2003 references under §102(b) (more than one year before filing) and the 2007 reference under §102(a) (patented before the '515 filing, though less than one year prior, so not §102(b) as a patent; its pre-grant publication is separately available).

---

1. The three references cited on the face of US 7,628,515

Note on #2: US 2003/0142498 A1 is the pre-grant publication of the same Lu application that issued as US 6,652,126 B2 ("Structure of a foldable lampshade," granted 2003-11-25, filed May 6, 2002). Google Patents cites the publication; the patent is cited elsewhere in the record. Both are the same disclosure.

---

2. Reference-by-reference detail and §102 analysis

Reference 1 — US 6,604,846 B2 (Strickland), "Collapsible lamp shade"

Citation: US 6,604,846 B2; Appl. No. 09/854,443; filed 2001-05-14; granted 2003-08-12; inventor Jerry Strickland; U.S. Cl. 362/352; original assignee none (individual). Class F21V 1/06.
Source: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/CCL-135-33.4.html ; inventor record at https://radaris.com/f/Jerry/Strickland/Inventor

Description (from its claim 1 and abstract): A selectively collapsible lamp shade with an upper ring, a lower ring, a shade portion (closed loop of material) stretched between them, and a series of removably mountable struts extending between the rings. The rings are formed with a series of circumferentially spaced retainers; the struts have nibs at each end, and each nib is fitted into a retainer, with the respective strut end "resting on top of a respective retainer." The struts are pre-formed to define the shade profile. Additional dependent claims cover piping strips on the shade portion and pre-shaping of the struts.

§102 analysis vs. claim 1 of '515 (element map):

Anticipation conclusion: US 6,604,846 discloses the general lamp-shade architecture of claim 1 (two rings, shade body, ring-mounted fittings, insert-ended support bars) but does not disclose the characterizing "straddle portion with an insertion slot and two side breaches" structure. Because anticipation requires a single reference disclosing each and every element as arranged in the claim, this reference does not anticipate claim 1, and therefore cannot anticipate any of dependent claims 2–17 (all of which incorporate claim 1's straddle/breach structure by dependency). It is, however, the closest cited reference on the generic combination and would be a primary reference in a §103 combination.

---

Reference 2 — US 2003/0142498 A1 (Lu), "Structure of a foldable lampshade" (= US 6,652,126 B2)

Citation: US 2003/0142498 A1, published 2003-07-31 (TW priority 2002-01-25; US filed 2002-05-06); issued as US 6,652,126 B2, 2003-11-25; inventor Chin Lung Lu (Taipei, TW); IPC F21V 1/06.
Source: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/85/4a/9a/36bf0d84e88f0c/US6652126.pdf

Description (abstract + spec): A foldable lampshade with upper and lower securing rings, an outer shade connecting them, and one or more detachable supporting frames (ribs). A connection end of the upper securing ring is provided with a snap slot for connection with a snap plate; one end of the supporting frame is mounted to the lower securing ring. The stated object is to allow the shade to be folded/stacked to minimum size and to avoid frame shadows on the shade cover.

§102 analysis vs. claim 1 of '515:

• Discloses: lower ring, upper ring, shade body between them, detachable support frames mounted between the rings, and a slot-and-snap connection at the ring.
• Does not disclose: a connecting member formed with an opening plus a protruding straddle portion facing the opening; an arch-shaped straddle portion with an internal sheath-shaped insertion slot; two breaches on opposite sides each connected to the slot; or insertion of a bar's protruding insert through either breach. Lu instead uses a snap-slot/snap-plate engagement.

Anticipation conclusion: No anticipation of claim 1, and thus no anticipation of claims 2–17. This reference is material to the frame/slot concept generally but does not meet the two-breach straddle limitation that defines the '515 invention over the prior art.

---

Reference 3 — US 7,210,824 B2 (Chin-Lung Lu), "Collapsible lampshade structure"

Citation: US 7,210,824 B2, granted 2007-05-01; pre-grant publication US 2006/0109659 A1; Google Patents lists priority 2004-11-10; inventor Chin-Lung Lu (Shu Lin City, Taipei Hsien, TW); CPC F21V 1/06.
Source: https://www.patents-review.com/a/20060109659-collapsible-lampshade-structure.html

Description (abstract): A collapsible lampshade structure with an upper fixing ring having a plurality of engaging members, a lower fixing ring having a plurality of engaging seats and two pairs of tubular members, and a plurality of resilient ribs each having a projection at its upper end and two pins at its lower end, detachably connected between the engaging members of the upper ring and the engaging seats of the lower ring; plus two curved rods with recesses and a retainer with two hooks for locking the frame. (This is the same Lu line as Reference 2 — engaging members/engaging seats — with added locking-rod structure.)

§102 analysis vs. claim 1 of '515:

• Discloses: upper ring with engaging members, lower ring with engaging seats, ribs detachably connecting the rings, the rib ends having a projection (upper) and pins (lower) that engage the ring fittings.
• Does not disclose: the opening + protruding straddle portion geometry; an internal insertion slot distinct from the engaging members; two breaches on opposite sides connected to the slot; or insertion through either breach. The connection is a pin-in-hole / projection-in-hole engagement.

Anticipation conclusion: No anticipation of claim 1 or of claims 2–17. As with References 1–2, it discloses a subset of claim-1 elements but not the distinguishing straddle/breach structure.

---

3. Bottom line on §102

No single one of the three references cited on the face of US 7,628,515 anticipates any of claims 1–17. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim, and its distinguishing limitation — the connecting member's "protruding straddle portion … facing the opening," with an internal insertion slot and "two breaches formed on two opposite sides … each connected to the insertion slot," permitting the bar insert to be pushed in through either breach — is not disclosed by any of US 6,604,846, US 2003/0142498/US 6,652,126, or US 7,210,824 as far as the record shows. Since every dependent claim (2–17) incorporates that structure by dependency, none is anticipated either.

The three references are nonetheless the most relevant prior art of record and would be the natural basis for a §103 obviousness combination, with US 6,604,846 (Strickland) supplying the two-ring/shade/insert-ended-strut architecture and the Lu references supplying detachable ring-mounted barb/slot fittings.

Claim-element overlap (what each reference does teach toward claim 1): Strickland = rings + shade + retainers + nib-ended struts; Lu '498 = rings + shade + detachable frames + ring slot/snap fitting; Lu '824 = rings + engaging members/seats + rib-end projection/pin fittings. None teaches the two-breach straddle.

---

4. Two adjacent items not to be confused with §102 prior art

1. GB 2,492,835 A — "Detachable lampshade frame," Butler and Gebbett Ltd, priority 2011-07-14, published 2013-01-16. This is a forward citation (it cites the '515 patent). Because it postdates the '515 priority date (2007-07-09), it is not prior art to US 7,628,515 and must not be treated as a §102 reference.
2. The two "conventional lamp shade" embodiments in the '515 specification itself (FIGS. 10–15, slot "A3"/insert "B2"; and FIGS. 16–21, locking boss "A4"/locking groove "B3"). These are described as prior art in the background section (see the authoritative text) but are not identified by patent number and are not among the three face citations. They are the closest structurally, since the '515 patent frames its invention as an improvement over exactly these, but they cannot be cited as a specific §102 reference without locating the corresponding patent(s)/publication(s).

---

5. Caveats

• I could not open the USPTO IFW/PatentCenter file wrapper in this session; the citation list is limited to the three references printed on the granted patent and reproduced in the Google/Justia records. An authoritative exhaustive prior-art list would require a PatentCenter document search under App. 11/825,574.
• Dates are taken from the cited records: US 6,604,846 (filed 2001-05-14, granted 2003-08-12); US 2003/0142498 A1 (published 2003-07-31; TW priority 2002-01-25); US 7,210,824 B2 (granted 2007-05-01; Google-listed priority 2004-11-10). The exact US filing date of the '824 application and the publication date of its pre-grant publication US 2006/0109659 A1 should be verified if precision matters, since I did not confirm them to a litigation standard.
• The §102 conclusions above reflect a claim-element/prior-art comparison based on the printed disclosures; they are technical analysis, not a legal opinion.

I'll pull details on the face-of-the-patent references so the obviousness analysis rests on what each reference actually discloses.

Let me pull the two Lu references and the Strickland reference in more detail, since these are the face-of-patent citations that matter for §103.

Obviousness Analysis — US 7,628,515 B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Builds on: the patent summary and litigation summary previously generated (bibliographic data, claim 1 overview, dependent-claim notes, and the "no known litigation" finding are not repeated here). This section uses the Prior Art section of the patent page — i.e., the references cited on the face of US 7,628,515 — plus the applicant-admitted prior art in the specification.

---

1. Framework and governing law

• Statute: Application 11/825,574 was filed 2007-07-09, i.e., before the AIA first-inventor-to-file date of 2013-03-16. Pre-AIA § 103(a) governs, as construed by Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
• All three face-of-patent references are pre-2006 printed publications (2003 and earlier), so each qualifies as § 102(b) prior art. No priority or 102(e) date games are needed.
• Applicant-Admitted Prior Art ("AAPA"): the "conventional lamp shade" embodiments described in the Background and depicted in FIGS. 10–21 of the '515 patent are admissions usable as prior art. In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566 (CCPA 1975); Riverwood Int'l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003); MPEP § 2129.
• The GB reference is not prior art. GB 2 492 835 A (Butler and Gebbett Ltd, "Detachable lampshade frame") has a 2011-07-14 priority date and is a citing document ("Cited By"), not a citation. It post-dates the '515 filing and cannot be used in any § 102/§ 103 ground.

Caveat I want stated up front: the Google Patents record available to me contains no office-action text. The three references appear in the "Patent Citations" table, and the table legend distinguishes examiner citations (*) from third-party citations (†); the raw markup I received is ambiguous as to which asterisk convention applied to each row. I therefore treat them as references cited on the face of the patent / considered during prosecution, but I cannot verify whether they were examiner-applied or IDS-submitted, nor whether any rejection was overcome. Nothing in the record establishes that the examiner distinguished these references on the merits of the "two breaches" feature.

---

2. Person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

For this art — stamped-sheet-metal collapsible lampshade frames classified in F21V 1/02, 1/06 and F21V 17/007 — a POSITA would be a mechanical designer or tooling engineer with 2–4 years of experience in lamp-shade/frame hardware, or a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering or equivalent, and familiarity with sheet-metal stamping, spot welding, and snap/slot retention. The field is a predictable mechanical art (Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, IPR2016-01828, 2017 WL 1242973, at *5, citing Bilstad v. Wakalopulos, 386 F.3d 1116, 1126 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) — the classic KSR condition favoring a finding of obviousness.

---

3. What each reference actually discloses

3.1 US 6,604,846 B2 — Strickland, "Collapsible lamp shade" (2003-08-12)

Claim 1 (verified text): upper ring; lower ring; shade portion "circumscribing said framework"; "a series of removably mountable struts… extending between said lower ring and said upper ring"; "said rings being formed with a series of circumferentially spaced retainers, said struts having nibs at each end thereof, and said nibs being fitted into said retainers and a respective end of each strut resting on top of a respective retainer." Specification ¶¶ [0021]–[0027]: retainers 25 may be loops 27 of fabric, plastic or metal formed as part of the upper/lower supports; struts 21 are flat spring-steel straps; struts are "circumferentially equidistant"; struts are fully removable and nestable.

Maps to '515: elements (a)–(e) (rings, shade body, retainers/connecting members on both rings, removable transverse struts with end nibs), and element being equidistant (claim 16). Does not disclose a "straddle portion," "insertion slot," or "breaches."

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6604846B2](/patent/US6604846B2)/en and the printed claim text at https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/[5705037](/patent/5705037)/FID867/OG/html/1273-2/us06604846-20030812.html

3.2 US 6,652,126 B2 / US 2003/0142498 A1 — Lu (Chin Lung), "Structure of a foldable lampshade" (2003-07-31 / 2003-11-25)

"The foldable lampshade comprises an upper and a lower securing ring, an outer shade for connecting the upper and the lower securing ring, and one or more supporting frame… the supporting frame is detachable and/or mountable with the securing rings… A connection end of the upper securing ring is provided with a snap slot for connection with the snap plate provided on the upper securing ring. One end of the supporting frame is mounted to the lower securing ring." Embodiment: upper ring 2 with snap plate 21; lower ring 3 with securing plate 31; supporting frame 4 with snap slot 41 at one end and securing hole 42 at the other; the frame is dismantled by separating snap slot 41 from snap plate 21.

Maps to '515: rings, shade body, connecting members (snap plate / securing plate) on both rings, support bars detachably mounted at both ends, and a snap engagement retention concept (relevant to claim 2's catch portion and claim 9's anti-detachment feature).

Source: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/85/4a/9a/36bf0d84e88f0c/US6652126.pdf

3.3 US 7,210,824 B2 — Chin-Lung Lu, "Collapsible lampshade structure" (2007-05-01)

Claim 1: "an upper fixing ring provided with a plurality of engaging members; a lower fixing ring provided with a plurality of engaging seats…; and a plurality of resilient ribs each having a projection at an upper end thereof and two pins at a lower end thereof, said ribs being detachably connected between said engaging members… and said engaging seats…." Disclosure: each engaging member 11 is an inverted U-shaped member formed with an outwardly extending trapezoid lug 12 having a hole; each engaging seat 31 has two side flanges 32 each having a hole 33 for receiving a pin 21 at the lower rib end; the rib's projection 22 engages the hole of the trapezoid lug; a related embodiment uses a ball-shaped element on the engaging member with a mating recess on the rib.

Maps to '515: rings, cloth hood/shade body, connecting members on both rings, ribs spanning between them, both ribs ends captured in connecting members with a pivotal/swingable relationship (two pins 21 in holes 33 = a hinge axis; projection 22 in a lug hole = rotatable), and a positive retention feature (projection-in-hole; ball-and-recess). The inverted U-shaped engaging member is the closest thing in the cited art to the claimed "straddle portion," and the two side flanges each with a hole 33 is the closest thing to structure in which an insert is captured from opposite lateral sides.

Source: https://www.patents-review.com/a/20060109659-collapsible-lampshade-structure.html

3.4 Applicant-Admitted Prior Art (FIGS. 10–15 and 16–21 of the '515 patent)

Per the '515 Background, both admitted embodiments comprise a lower support ring C, an upper support ring A, lower connecting members C1 on the lower ring and upper connecting members A2 on the upper ring, and support bars B. FIGS. 10–15: upper connecting member A2 formed with a slot A3, bar B with insert B2 inserted into slot A3; lower member C1 has a clamping portion C2 with pivot holes C3, and bar B has pivot stubs B1 pressed into C3 — i.e., explicit double-ended, swingable mounting into connecting members on both rings. FIGS. 16–21: upper connecting member A2 with a locking boss A4, bar upper end with a locking groove B3 snapped onto A4.

Maps to '515: elements (a)–(e) essentially in full, plus a slot in a connecting member into which a bar-end insert is inserted. What the AAPA does not show is the claimed "two breaches on two opposite sides of the straddle portion, each connected to the insertion slot."

Flagged internal inconsistency (not a claim-construction issue, but a specification defect): the '515 Background's second prior-art paragraph (the FIG. 16–21 embodiment with locking boss A4 and locking groove B3) ends by reciting the first embodiment's problem — that "the insert 'B2' … cannot be inserted into the slot 'A3' …." That sentence duplicates the first paragraph and does not describe the locking-boss embodiment. Anyone relying on the '515's own characterization of the second prior-art form should treat that passage as a drafting error.

---

4. Claim 1 — element-by-element mapping

Assessment: claim 1 is anticipated by the AAPA except for the "two breaches" limitation, and every element other than that limitation is squarely present in 7,210,824 read against the AAPA. The only substantive point of novelty is the provision of lateral access openings in the straddle wall so the insert can be introduced sideways.

---

5. Proposed grounds of rejection

Ground 1 (primary): Claims 1–17 obvious over US 7,210,824 in view of the AAPA and US 6,604,846

1. 7,210,824 discloses every element of claim 1 except the "two breaches," including the inverted U-shaped (i.e., straddle) engaging member 11 and a bar-end projection/pin captured in cooperating holes.
2. The AAPA supplies a slot in a connecting member receiving a bar-end insert and swingable two-ended mounting.
3. The breach feature is supplied by 7,210,824's own engaging seat 31 with two opposite side flanges 32 each having a hole 33, which the reference itself uses as the alternate, laterally-open capture structure for the same rib pins in the same device. A POSITA reading 7,210,824 would see that the patentee already treated side-entry capture and axial slot capture as interchangeable, functionally equivalent retention modes within one lampshade frame — the strongest possible KSR "known technique / obvious alternative" rationale.

Motivation to combine: explicit and direct. (i) The stated purpose of all three references and of the AAPA is the same: a lampshade frame that assembly-by-end-user is simple, quick, and alignment-tolerant (7,210,824: "easily assembled… and dismantled"; 6,652,126: "facilitating its transporting"; 6,604,846: struts "pre-formed to define the shape of the shade and inhibit improper installation"). (ii) The '515 patent's own statement of the problem — that the bar insert "cannot be inserted into the slot … easily and conveniently" unless it "exactly aligns" — is precisely the problem of a blind, single-axis insertion. (iii) Providing a second/opposing entry path is one of a small, finite set of predictable solutions (front-only, side-only, or both); KSR holds that "obvious to try" applies where there is "a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions."
4. Reasonable expectation of success: the modification requires only adding a second open side to an already-open stamped U-channel. It is a pure geometry change in a predictable art with no new mechanism, no change in principle of operation, and no untested technology. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (combination of known elements according to known methods, yielding no more than predictable results, is obvious).

Ground 2: Claim 1 obvious over US 6,604,846 in view of US 7,210,824

6,604,846 provides rings, shade body, retainers on both rings, and removable pre-shaped struts with end nibs seated in the retainers — i.e., the whole frame architecture. 7,210,824 supplies the stamped U-shaped/straddle connecting-member form with a slot and lateral capture structure. Motivation: 6,604,846's retainer is expressly disclosed as an optional loop 27 "of fabric, plastic or metal" attached to the support members — i.e., the reference itself invites the designer to substitute a rigid metal retainer for the fabric loop, which leads directly to the claimed stamped metal connecting member having an insertion slot. That is an express KSR "explicit suggestion in the prior art to make the modification."

Ground 3: Claim 1 obvious over US 6,652,126 in view of US 7,210,824 / AAPA

6,652,126 supplies rings + shade + a detachable frame mounted to connecting structure on both rings (snap plate 21 / securing plate 31) with a snap retention. 7,210,824 and the AAPA supply the straddle/slot connecting-member geometry. Motivation: the entire point of 6,652,126 is "simple structure, simplified processing and assembling procedures" — the same objective recited in the '515 patent.

What the references do not supply, stated honestly

No one of the three cited references, standing alone, expressly discloses "two breaches formed on two opposite sides of the straddle portion and each connected to the insertion slot," and no one of them discloses an insert whose size relative to the slot is specified so that it slides left/right and fore/aft (claims 11–12). Grounds 1–3 therefore rest on a combination plus the level of ordinary skill, not on anticipation. A challenger would need the AAPA (or 7,210,824's dual-flanged seat) as the teaching that lateral access to a slot is an acceptable, known design option in this exact frame, plus a KSR-style rationale. This is a defensible but not airtight ground; the "breach" recitation is narrow and could be argued to require structure not shown.

No teaching away

Neither 6,604,846 (spring-steel pre-shaped struts, "inhibit improper installation"), nor 6,652,126 (snap-fit retention), nor 7,210,824 (resilient ribs, projection-in-hole, ball-and-recess) criticizes or discourages side-entry insertion. There is no "teaching away" argument available. Conversely, the '515 patent contains no criticism of the cited references that would support nonobviousness — its Background criticizes only unnumbered "conventional" shades.

---

6. Dependent claims 2–17

Net: claims 2–4 and 9–17 stand or fall with claim 1 plus straightforward mechanical design choices; claims 5–8 are the weakest candidates for a separate nonobviousness argument, and even those rest on ornamental/geometry choices with no asserted criticality.

---

7. Objective indicia (secondary considerations)

I found no evidence in the record of nexus-bearing objective indicia:

• No commercial success evidence of record; no sales, market-share, or licensing data.
• No long-felt but unmet need, failure of others, copying, or industry praise in the patent or in any located source.
• No unexpected results asserted in the specification; the stated advantages (easy/quick assembly, tolerance to misalignment) are the pre-existing objectives of 6,604,846, 6,652,126, and 7,210,824 — which weakens rather than strengthens the nonobviousness case (the "problem was known" factor of KSR).
• Patent lapsed 2013-12-08 for nonpayment of maintenance fees (37 C.F.R. § 1.362), which suggests the claimed subject matter lacked commercial significance to its owner — relevant context, though not itself an objective indicium.

---

8. Practical and doctrinal caveats

1. Expired status. The '515 patent is "Expired – Fee Related." Any invalidity analysis is therefore academic for infringement purposes; a validity challenge would only matter for intervening rights, marking/estoppel, or defensive use. Ex parte reexamination remains technically available, and invalidity can still be raised defensively or in a post-grant proceeding.
2. Prosecution history unavailable. I could not retrieve any office action, examiner's statement of reasons for allowance, or IDS. I therefore cannot say whether the examiner expressly relied on the "two breaches" distinction or allowed for some other reason (e.g., no art found for the "catch portion" recitation). Any assertion that the cited art was "overcome on the merits" would be unsupported.
3. The GB reference must not be used as prior art. GB 2 492 835 A post-dates the '515 filing; it appears on the page only as a citing document.
4. Claim 1 vs. the prior art is a close call on one limitation only. Claim 1 tracks the applicant-admitted prior art almost element-for-element; the sole gap is the lateral-breach entry. Grounds 1–3 are therefore best characterized as strong-to-moderate obviousness positions rather than anticipatory ones.
5. No litigation or PTAB record exists (consistent with the previously generated litigation summary), so there is no judicial or Board construction of "straddle portion," "insertion slot," "breach," or "catch portion" to rely on. The terms would be given their plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITA — and in sheet-metal bracket parlance, a "breach" in a slot wall reads naturally as an opening allowing lateral insertion, which is precisely what a POSITA would expect to be an obvious design variant.
6. If you need a definitive negative on litigation or a definitive statement of what the examiner relied on, the authoritative checks are a PACER docket search by patent number and a USPTO Patent Assignment/PTAB proceeding search plus the application's public file wrapper under application 11/825,574 — neither of which I can reach here.