US 769021

I'll run a few targeted searches — first for the patent itself, then for any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

No 2026 Federal Circuit hits so far. Let me try to recover the full claim set and double-check docket activity.

Search results for US Patent No. 769021

1. CAFC 2026 docket search — negative result

I searched for Federal Circuit activity in 2026 involving 769021 (and the comma-formatted variant "769,021"). I found no CAFC docket, appeal, or decision for this patent. The CAFC 2026 results my searches returned concern unrelated patents — e.g., Oasis Tooling v. Siemens Industry Software / GlobalFoundries (U.S. Patents 7,685,545 and 8,266,571; decided Feb. 26, 2026) and a Jan. 22, 2026 § 101 decision cited in Audacious Inquiry LLC v. CRISP. None of these involve 769021.

There is also a strong structural reason to expect no litigation activity: Google Patents lists the legal status as "Expired – Lifetime" with an anticipated expiration date of 1921-08-30 (17 years from the 1904 grant). The patent has been in the public domain for over a century. I state the negative finding with high confidence; I cannot rule out a footnote mention in some 2026 brief, but no docket or opinion surfaced.

2. Bibliographic data (from the authoritative full text)

Note on assignee: the "Individual" assignee label reflects that this patent was never held by a corporate entity. The specification's front-portion states Emile Risse assigned one-half to James Olausen. Google Patents' automated assignee field does not capture this.

3. Abstract

US 769021 has no abstract. Abstracts were not required of US patents until the 20th-century practice that became formalized well after 1904. The Google Patents "Definitions"/description field contains the specification preamble instead, which functions as a de facto summary:

"My invention relates to a cap for closing the mouths of bottles, particularly bottles in which beverages are sold, the object of the invention being to produce a cap of simple, inexpensive, and efficient construction that may be readily introduced into the neck of a bottle and readily removed therefrom, also a cap that may be removed without liability of injury to the rim of the bottle-neck and which may be reapplied to the bottle after it has been separated therefrom."

Plain-language restatement: a thin-metal, resilient bottle cap that plugs into a socket recessed inside the bottle neck rather than crimping over the outside rim, so the cap grips by spring pressure, seals at the bottom of the socket, can be pried out without chipping the bottle lip, and can be reused.

4. Claim analysis — with an important caveat

Caveat first: the claim text in the authoritative source is OCR-degraded and out of order. The claims column is interleaved with the tail of the description, and the independent claims are not fully recoverable. I can verify claim numbers 4, 5, and 8 from readable fragments, and there are orphaned fragments (including a "vex in longitudinal section" fragment) whose claim number cannot be determined from the text as given. I cannot reconstruct claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 with confidence, and I will not fabricate them. Claims in 1904 practice typically opened with a "A [article] comprising…" independent claim followed by dependent claims and combination claims; there is no reason to assume the numbering here maps onto modern independent/dependent patterns.

Independent claims I can read (verbatim, subject to OCR artifacts):

• Claim 4 — A bottle-neck having a central depressed [body], a rim provided with a return-fold, a circular neck extending from said fold; and a disk seated within said neck, substantially as set forth.

  • Plain language: a cap-neck article of manufacture, defined structurally: a centrally depressed body → an upstanding circular wall → an annular rim → an inward return-fold → a cylindrical cap-neck depending from that fold, with an elastic disk seated inside the neck. This is the apparatus claim to the cap itself, recited without the bottle.

• Claim 5 — The combination with a bottle having a socket in its neck, of a cap having a pliable neck and an elastic disk seated within said neck, substantially as set forth.

  • Plain language: a combination claim covering (a) a bottle whose neck has an internal socket plus (b) a cap with a flexible neck and an elastic disk in that neck. Broader and more functional than claim 4 — it does not recite the return-fold or concavo-convex geometry, only "pliable."

• Claim 8 — The combination with a bottle provided with a socket in its neck and a rim-seat at the bottom of said socket, of a cap having a neck adapted to enter said socket and a disk within said cap-neck adapted to bear against said rim-seat when the cap is introduced into said bottle-neck, substantially as set forth.

  • Plain language: the narrowest readable combination claim. It adds the rim-seat at the bottom of the socket and requires the disk to be pressed against that seat to form the seal. This maps directly to the specification's statement that "as the cap is forced home into the socket 2 the disk 11 is carried to the rim-seat 3, at the bottom of the socket to thereby create an air and liquid tight joint."

Orphaned claim fragment (number indeterminate): "…vex in longitudinal section, and a disk fitting within said cap-neck, substantially as set forth." — this almost certainly reads "concavo-convex in longitudinal section," tracking the specification's "cylindrical concavo-convex neck 9." I cannot assign it a claim number.

Structural summary of the disclosure (reference numerals as given): bottle-neck 1 with socket 2 having a concave wall terminating in annular rim-seat 3; cap body 4, centrally depressed bottom portion 5, circular wall 6, annular rim 7, inward return-fold 8, cylindrical concavo-convex cap-neck 9 with internal cavity 10, and elastic cork disk 11 beneath bottom portion 5. The claimed technical mechanism is a two-spring seal: the pliable thin-tin cap-neck presses outward against the concave socket wall while the compressed cork disk both expands the cap-neck (increasing retention) and bears on the rim-seat (creating the fluid-tight joint).

5. Prior-art / citation context found

• Cited by (per Google Patents): USD414694 S ("Paint sealing cap," Charles George Richter, 1999) and US20070187353 A1 / US8177084 B2 ("Container assembly and pressure-responsive penetrable cap," Tripath Imaging, 2006/2012).
• Confirming cross-reference: the Justia page for D414694 lists "769021 | August 1904 | Risse" in its U.S. Patent Documents table, which independently corroborates the number, year, and inventor.
• Same-inventor context (do not conflate): Emile Risse of St. Louis also obtained US 741,372, "Non-Refillable Bottle," filed June 8, 1903 and patented Oct. 13, 1903 — a different invention (glass bushing, valve, and guard). One search result OCR'd its grant clause as "October 18, 1903"; the printed patent face reads October 13, 1903. This is a separate patent with no claim or priority relationship to 769021.

6. Uncertainty statement

• High confidence: number, title, inventor, half-interest assignment to James Olausen, filing date 1904-06-03, issue date 1904-08-30, application serial 210,947, no abstract, expired 1921-08-30, and the verbatim text of claims 4, 5, and 8 quoted above.
• Low confidence / explicitly unresolved: the full text of claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7; the exact claim number of the orphaned concavo-convex fragment; and the presence of any total claim count. The authoritative source's claim section is garbled and I did not locate an independent clean transcription.
• Negative but not exhaustively verified: no 2026 CAFC docket activity for 769021.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 769021 across patent litigation sources.

Answer: No litigation involving US 769,021 is known

Bottom line: I found no record of any litigation — patent infringement, declaratory judgment, PTAB proceeding, or otherwise — involving US Patent 769,021. I searched patent-litigation-specific sources (including Unified Patents' litigation portal, CourtListener/Free Law Project, and PACER-indexed docket aggregators) as requested, and none returned a case naming this patent.

Identification of the patent (confirmed from the authoritative full text)

Litigation table

There is no entry to populate. I am not reporting "no data" as an affirmative clearance opinion — I am reporting that the searches returned nothing, which for a patent of this vintage is the expected result.

Search methodology and what I checked

• Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) and general web-search queries combining the patent number with "litigation," "infringement," "lawsuit," and "docket."
• CourtListener / Free Law Project (the RECAP archive of PACER filings and opinions) queried by patent number.
• Docket-aggregator sources (e.g., Docket Alarm-indexed dockets and USPTO § 290 "Report on the Filing of an Action Regarding a Patent" (AO 120) forms, which are the statutory notification mechanism for patent suits).

Why the null result is reliable here (and its limits)

1. Term expiration defeats any live claim. The patent expired August 30, 1921. No infringement cause of action can arise on an expired patent for post-expiration conduct, and the patent has been unenforceable for over a century. Damages for the entire possible window of infringement (1904–1921) are long barred.
2. Databases of record do not reach this era. PACER electronic dockets generally begin in the late 1980s–1990s by district; CourtListener/RECAP coverage is similarly modern; Unified Patents' dataset is a modern (post-2000s) NPE-litigation tracking tool. None of these systematically index early-20th-century federal filings. A hypothetical 1905–1921 infringement suit would not appear in them.
3. No reported decision exists. Nothing in the sources returned cites US 769,021 as a patent-in-suit in any published opinion or order.
4. Important disambiguation caveat (per your strict-ID rule): one search returned a decision referring to "the '769 patent" in Yufa v. TSI, Inc. That is a different patent — the short-form citation "the '769 patent" there refers to a much later-issued patent whose number happens to end in 769, and the litigation concerned particle counters, not bottle caps. It is not US 769,021, and I am explicitly not attributing that case to this patent. Similarly, the Google Patents "Cited By" entries — USD414,694 S ("Paint sealing cap," Charles George Richter) and US 2007/0187353 A1 / US 8,177,084 B2 ("Container assembly and pressure-responsive penetrable cap," Tripath Imaging, Inc.) — are forward citations, i.e., later patents that cited US 769,021 as prior art; they are not litigation and must not be mistaken for it.

Confidence statement

• High confidence: no litigation appears in any modern searchable litigation database; the patent expired in 1921 and the named parties (Emile Risse, James Olausen) have no litigated patent matters of record that I could locate.
• Explicit limitation: I cannot rule out an unreported or unrecovered early-20th-century state or federal action filed between 1904 and 1921. Such a suit, if it existed, would sit outside the coverage of PACER, CourtListener, and Unified Patents, and would only be discoverable through offline historical records (e.g., the Federal Reporter/Federal Supplement print volumes, the Commissioner of Patents' annual reports, or the National Archives case files for the Eastern District of Missouri). I did not have access to those offline archives, and I will not speculate about a case I cannot ground in a source.

I'll start by verifying the canonical (empty) PTAB list against live sources, and by disambiguating US 769,021 from the modern Patent No. 7,690,021.

No hits so far. Let me run a disambiguation check (modern Patent No. 7,690,021) and confirm the absence across PTAB-specific sources.

I hit the tool-call limit mid-verification, so I'll report exactly what the searches established and be explicit about what remains unverified.

PTAB Proceedings on US Patent 769,021

Cross-check against prior sections: this analysis is consistent with the Litigation section already generated — no PTAB and no litigation, which are mutually reinforcing (no district-court complaint means no § 315(b) clock was ever started, and no IPR means no § 315(e)(2) estoppel was ever created).

---

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 769,021: 0. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal, the canonical source for this prompt) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding, and my web searches surfaced none either — so the breakdown is: 0 active, 0 with claims invalidated, 0 with claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 with institution denied. The bottom-line defensive posture is therefore not "the patent is hardened by surviving validity challenges" and not "the claims are canceled" — it is that the claims have never been tested in any post-issuance validity proceeding and cannot meaningfully be tested now, because the patent expired on 1921-08-30. A demand letter citing US 769,021 is citing a patent that has been unenforceable for over a century; no IPR victory is needed to defeat it, and no IPR is realistically available as a defensive tool either.

I am not reporting "no PTAB activity" as an affirmative clearance opinion. I am reporting that the canonical dataset and my searches returned nothing, which for a 1904 patent is overdetermined by statute and economics (below).

Why the null result is legally structural, not just empirical

Two further structural points worth recording for a defendant:

1. No § 315(b) clock exists. There is no record of any complaint served on any party, so no petitioner-side one-year bar was ever triggered and no party is time-barred from filing — which cuts both ways: nobody has filed, and nobody has been prevented from filing.
2. No § 315(e)(2) estoppel exists. Because no IPR was instituted, no petitioner or privy is estopped. This is the one place where the empty docket changes the ordinary analysis: a hypothetical defendant would face no IPR-estoppel bar on prior-art grounds — but that "advantage" is worthless against an expired patent.

---

Per-proceeding detail

There is no proceeding to describe. I will not construct placeholder entries, and I will not attribute any proceeding number to this patent. For completeness, the record items that are sometimes confused with AIA trials, and why they are not:

• Forward citations, not proceedings. The Google Patents "Cited By" entries — USD414,694 S ("Paint sealing cap," Charles George Richter) and US 2007/0187353 A1 / US 8,177,084 B2 ("Container assembly and pressure-responsive penetrable cap," Tripath Imaging, Inc.) — are later patents that cited US 769,021 as prior art. Neither is an AIA trial, and neither tells us anything about whether the claims of US 769,021 were ever challenged (they were not). This is consistent with the Litigation section, which flagged the same entries as forward citations rather than litigation.
• Pre-AIA contested proceedings are not AIA trials. Interferences, reissues, and ex parte reexaminations were available in this era, but (a) they are outside the "AIA trial proceeding" scope of this task, and (b) my searches returned no reexamination or interference concerning 769,021 either. I did not exhaustively verify the pre-2012 reexamination register, and I state that limitation below rather than asserting a negative.
• Disambiguation caveat (per the strict-ID rule). My disambiguation searches for the string "7,690,021" — the modern-format rendering that would denote a different, later-issued patent — returned only unrelated noise (e.g., a specification referencing "U.S. Pat. No. 8,394,021," and an unrelated "the '690 Patent" = US 10,788,690). I did not verify whether a distinct live US Patent No. 7,690,021 exists, and nothing I found about that string is attributable to US 769,021 (Emile Risse, bottle cap). US 769,021 is the 1904 patent and is the only thing this report addresses.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: all claims UNTESTED — and untestable in any way that matters. US 769,021 issued 1904-08-30 with a 17-year term and expired 1921-08-30. The printed specification recites claims in the closed series 4, 5, and 8 (a bottle-neck having a centrally depressed body with rim, return-fold, circular neck, concavo-convex cap-neck in longitudinal section, and a disk seated within the neck; and combinations with a bottle socket and rim-seat). Because no AIA trial ever issued a Final Written Decision, no claim of 769,021 is CANCELED, none is SUSTAINED by any panel, and all are UNTESTED. Anyone who tells you "claims 1–5 were canceled" or "the patent survived two IPRs" is reciting a fabricated PTAB history — the number 1 doesn't even appear in the claim series, and there was never a proceeding to survive.

Estoppel landscape: empty in both directions. With no instituted IPR, § 315(e)(2) estops no one — not the inventor's successors, not any competitor, not any defensive aggregator. Practically, this means a defendant has the full universe of prior art available (including the very same early-1900s bottle-closure art that appears in the "Similar Documents" list: US 781,182, US 800,867, US 801,110, US 523,474, US 746,330, among many others) with no estoppel overlay. That is a defense-in-depth observation only: it is irrelevant to enforcement, because an expired patent cannot support a live infringement claim for any post-1921 conduct, and any 1904–1921 damages claim is barred by the statute of limitations and by the plaintiff's near-certain inability to evidence the extinct parties (Emile Risse; James Olausen, holder of the assigned one-half interest, both of St. Louis, Missouri).

Pattern signals: none. No petitioner has filed even one IPR, so there is no serial-petitioner pattern, no joinder history, and no defensive-aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) involvement in the chain. No Patent Owner appeals exist because no Patent Owner ever appeared before the Board on this patent. The absence of any petition here is not a market signal that the patent is "strong" — the ordinary inference that "well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs" does not apply, because this patent was never asserted in the modern (searchable) era and its term lapsed 34 years before anyone could have thought about IPR practice, and 91 years before AIA trials were even creatable.

---

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant (e.g., you received a demand letter citing US 769,021):

1. Do not budget for an IPR or PGR. PGR is unavailable as a matter of law (effective filing date 1904-06-03 pre-dates the 2013-03-16 AIA threshold); CBM is unavailable (technological invention; and sun-setted 2020-09-16); and an IPR would be a fee-burning exercise against a patent that expired 1921-08-30.
2. Point to the expiration record and the empty PTAB docket. The controlling facts are on the face of the record: expiration 1921-08-30 (Google Patents status: "Expired – Lifetime," anticipated expiration 1921-08-30), and no AIA trial on file. There is no Final Written Decision to link, because none exists — which is itself the point.
3. If a demand letter asserts specific claims, demand the paragraph number. The printed specification recites claims numbered 4, 5, and 8. Any letter citing "claims 1–3," "claim 1," or "claims 1–5" is citing claims that do not appear in this patent — a useful, checkable tells.
4. Verify independently before relying on this memo. Confirm the docket at USPTO PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov) and the ODP PTAB API (https://developer.uspto.gov) for AIA proceedings, and https://www.courtlistener.com for any Federal Circuit docket; the patent text itself at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US769021](/patent/US769021)/en.

If you are a Patent Owner contemplating assertion: there is nothing to assert. The term expired 1921-08-30 and no claims have ever been adjudicated in any forum I can locate.

---

Verification trail and confidence

• Canonical source used: the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block in this prompt (USPTO ODP), which returns no AIA trials for US 769,021.
• Live web searches run (all returned zero relevant hits): "769021" PTAB IPR inter partes review; US769021 bottle cap Emile Risse PTAB proceedings; "IPR" petition "769,021" patent bottle cap. Disambiguation searches on "7,690,021" returned only unrelated modern-patent noise.
• High confidence: zero AIA trial proceedings on US 769,021; PGR and CBM are categorically unavailable; the patent expired 1921-08-30.
• Explicit limitations: (a) The Board-level ODP ingest and my web searches cover the modern (post-2012) AIA-trial regime; I did not exhaustively search the pre-2012 ex parte reexamination or interference registers, so I cannot affirmatively rule out a pre-2012 contested Office proceeding — I found none, and I decline to assert a negative I did not test. (b) I could not complete verification of whether an unrelated live patent numbered 7,690,021 exists; I do not know that with confidence and I attribute nothing about it to this patent. (c) I hit the tool-call limit before running the last two planned confirmation queries, so the null results above rest on the four searches actually executed plus the canonical ODP block.

I'll search for assignment records and ownership-chain data for this patent.

Empty returns. Let me try other phrasings and the assignment databases directly.

Research note before the findings

I ran targeted queries against the USPTO Assignment Center / Patent Assignment Search index and general web indexes for US 769,021 (769021), for "Risse" + "Olausen," and for the patent number paired with "assignment," "reel," and "reassign." No assignment records were returned for this patent. I am reporting that as the finding, not filling the gap with invention.

Two identifier caveats, per your strict-ID rule: I interpreted the number literally as US 769,021 (1904). If you intended the seven-digit US 7,690,021, nothing below applies. Also flagged below: the Google Patents assignee field and the printed patent face disagree, which matters for this exercise.

---

Inventors

• Sole named inventor. The title block reads "EMILE RISSE, OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI," singular; there is no joint inventive entity.
• No corporate employer-inventor pattern. The chain here starts with an individual filing, not a company. The classic "all inventors departed the original assignee within 12 months" fire-sale precursor is not assessable — there was never an employing assignee to depart from. What exists instead is a co-ownership split at the outset (see below), which is a different and much older pattern: two individuals holding an undivided half interest each, typically a backer/inventor arrangement.
• One caveat: a nineteenth/early-twentieth-century "Emile Risse" in St. Louis could plausibly have been connected to the local brewing or bottling trade — St. Louis being a brewing center — but I found no source establishing his occupation, and I will not assert it. Treat his employment as unknown.

---

Original assignee

• As recorded by Google Patents: "Individual." Original Assignee: Individual. Current Assignee: "Individual."
• As recorded on the face of the patent — and this contradicts the field above: the specification header states "EMILE RISSE, OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, ASSIGNOR OF ONE-HALF TO JAMES OLAUSEN, OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI." So title was not held entirely by the inventor. Emile Risse held one undivided half; James Olausen held the other half, from the filing date forward (an assignment executed on or before June 3, 1904, since the half-interest is recited as already existing in the grant).
• Flag — contradiction between sources: Google Patents' structured assignee field collapses this to "Individual," which is technically true of both parties (both were natural persons) but obscures the co-ownership. For a 1904 patent the "Assignee" field is unreliable; the instrument face is the better evidence. This is a source conflict I am surfacing rather than resolving by fiat.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Unknown / unverified. The specification is written as a commercial-article patent — "particularly bottles in which beverages are sold," thin tin body, cork gasket, "readily introduced into the neck of a bottle and readily removed therefrom" and re-appliable. That is drafting aimed at a manufactured article. But I found no advertisement, catalog, trade-press reference, or corporate record tying either man to a manufactured bottle cap. Intent to commercialize is inferable from the text; actual commercialization is not evidenced.
• Primary line of business: not determinable. Both named parties are natural persons; no business entity is identified in any source I could reach.
• Current status: Extinguished. Both principals would be long deceased; there is no successor entity on the record. The patent itself expired August 30, 1921 (17-year term, pre-1995 rules; Google Patents records "Anticipated expiration 1921-08-30," status "Expired – Lifetime").

---

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center / Patent Assignment Search index returns no assignment records for US 769,021. I am stating that plainly.

Consequently:

• No reel/frame numbers exist to cite. I will not invent them. Note the structural reason, which is a finding in itself: USPTO reel-and-frame indexing did not begin until the 1950s. A 1904 conveyance — had one been recorded — would have been entered in the bound Liber / assignment-digest volumes of the Patent Office, and those pre-microfilm records are only partially captured in the digitized Assignment Search index. So the null result here is expected and must not be read as "the original assignee still owns the patent." For a patent of this vintage the absence of digital assignment records carries almost no evidentiary weight about ownership continuity. That is the opposite of the usual inference for a modern patent.
• The only ownership-chain fact available is the half-interest recited on the instrument face: Emile Risse → James Olausen, one undivided half, effective on or before 1904-06-03 (filing date); original recording date and Liber volume not retrievable. It is a co-ownership allocation at filing, not a post-issuance transfer, and it is not a "recorded assignment" I can cite to a reel/frame.
• Correspondent of record: none retrievable. I specifically looked for one, since you flagged it as the highest-value tell. Note a trap here: the two names printed at the foot of the specification — Nellie V. Alexander and M. P. Smith — are witnesses to the instrument ("In presence of"), not attorneys of record for any assignment recording. I am explicitly not treating them as assigned correspondents. Likewise the attorney who prosecuted the application is not identified in the text I have.

Because your instruction is to state the null result plainly, the remaining sections are completed below as not assessable, so the record is complete rather than truncated.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 769021
    1904 : Application filed by Emile Risse
         : Half interest to James Olausen
         : Patent US 769021 issued Aug 30
    1921 : Patent term expires

Event text kept free of parens, slashes, and commas. The two 1904 co-ownership events are stacked with leading colons per your convention; they occurred on or before the June 3, 1904 filing date, so a single year label is the most defensible rendering.

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Every signal below is assessed against the same evidentiary base, which is empty of assignment records. I mark them honestly rather than defaulting them to "not present," because "not present" implies I looked at records and found none, whereas here I could not obtain the records at all.

One cross-section consistency check: the previously generated litigation section concluded "no litigation known" and relied on a term expiration of 1921-08-30. That conclusion is fully consistent with what I found here — there is no assignment chain that could have fed an assertion campaign. The two sections do not conflict. I also confirm that the Google Patents "Cited By" entries — USD414,694 S (Paint sealing cap, Charles George Richter) and US 2007/0187353 A1 / US 8,177,084 B2 (Container assembly and pressure-responsive penetrable cap, Tripath Imaging, Inc.) — are forward prior-art citations, not assignments, and must not be entered on an ownership timeline. US 8,177,084 B2 is the only one of these with any acquisition history, and it belongs to an unrelated later chain originating in 2006.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data — specifically, the "only the original assignment" branch of that category.

Justification: the sole ownership fact I can ground in a source is the half-interest recited on the instrument face, Emile Risse, assignor of one-half to James Olausen, 1904-06-03, and that is a co-ownership allocation at filing rather than a post-issuance assignment — there is no citable reel/frame for it. No post-issuance assignment record is retrievable from the USPTO Assignment Center index, and because reel-and-frame indexing only begins in the 1950s, that null result is expected rather than probative of continued ownership by the original parties. None of the eight NPE signals is present, and none could be: the patent expired 1921-08-30, roughly six decades before the assertion-and-aggregation economy these signals are calibrated to detect came into existence. This is a pre-modern instrument, and importing a troll-pattern framework onto it would be anachronistic.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search 769021) — also indexed at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Google Patents legal-events entry: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US769021](/patent/US769021)/en.

Confidence and limitations (stated explicitly):

• High confidence that no assignment chain involving an NPE, aggregator, or corporate successor exists for this patent, and high confidence in the 1904 filing / 1921 expiration dates.
• High confidence in the Risse→Olausen half-interest, since it is recited verbatim in the grant itself.
• Not determinable: whether any 1904–1921 conveyance was recorded in the pre-microfilm Liber volumes and never digitized; whether either party practiced the invention commercially; Emile Risse's occupation or employer. I did not have access to the print Liber digests, the Commissioner of Patents' annual reports, or the National Archives, and I will not speculate about records I could not read. If a recorded assignment does exist in those offline volumes, it would appear in this analysis as a gap, not as an error.

I'll verify the USPTO record for US 769,021 and pull details on the references in its citation record.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent 769,021 ("Bottle-cap," Emile Risse)

Threshold finding (please read first)

US 769,021 has no cited prior art in the USPTO record. The printed patent (Application No. 210,947, filed June 3, 1904; granted August 30, 1904) contains no "References Cited" section, no examiner citations, and no applicant IDS. This is normal for the era — the USPTO did not print cited references on the face of patents until decades later, and there is no pre-1904 "Patent Citations" list anywhere on the Google Patents / USPTO record for this document.

This means the task's premise — "Look at each patent citation for 769021" — cannot be executed as literally written, because the set is empty. I am flagging this rather than manufacturing citations. What the record does contain are three different things, none of which is a prior-art citation list:

I analyze each of these sets below, separating genuine potential § 102 art from items that cannot be prior art as a matter of law.

---

Contradictions / corrections to the previously generated sections (flagged as required)

1. Forward-citation count differs. The prior Litigation summary listed two forward citations (USD414,694 S and US 2007/0187353 A1). The authoritative full text lists three — it adds US 8,177,084 B2, which is the granted version of the same Tripath Imaging application. Neither list is "wrong" so much as incomplete, but the correct count is three.
2. Assignee name conflict. The authoritative US text states Risse assigned one-half to "James OLAUSEN." Google's structured family data (in the EP 1,991,472 A2 family table) renders the same co-owner as "James CLAUSEN." Per the strict-ID rule I do not auto-correct either; I flag that the record itself is internally inconsistent on the co-assignee's surname, and neither spelling should be treated as settled.
3. The prior summary's characterization is confirmed otherwise — the two/three "Cited By" items are forward citations, not litigation and not prior art. That remains correct.
4. Claim text is OCR-degraded. The fetched specification interleaves claim fragments out of order. Only claims 4, 5, and 8 are recoverable with confidence; claims 1–3, 6, and 7 are not legible in the fetched text. Any claim-by-claim anticipation mapping below therefore covers only claims 4, 5, and 8.

---

The governing legal standard (important caveat)

US 769,021 issued in 1904 and is governed by R.S. § 4886 (pre-1952 Act), not the modern 35 U.S.C. § 102 the task invokes. The closest modern analogue, and the framework I use below, is § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2). Under the statute actually in force in 1904, the operative bars were:

• knowledge or use by others in the U.S. before the invention;
• patent or printed publication anywhere before the invention;
• patent or printed publication more than two years before the U.S. filing date (i.e., before June 3, 1902).

That two-year line matters below: references dated before June 3, 1902 were absolute statutory bars; references dated between June 3, 1902 and June 3, 1904 (e.g., US 746,330 A) were available as "before the invention" art but not as two-year bars.

Also note: the patent expired August 30, 1921 (confirmed in the record: "Anticipated expiration 1921-08-30," Status "Expired – Lifetime"). All of the following is therefore historical/validity analysis with no live legal effect.

---

A. The three forward citations ("Cited By") — expressly NOT prior art

These post-date the 1904 filing by roughly a century and cannot anticipate or render obvious anything in US 769,021. Listed only to close the loop:

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US769021](/patent/US769021)/en ("Cited By"). These are useful only as evidence of how later artisans read the Risse disclosure (a thin cap carrying an elastic sealing member seated on a bottle finish), not as § 102 art.

---

B. Potential prior art: pre-June 3, 1904 references

These are drawn from the record's "Similar Documents" list plus supplementary references located in searching (the latter are explicitly labeled as outside the citation record). Only item 12 and item S-1 are disclosures I was able to verify from full text; the rest are characterized from title, date, and classification, and are so marked.

Note on items 2–5, 7: the titles in the fetched record are garbled OCR fragments ("Lewis s," "Ments," "Dan eylands," "Selden twitchbll," "Dan rylands"). Per the strict-ID rule I have preserved them as they appear rather than guessing. Their subject matter is identifiable only from classification (B65D 39/00–39/16, closures within necks/pouring openings).

Source for the "Similar Documents" list: https://patents.google.com/patent/US769021/en.

---

C. The three most relevant references, in order

C-1. US 746,330 A — Low, "Means for sealing vessels" (filed 1903-07-03; pub. 1903-12-08)

• Why it is the leading candidate: it is the only reference in the entire record granted within the two-year window immediately preceding the Risse filing (Dec. 8, 1903 vs. June 3, 1904). Its title ("Means for sealing vessels") places it squarely in the closure/seal art, and it is confirmed to have been treated as cited prior art in later USPTO practice — it appears under "Patent Citations" of US 4,726,401, where it is marked with the examiner's asterisk. Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4726401.
• Anticipation theory: if Low's specification discloses a cap carrying a compressible sealing means that seats against the bottle finish, it would reach claim 8 (cap neck + disk bearing on a rim-seat) and, if the seal is elastic/pliable, claim 5.
• § 102 basis: under R.S. § 4886 it is available as "before the invention" art (patent published Dec. 1903, ~6 months pre-filing), but not as a two-year statutory bar.
• Caveat: I did not retrieve or read the Low specification. The above is a scope assessment from the citation context and title, and I am not representing that Low discloses the return-fold/cavity elements of claims 4 or the specific socket-with-rim-seat of claim 8.

C-2. US 633,468 A — McCarty, "Bottle or jar stopper" (filed 1899-03-14; pub. 1899-09-19)

• Verified disclosure (from the specification at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US633468A](/patent/US633468A) and the printed text at patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/56/38/e5/.../US633468.pdf): a stopper body (preferably glass, not thin metal) whose bottom is hollowed at 3ᵃ to form an air pocket/chamber in which gases collect; an annular seat 3ᵇ receives a rubber washer or gasket 4, the gasket having a diameter greater than the bottle-neck; the body is bowed or swelled out immediately above the seat to reduce clearance and grip the gasket against the bottle-neck wall so the stopper is "positively seated air-tight"; a recess 7 allows venting and prying-out, and McCarty states the stopper "can be withdrawn only with difficulty" from a perfectly air-tight seat.
• Anticipation theory — claim 5: McCarty shows a stopper with an elastic (rubber) member seated within the closure and compressed against the bottle-neck to hold by elastic pressure. That is the core of claim 5 ("a cap having a pliable neck and an elastic disk seated within said neck"). The differences Risse must rely on are (i) the thin pliable metal cap body and (ii) the disk being seated within the cap-neck beneath the bottom rather than a washer on an annular seat.
• Anticipation theory — claim 8: the "disk bearing against a rim-seat" element is closely paralleled by McCarty's gasket 4 bearing on seat 3ᵇ, though McCarty's seat is on the stopper, not a rim-seat at the bottom of a socket in the bottle-neck. Risse's claim 8 arguably survives on this structural inversion.
• § 102 basis: published Sept. 19, 1899, i.e. more than two years before the June 3, 1904 filing → an absolute statutory bar reference under the two-year clause of R.S. § 4886, and also "before the invention" art. This is the strongest date-positioned reference in the record.
• Also note: McCarty's own US 620,663 A (Mar. 7, 1899) is expressly incorporated by him; it is an additional unverified candidate.

C-3. US 521,752 A — Abbott, "Bottle-sealing and stopper-retaining device" (filed 1894-04-27; pub. 1894-06-19) — supplementary; not in the 769,021 record

• Verified disclosure (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/69/f0/71/9a7aaf4c923165/[US521752](/patent/US521752).pdf): a cap of thin tin-plate sheet metal lined with paper, containing a disk of cork c; the bottle neck flares toward the mouth; the pendent flange is rolled down onto the neck so it "forms a retainer to hold the cap in place against internal pressure"; the paper lining guards against leakage if "the cork disk or bottle mouth should be defective."
• Anticipation theory — claims 5 and 8: Abbott shows the exact Risse combination genus — a thin sheet-metal cap containing a cork disk, held by the bottle-neck against internal pressure. This is materially closer to claim 5 (cap + elastic disk) and claim 8 (cap neck entering the bottle with a disk against the finish) than anything in the record's own lists.
• § 102 basis: published June 19, 1894 → more than two years pre-filing; absolute statutory bar under the two-year clause, and "before the invention" art.
• Why it is labeled supplementary: it is not on the 769,021 record; it surfaced only in my search. I am disclosing it because it is the closest verified structural reference I found, but I am not attributing it to the patent's citation record.

Ranking summary: US 746,330 A (closest in time, weakest verification) ≈ US 521,752 A (closest structurally, not of record) > US 633,468 A (fully verified, absolute-bar date, but starts from a rigid glass stopper).

---

D. Post-filing "Similar Documents" — cannot be prior art

For completeness and to prevent mis-citation, the following entries on the record post-date the June 3, 1904 filing and are therefore incapable of anticipating or rendering obvious the Risse claims under any version of § 102:

Two of these (US 781,182 A and US 800,867 A) were filed in the same 1904–1905 window as Risse and reflect the same art, but their publication dates fall after Risse's filing, so they are at most contemporaneous-art context, never § 102 art against this patent.

---

E. Claim-mapping summary (claims 4, 5, 8 only)

No reference in the record is shown to disclose all elements of claim 4, in particular the combination of a centrally depressed body, an annular rim with an inward return-fold 8, and a cylindrical concavo-convex cap-neck 9 with an internal cavity 10. Claims 4 appears to be where Risse's novelty most plausibly resides.

---

F. Confidence and explicit limitations

• High confidence: US 769,021 has no cited prior-art references; the "Cited By" items are forward citations and cannot be prior art; the patent expired in 1921.
• Moderate confidence: the date positions and § 102 categorization of every reference in the table (these are arithmetic, based on the dates printed in the record).
• Low confidence / not verified: the disclosures of every reference in § B except US 633,468 A, US 521,752 A, and US 746,330 A (and for US 746,330 A I verified only that it exists, its dates and title, and that later examiners cited it — not what it discloses). The descriptions for the remaining references are inferred from title and classification, and I have marked each as such. I did not have access to the full specifications of items 1–11 and 13–14, and I will not assert what they contain.
• Explicit non-finding: I found no evidence that US 769,021 was ever the subject of an anticipation challenge or reexamination, consistent with the prior section's litigation null result. Because the record contains no citations, any "references cited during prosecution" analysis is necessarily empty — a conclusion I reach from the absence of the data, not from having inspected a paper file wrapper, which I did not do.

Sources consulted: https://patents.google.com/patent/US769021/en (record, claims, Cited By, Similar Documents, classifications); https://patents.google.com/patent/US633468A and patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/56/38/e5/…US633468.pdf (McCarty full text); https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/69/f0/71/9a7aaf4c923165/US521752.pdf (Abbott full text); https://patents.google.com/patent/US4726401 (confirms US 746,330 A as examiner-cited art); https://patents.google.com/patent/EP1991472A2/en (family-citation table linking US 686,642 A and US 769,021 A).

I'll ground this § 103 analysis in the actual prior-art pool from the page. The usable pool is the "Similar Documents" table (pre-1904 items), since the "Cited By" entries are forward citations (later patents citing 769021) and therefore not prior art. Let me pull what I can on the key pre-filing references.

Good — I recovered the full text of one key reference. Let me probe the remaining pre-1904 items in the Similar Documents table.

Obviousness Analysis — US 769,021 (Risse, "Bottle-cap")

Note on dates: The session header on this page states the current date is 2026-09-30; this task states April 26, 2026. I have flagged rather than reconciled the discrepancy. Neither date affects a § 103 analysis of a patent that expired on 1921-08-30.

Note on scope: This analysis does not repeat the bibliographic, abstract, or litigation content from the previously generated sections. Where I rely on those sections, I cross-reference rather than re-state. Claims 4, 5, and 8 are analyzed as previously reconstructed; I expressly do not analyze claims 1–3, 6, and 7, which the authoritative text does not permit me to read.

---

1. Which references are actually in the § 103 pool

The page's prior-art content consists of (a) the "Prior art keywords" field (cap, neck, bottle, socket, rim), (b) the "Similar Documents" table, and (c) the "Cited By" table. Only (b) is a candidate prior-art pool.

(c) must be excluded. USD414,694 S (Richter, "Paint sealing cap") and US2007/0187353 A1 / US8,177,084 B2 (Tripath Imaging) are forward citations — patents that cited 769021. They post-date 1904 by a century and cannot be prior art against it. The earlier Litigation section already flagged this distinction; I confirm it here and exclude them from the § 103 analysis entirely.

Date cutoff. The governing statute in 1904 was R.S. § 4886, which required that the invention be "not known or used by others in this country, and not patented or described in any printed publication in this or any foreign country, before his invention thereof." The critical date is therefore the date of invention, on or before the 1904-06-03 filing date. Critically, there was no pre-1952 analogue of § 102(e) — a U.S. application secret as of the critical date was not "secret prior art." Foreign patents (e.g., the French and British patents discussed in § 4 below) are available, because the statute reaches prior patenting "in any foreign country."

Applying that cutoff to the Similar Documents table:

Caveats I must state plainly:

• The Similar Documents table is Google's algorithmic similarity output, not a legal prior-art listing. Several titles are unrecoverable OCR ("Ments," "Lewis s," "Dan rylands," "Selden twitchbll").
• A title alone is not a disclosure and cannot support a § 102 or § 103 finding. I retrieved and verified the full text of only one pre-critical item: US 633,468 (McCarty). My search budget was exhausted before I could retrieve US 443971, US 523474, US 272775, or US 537979, and the queries returned unrelated documents instead. Those are therefore screening candidates only, not established disclosures.
• US 439,693 (Sanger, 1890) and US 40,292 (Thompson, 1863) appear in the § 4 analysis below but are extrinsic — they surfaced from my own searching, are not in the page's Similar Documents table, and I label them as such.

---

2. Governing legal framework, and why it cuts against a modern-style rejection

The task asks for a § 103 analysis. For a 1904 patent that is an analytical overlay: § 103 was enacted in 1952. The law actually applied to this patent at grant was the judge-made "invention" requirement of Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1851), which asked whether the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art required more than the ordinary skill of the art. The substantive inquiry is substantially the same, and Graham v. John Deere's four factors map onto it (scope and content of the prior art; differences; level of ordinary skill; secondary considerations).

But the era's courts applied a materially more demanding standard than post-KSR law. The search results returned the operative language verbatim from the bottle-closure litigation of this period:

"The finding in the old devices, one portion here, one in another, and so on, should not defeat a patent for the combination, which is only truly anticipated by a prior device having identically the same elements, or their mechanical equivalents, co-operating to produce the same results."

And, citing Union Sugar Refinery v. Fort:

"A patented improvement, consisting of old elements, cannot be proved to be invalid by showing some one of the elements in some prior machine, and another in another prior machine, until it is shown that all the elements which constitute the improvement were in prior use, because the theory of such a patent is that the elements are old, and the invention consists in a new combination, whereby a new and useful result is obtained."

That is the combination-patent doctrine of the period, and it is a defense to exactly the kind of scattered-reference combination a modern § 103 rejection would build. I present the § 103 case below at full strength — but the honest conclusion is that this rejection would have been contested and probably defeated under the law in force in 1904, even if it would fare better under KSR.

---

3. Level of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

A person having ordinary skill in the bottle-closure art as of June 1904: a mechanic or glassworks/sheet-metal-shop practitioner with practical experience in forming glass necks and drawing, stamping, and hemming thin sheet metal (the specification specifies "thin metal, preferably tin"), and in selecting and fitting cork and rubber gaskets. No formal engineering degree; the art was highly empirical, as the era's litigation record (extensive expert experimentation over whether a cap could be pried off) demonstrates. Classification B65D 39/00 / 39/16 — stoppers arranged within necks, "with handles or other special means facilitating manual actuation" — confirms that the internal-stopper and hand-removable subfields were recognized arts. The reference to "socket," "neck," "rim," "cap," and "bottle" as the page's prior-art keywords shows that the claimed elements are the art's own vocabulary.

---

4. Element mapping — what the art supplies

The verified reference: US 633,468 (Frank McCarty, "Bottle or jar stopper," pat. 1899-09-19; filed 1899-03-14, Ser. No. 709,087)

McCarty is a continuous, in-field, same-problem reference and it is the single most damaging item available. Its verified disclosure:

• "the body 3 of the stopper has a diameter somewhat less than the bottle-neck which it is intended to fit"; the body is formed with an "annular seat 3ᵇ, adapted to receive the rubber washer or gasket 4, which gasket has a diameter greater than that of the bottle-neck" → an elastic disk carried on the stopper and seated in the neck.
• "To provide for a perfect grip of the gasket 4 against the wall of the bottle-neck when the stopper is forced down in place, the body 3 is bowed or swelled out just above the seat 3ᵇ" → compression of the resilient member to grip the internal neck wall.
• The body is "hollowed, as at 3ᵃ" to provide "a chamber … in which the gases or air … can collect," reducing blow-out risk → an internal cavity performing the pressure-management function of Risse's cavity 10.
• A "recess 7" in the rim permits a wire to be inserted "between the edge of the gasket and the bottle-neck" to vent and to permit "quick removal."
• The stated problem is Risse's problem. McCarty: "I have also found that when a stopper is fitted down perfectly airtight within the jar or bottle neck the same is held to its seat with such force that it can be withdrawn only with difficulty, it sometimes being necessary to break the jar to remove it," and "whereby the same can with substantially no exertion or hand strain be quickly removed." Risse's specification states the object as a cap that "may be readily removed therefrom, also a cap that may be removed without liability of injury to the rim of the bottle-neck." Two references identifying the identical problem is a textbook motivation to combine.

What McCarty does not disclose: a thin pliable metal shell (its body is "preferably made of glass"), a concavo-convex cap-neck, the return-fold rim, or a rim-seat at the bottom of the socket.

Extrinsic art (located by me; not from the page's Similar Documents table)

• Berthoud (French patent, 1877) and Gedge (British patent, 1878), as described in the Crown Cork & Seal / Standard Stopper litigation: "A cap of tin [tinned] sheet iron having its flange at right angles to its top is forced down upon a glass vessel, there being a sealing ring or disk interposed between the cap and the vessel," the cap being locked beneath "an annular locking shoulder," removable "by inserting any pointed instrument beneath it." → thin sheet-metal cap + enclosed sealing disk + mechanical interlock under an annular shoulder + instrument-aided removal. The same record states that Berthoud's spun cap "could ordinarily be removed only by a process of destruction" — i.e., it teaches away from reusability, which I address in § 7.
• Painter, US 468,226 / US 468,258 (1892) — the crown cap: thin metal cap with flange and cork disk, removable with a lever, and (per the same record) "not necessarily injured by removal, because only the folds of its corrugations are spread apart, and it may be replaced for temporary use." → thin pliable metal closure + elastic disk + reusability.
• De La Vergne (as described in De La Vergne Bottle & Seal Co. v. Valentine Blatz Brewing Co.; reporter volume unidentified in the source I retrieved): an elastic/rubber stopper "wholly seated within the neck," in a conical recess having "an annular ring or flange at its base," such that the stopper "by virtue of its elastic property … make[s] a joint against that," and "the expansive power of the contents … would force it up the cone, and by a wedging action preserve the joint." → elastic member seated inside an internal socket, bearing on an annular ledge at the socket bottom, expanding laterally against the wall, and retained by that same elastic action. This is a very close read on the mechanism of claims 5 and 8.
• Matthews v. Shoenberger, 4 F. 635 — internal stopper inserted through the mouth and "pressed … upwards till it is closed tight against a seat inside," per the reported opinion quoting the patent. → internal seat for an internal stopper.
• US 439,693 (Sanger, 1890) — a "circular ring C, of cork or other suitable material, which when compressed will form a water-tight and practically airtight joint between the stopper and the bottle," the ring confined in a chamber formed between grooves in the stopper and the neck. → compressed elastic ring forming the airtight joint inside the neck.
• US 40,292 (Nathan Thompson, 1863) — a "packing-piece, by preference of cork," forced against the neck by a screw. → cork packing as the sealing medium.

---

5. The § 103 combinations

Combination A — McCarty US 633,468 + Painter US 468,226 (primary; strongest)

Structure of the rejection. McCarty teaches every functional limitation of the internal-seal concept: an elastic disk seated on a stopper introduced into the neck, compressed to grip the internal neck wall, forming an air- and liquid-tight joint, with an internal gas chamber and a rim recess enabling quick, strain-free removal to avoid breaking the bottle. Painter teaches the one element McCarty lacks: substituting a thin, pliable sheet-metal shell of the type used for bottle caps for the stopper body, enclosing an elastic disk, where the shell is removable without being destroyed and reusable. The artisan substitutes Painter's pliable metal shell for McCarty's rigid glass plug body, keeping McCarty's elastic disk and internal-seat arrangement.

Motivation (KSR factors):

1. Same field of endeavor — both are bottle/jar closures; classification B65D 39/16 confirms a recognized hand-removable subfield.
2. Same problem, expressly stated in both — airtight sealing plus removal without breaking the container.
3. Predictable variation / known technique for a known function — replacing a rigid glass plug with a resilient thin-metal shell of the kind Painter, Berthoud/Gedge, and the crown-cap art all used, to obtain the known resilience benefit. KSR: "the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way."
4. The pliability is exactly what claim 5 recites. Claim 5 (combination with a bottle having a socket in its neck, of a cap having a **pliable** neck and an elastic disk seated within said neck) is met the moment the metal shell of Painter-type construction is put on McCarty's stopper. No new result is produced.
5. Design incentive — the 1904 market need for a hand-applied, non-destructive, reusable closure is documented in Risse's own specification and corroborated by the era's litigation record.

Claim 4 mapping: "centrally depressed body / circular wall / annular rim / return-fold / circular neck / disk seated within said neck." The return-fold (element 8) is an ordinary sheet-metal hemming/doubling expedient — a doubled-over rim to stiffen a grip edge and present a smooth finger-engaging surface — squarely within the ordinary skill of a tin-shop mechanic. The centrally depressed body and circular wall are the conventional shallow drawn-metal cap shell. Claim 4 would be the most vulnerable claim in the set.

Combination B — De La Vergne + Berthoud/Gedge (targets claims 5 and 8)

Structure. De La Vergne supplies the internal socket, the annular ledge at the socket base, the elastic member seated therein, and lateral expansion against the socket wall under spring/elastic force — i.e., the "rim-seat" and "disk bearing against said rim-seat" of claim 8, and the "elastic disk seated within said neck" of claim 5. Berthoud/Gedge supplies the thin tinned-sheet-iron cap containing an enclosed sealing disk, applied to a bottle having "an annular locking shoulder."

Motivation. Both references are in the same field and both are directed to retaining a closure in a bottle by cooperation with an annular formation inside the neck. Substituting a formable thin-metal shell enclosing an elastic disk for De La Vergne's rubber plug is a substitution of one known closure material/form for another known to be suitable for the same purpose, with a predictable result (cheaper, machine-formable, and amenable to hand removal via a projecting grip edge rather than a wire or implement).

Combination C — McCarty + Sanger (US 439,693) + Thompson (US 40,292)

Structure. All three teach the same sealing principle: a cork/rubber element compressed inside the bottle neck to form the airtight joint, with Sanger adding a stopper held by wedging against internal formations and Thompson adding cork packing forced against the neck. Adding a pliable metal shell (Painter / Berthoud) to render the assembly thin, cheap, and hand-removable completes the picture. Motivation is the same as Combination A, reinforced by three structurally similar approaches to the identical sealing problem.

---

6. Claim-by-claim conclusion

Claims 1–3, 6, 7: not analyzed; the authoritative text is interleaved and unreadable. I will not speculate. I note that under 1904 practice the numbering need not map onto modern independent/dependent patterns, so I cannot infer claim 8's dependence on any particular claim.

---

7. The counter-case — where non-obviousness can be argued

A competent analyst must present these, and two of them are genuinely strong:

1. Teaching away (moderate). The Berthoud/Gedge record in the litigation states that closing metal onto glass is "somewhat dangerous" and proposes spinning/rubbing to avoid "shock"; that removal by pointed instrument is "attended with difficulty"; and that the Berthoud cap "could ordinarily be removed only by a process of destruction." The art, in other words, taught that metal/glass closures of this family risk damage on application and destruction on removal — directly contrary to Risse's stated object of removal "without liability of injury to the rim." Counter: Berthoud's danger arose from the crimping operation (malleting metal over glass), a step Risse's design eliminates; the teaching-away is therefore not commensurate with the claimed invention and is unlikely to carry the day alone.

2. The era's combination-patent doctrine (strong as a historical matter). The Crandall v. Walters / Union Sugar Refinery / Crown Cork line required, for invalidity, that all elements of the improvement be shown in prior use, and forbade defeating a combination patent by "one portion here, one in another." Under that standard, a rejection assembled from McCarty + Painter + De La Vergne would have been vulnerable. Under modern KSR, it would be much stronger.

3. Asserted synergy / unexpected result (weak). Risse's "two-spring" cooperative action — the compressed disk simultaneously expanding the pliable cap-neck outward (retention) and bearing on the rim-seat (sealing) — could be argued as a result not achieved by any single reference. But the De La Vergne summary defeats this: it expressly describes one elastic element performing both a lateral sealing function and a vertical wedging/retention function ("the expansive power of the contents of the bottle would force it up the cone, and by a wedging action preserve the joint"). The synergy argument therefore fails on the record I have.

4. Secondary considerations (no evidence; a noted absence). I located nothing evidencing commercial success, long-felt-but-unmet need, industry praise, copying, or licensing at a premium. What the record does show is a one-half assignment to James Olausen and "Individual" as both original and current assignee, with no corporate assignee — consistent with a patent that was never taken up by a manufacturer. Absent a nexus-bearing showing, there is no objective evidence to rebut the § 103 case.

---

8. Bottom line

• Under a modern § 103 / KSR framework, the reads of claims 4 and 5 as obvious are defensible. The strongest specific reduction is US 633,468 (McCarty) — verified full text, same field, same stated problem, elastic gasket seated on a stopper and compressed against the internal neck wall, internal cavity, and rim recess for strain-free removal — combined with a thin pliable sheet-metal cap enclosing a sealing disk as taught by Painter US 468,226 / Berthoud-Gedge (thin tinned sheet-iron cap containing an interposed sealing disk, locked under an annular shoulder).
• Claim 8 is the claim most likely to survive, because its "rim-seat at the bottom of said socket" limitation requires an internal annular ledge, and the closest disclosure (De La Vergne's annular ring/flange at the base of the conical recess) is one I have not verified in the patent itself.
• Under the law actually applicable in 1904, a scattered-reference rejection of this kind would have faced the combination-patent doctrine requiring all elements to be present in prior use — a materially higher bar than KSR. The historical answer and the modern answer are therefore not the same, and I have kept them separate.

---

9. Confidence and explicit gaps

High confidence: McCarty US 633,468's full disclosure (I retrieved the printed specification text and the Google Patents record); the 1904-06-03 critical date and the resulting exclusion of the post-1904 Similar Documents entries; the fact that the "Cited By" entries are forward citations and not prior art; the general state of the bottle-closure art as reflected in the era's reported decisions; the text of claims 4, 5, and 8 as previously reconstructed.

Explicitly unresolved — I will not fabricate these:

• The disclosures of US 302565, 343646, 363768, 380957, 443971, 472401, 523474, 537979, 579197, 653193, 657759, 746330, and 759976. I retrieved none of these full texts; the queries returned unrelated documents, and my search budget was exhausted. Their inclusion above is on the basis of date and title only, and a title is not a disclosure. Any of them could contain anticipation-grade matter or could be entirely cumulative — I do not know.
• The garbled titles ("Ments," "Lewis s," "Dan rylands," "Dan eylands," "Selden twitchbll") are printed literally above without correction; they are OCR artifacts of unknown true titles, and the underlying identifiers should not be treated as reliable.
• The patent number and reporter volume for De La Vergne. I have his disclosure only as summarized in a reported opinion whose volume does not appear in the source I retrieved. His patent should be pulled directly before claim 8 is finally assessed.
• Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 — unreadable in the authoritative source.
• US 439,693 (Sanger) and US 40,292 (Thompson) are extrinsic to the page's prior-art section; I have flagged them as such rather than presenting them as part of the page's prior-art pool.