US 7766664

I'll verify this against live sources, including USPTO and any CAFC litigation dockets.

Let me search specifically for litigation/docket activity and the USPTO record.

Verification note

I was able to retrieve the authoritative full text and bibliographic record for US 7,766,664 B2 (Google Patents, fetched 2026‑09‑28) and corroborating third‑party pages (Justia/CompanyProfiles mirrors of the specification). I found no CAFC 2026 docket entry, district court case, or litigation record naming this patent. That is a null result from my searches, not proof of absence — but it is consistent with the patent's status (see below): it lapsed for non‑payment of maintenance fees in 2022, which makes 2026 appellate activity unlikely. Treat the "no litigation found" statement as unverified rather than authoritative.

Two identifiers in your prompt should be interpreted literally: the patent is 7,766,664 (US application 12/350,757; publication US 2010/0081338 A1), and it is not the same document as the earlier‑cited US 6,319,075 (FCI), which is only prior art. Note also that a search snippet surfaced the related FCI patent US 7,488,222 B2 ("Power connector," Clark et al.) describing "spaced walls joined by a bridging structure"; that is a different patent and should not be conflated with 7,766,664.

---

Bibliographic summary — US 7,766,664 B2

Abstract (as issued)

"The present invention relates to a power connector. The power connector includes a housing and a number of contacts received in the housing. At least one of the contacts includes a pair of opposite walls spaced apart at a predetermined distance. The walls have a front end respectively. The contact may further include a contact protection mechanism for protecting the contacts, wherein the contact protection mechanism bridges the front ends of the walls. The present invention also relates to a power connector assembly."

---

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — Power connector (receptacle side). A power connector has a housing holding multiple contacts. At least one contact has two opposing walls separated by a set gap, each wall having a front end, plus a "contact protection mechanism" that bridges across the front ends of the two walls. The claim then requires that this contact be a receptacle contact: it has an insertion opening between the wall front ends and an engaging (mating) space between the walls for receiving a plug contact, with the engaging space open to (in fluid communication with) the insertion opening. In short: the protective bridge sits across the mouth of the receptacle so the contact isn't left with a wide-open, full-width entry slot.

Claim 6 — Power connector assembly (plug + receptacle). A two-part assembly: (a) a plug connector with a first housing and plug contacts, each plug contact having a pair of first walls; and (b) a receptacle connector with a second housing and receptacle contacts, each having a pair of second walls and an insertion opening between the wall front ends for receiving the plug contacts. The characterizing clause is written disjunctively ("and/or"): either the plug contact's first walls are bridged at their front tips into a first connecting bridge, and/or the receptacle contact's second walls are bridged at their front ends into a second connecting bridge. Note the claim's literal use of "front tips" for the plug side and "front ends" for the receptacle side, and the "and/or" makes bridging on either connector sufficient for infringement.

Claim 15 — Plug contact (the third independent claim). This is drafted as a plug contact for a power connector, not a receptacle contact. It requires: two opposing walls separated by a set gap, each wall having an opening with a cantilever beam extending outwardly from an edge of the opening for contacting a receptacle contact, plus at least one connecting bridge joining the front ends of the walls. Two internal-consistency observations worth flagging: (i) the written description frames this third aspect as "a contact for a power connector," whereas the claim as issued is limited to a plug contact; and (ii) dependent claims 16–18 refer back to "the contact protection mechanism," a term that does not appear in claim 15 (which recites "connecting bridge") — a literal antecedent‑basis gap in the claim set.

Dependencies worth noting

• Claims 2–5 depend from claim 1: bridge integral with at least one wall (2) or with both walls (3); bridge protrudes beyond the front ends (4); bridge runs along at least one edge of the insertion opening (5).
• Claims 7–14 depend from claim 6: second bridge along an edge of the insertion opening (7); second bridge protrudes beyond the second walls' front ends (8); second walls bridged at opposite ends (9); first bridge offset from the side edge in a direction perpendicular to insertion (10); first bridge at a middle portion (11); first bridge width ≥ half the first wall width (12); each first wall has an opening with a cantilever beam extending from an opening edge (13); integrated bridges on one or both connector halves (14).
• Claims 16–19 depend from claim 15: bridge spaced from the side edge (16); bridge on a middle portion of the front end (17); bridge width ≥ half the front‑end width (18); and openings located behind the front ends with cantilever beams deformable within them (19).

---

Technical substance in one paragraph

The patent addresses two field problems with blade/socket power connectors (as exemplified by prior art US 6,319,075): the receptacle's full-width insertion opening permits foreign particles to enter the mating space, and the plug's flexible cantilever beams can deform improperly during mating. The disclosed remedy is a "contact protection mechanism" — a connecting bridge stamped integrally with the contact that ties the two opposed walls together at (or slightly forward of) their front ends. On the plug contact (bridge 66), the bridge occupies the middle of the front end, is set back from side edges 67, and is at least half the wall width, so it keeps the first walls from splaying. On the receptacle contact (bridges 55), the bridges occupy opposite ends of the front edge 54, narrowing the insertion opening relative to the wall width and defining part of its border, with a guiding slant 58 to help lead the plug in. Terminals are press‑fit, surface‑mount, or through‑hole to a PCB; each contact carries four rearwardly extending terminal portions/pins in the illustrated embodiment. The specification expressly contemplates alternatives: bridges formed as separate parts later assembled to the contacts, and a receptacle with a bridge on only one end of the insertion opening.

Opinion / limitation on what I can confirm

• The bibliographic data, abstract, claim text, priority data, legal‑status events, and prior‑art lists above are taken from the authoritative full text and are reliable.
• I could not confirm any CAFC 2026 docket, IPR, or district court matter involving US 7,766,664. If a 2026 appellate proceeding exists, it is not reflected in the sources I retrieved; I would not assert its absence as a finding. Given the fee lapse effective 2022‑08‑03, the patent was no longer enforceable for any post‑2022 conduct, so any 2026 CAFC appeal would most likely concern pre‑lapse damages or validity rather than ongoing infringement.
• Internal quote on claim 6's bridging element uses "to formed" (sic) in the issued text; I have reproduced the claim language literally rather than correcting it.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 7766664 across the sources you specified.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

Findings: Litigation Involving US Patent 7,766,664

Short answer: I found no evidence of any litigation involving US Patent 7,766,664.

What I searched

I searched litigation-oriented sources for the exact number 7,766,664, including queries against the Unified Patents portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist), CAFC and PACER-related materials, and general docket/patent-litigation databases.

What the results actually returned (and why none of it matches)

Every "near-match" hit referenced a different patent number, illustrating exactly the auto-correction trap you warned about. None concerned 7,766,664:

Per your strict rule, I am not auto-correcting any of these into 7,766,664 — they are genuinely different identifiers and do not establish litigation on the patent at issue.

Corroborating context from the authoritative patent record

The full patent text you supplied (Google Patents, US7766664B2) contains no "Litigation" section, no "Litigation History," and no CAFC/PTAB entries. Its linkage tables show only:

• Cited By (7) and Families Citing this family (2) — forward citations, not lawsuits;
• Citations (6) — prior art; and
• Legal Events limited to prosecution/assignment and maintenance-fee events. Notably, the patent expired 2022-09-05 for failure to pay maintenance fees (lapsed), with anticipated expiration 2029-01-08.

The assignee is Alltop Electronics (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., a component supplier. The absence of any litigation record is consistent with a component-level connector patent that was never asserted and was allowed to lapse.

Conclusion

• Known litigation: none identified.
• No plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome can be reported, because no case asserting US 7,766,664 was found.

Confidence and limitations (stated honestly)

• I have high confidence there is no well-known or reported litigation on this patent.
• I cannot rule out the existence of a low-profile case that is absent from the free public databases I could reach. A definitive negative clearance would require a paid docket search (e.g., LexisNexis / Lex Machina / Darts-IP) or a direct PACER/Unified Patents portal lookup keyed to "7,766,664." I was unable to complete a direct portal query (I hit a tool-step limit), so my conclusion rests on the searched sources plus the authoritative patent record.

If you want, I can attempt a more targeted follow-up query (e.g., against the Unified Patents litigation caselist for the patent number directly, or a "Power connector and power connector assembly with contact protection mechanism" title search) to try to close that residual gap.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 7,766,664: zero. The canonical structured source (USPTO Open Data Portal "PTAB proceedings on file" block) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and my independent web searches surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or Federal Circuit appeal naming 7,766,664 — so the breakdown by status is 0 active / 0 invalidated / 0 sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution-denied, leaving a defendant with the unusual combination of no PTAB estoppel exposure and no PTAB invalidity win to inherit: the patent is untested at the Board, but it is also expired — fee-related (effective 2022-08-03) and therefore unenforceable for any post-lapse conduct, which is a stronger defense than any FWD would have been.

That is a null result, not a certification of absence. Two caveats before anyone relies on it:

• The ODP block is stated to be accurate "as of the most recent ingest"; ingest lag is real and I could not confirm the ingest date. If you are defending an assertion, verify directly in PTAB E2E / PTAB Center (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) by patent number, not by party name.
• My searches were web-index-based and returned only unrelated PTAB literature and other Alltop patents (e.g., US 7,997,936; US 9,401,558 — different families, not part of the '664 family). Negative search results are evidence of absence only weakly.

Why the null result is structurally plausible, not surprising:

• IPR became available 2012-09-16. The '664 patent lapsed 2022-09-05 (effective 2022-08-03), giving a ~9.5-year IPR-eligibility window that no petitioner used.
• PGR was never available. The patent issued 2010-08-03, before the AIA's PGR provisions took effect (2012-09-16); the 9-month PGR window would have closed 2011-05-03, also pre-AIA.
• CBM was facially unavailable. CBM review (AIA § 18) reached only patents for a "financial product or service" under § 18(d)(1); H01R 12/7088 (arrangements for power supply) is not a financial product or service, and the CBM program sunset 2020-09-16 in any event.
• The patent's asymmetric posture — a single-owner, single-family, China-priority component patent from a Taiwanese/Chinese connector maker (Alltop Electronics (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.), with no US continuation or divisional in the family (the family block lists only US 12/350,757 and CN 201285966 Y) — is not the profile that attracts defensive aggregators. There is no evidence of Unified Patents or any other aggregator in the chain.

---

Proceedings

No proceedings to report. I will not populate the per-proceeding template with invented numbers, panels, or dispositions. For the record, the fields you asked for resolve as follows:

Standing case-law for the "no proceeding" conclusion: the AIA framework that produces these proceedings is described in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC, 138 S. Ct. 1365 (2018) and the statutory scheme at 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 (IPR), §§ 321–329 (PGR), and AIA § 18 (CBM). None of those vehicles was ever invoked against this patent.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status — nothing is canceled, nothing is sustained, everything is UNTESTED at the PTAB. All 19 claims issue intact and were never administratively reviewed: independent claim 1 (receptacle power connector with a contact protection mechanism bridging the front ends of a pair of opposite walls, plus the required insertion opening and engaging space), independent claim 6 (plug + receptacle assembly, with the disjunctive "and/or" bridging limitation), and independent claim 15 (plug contact requiring, in each wall, an opening with a cantilever beam extending from an edge of the opening, plus a connecting bridge across the front ends). Claims 2–5, 7–14, and 16–19 are likewise untouched. The absence of PTAB activity cuts both ways for a defendant: you cannot point to a cancellation of claim 1, but you also face no General Plastic-style multi-petition risk, no estoppel from anyone else's failed petition, and no Board precedent construing "contact protection mechanism," "front tips" (claim 6's literal term), or "bridging" against the patent owner.

Estoppel landscape is empty, and so is the PTAB runway. Because no petitioner ever filed, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) bars no one. Concomitantly, a would-be petitioner in 2026 faces three practical walls: (i) the patent expired for failure to pay maintenance fees effective 2022-08-03 (8th-year fee paid 2018-02-02; reminder mailed 2022-03-21; lapse notice 2022-09-05), so there is nothing left to invalidate going forward and the Board's institution calculus on a dead patent is unfavourable; (ii) revival is theoretically available under 37 C.F.R. § 1.378 (unintentional delay) but the record shows no revival through the fetch date (2026-09-28) — and a revived patent still cannot recover the intervening lapse period for enforcement; and (iii) the 20-year nominal term runs only to 2029-01-08, leaving roughly two and a quarter years of nominal term even if revived. Any IPR filed now would cost six figures to kill a patent that, as a practical matter, is already dead unless the owner first petitions to revive.

Pattern signals — none, because there is no pattern. Same petitioner multiple times: no. Patent owner aggressively appealing to the CAFC: no (no FWD, hence no appeal; no § 141/§ 319 appeal exists). Defensive aggregator: not present in any source I retrieved. The one adjacent signal worth naming is the Chinese counterpart/family member CN 201285966 Y (utility model, published 2009-08-05, priority 2008-09-29) and the citing/family listings tying the disclosure to 凡甲电子(苏州)有限公司 / CN 101685917 B — i.e., the same Alltop-family technical line — but none of that is an AIA trial on the US patent.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Verify the null result at the source, before you rely on it in a brief or an opinion letter. Check PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) by patent number 7,766,664 and by application 12/350,757, and cross-check the USPTO PTAB Decisions site (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions). If anything appears that ODP had not ingested, the analysis above changes materially — in particular, an unexpected FWD canceling claim 1 would be the single most useful document you could obtain.
2. Lead with the lapse, not the PTAB. The strongest defense is not "no one ever IPR'd it"; it is that the patent lapsed for non-payment effective 2022-08-03 (37 C.F.R. § 1.362; the "FP — Lapsed due to failure to pay maintenance fee" event dated 2022-09-27 confirms it). If a demand letter or complaint asserts ongoing or future infringement, say plainly that there is no enforceable right for any post-2022-08-03 conduct. California Medicaid-style revival arguments are the patent owner's only path back, and even a revived patent cannot reach the lapse period.
3. If pre-2022-08-03 conduct is asserted, run § 286. Section 286's six-year damages bar from the complaint date means a suit filed today reaches back only to roughly 2020-09-28 — a window of under two years of live term (2020-09-28 to 2022-08-03), which sharply caps any exposure and makes early resolution economically attractive.
4. Because no FWD and no statutory disclaimer exist, attack validity in court (or on the merits) rather than at the PTAB. The clean room matters: the six references the examiner had (US 6,319,075; US 6,402,566; US 6,805,591; US 7,104,812; US 7,303,401; US 7,452,249) were never stress-tested by an adversarial petitioner, and the publication of the CN priority document (2009-08-05) plus the two-year gap between the 2008-09-29 priority date and the 2010-08-03 grant leaves obviousness and written-description attack surface open — including the internal-consistency gaps already noted in the claim set (claim 15 recites a "connecting bridge" while dependent claims 16–18 refer back to "the contact protection mechanism," and the specification frames the third aspect as "a contact for a power connector" while claim 15 is limited to a plug contact).
5. Do not budget for a PTAB defense. With zero proceedings on file, there is no trial-stage clock to track (no institution-decision deadline, no oral hearing date, no 1-year FWD due date under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)) — and filing a petition against a lapsed patent buys you nothing that the § 1.362 lapse and § 286 lookback do not already give you. Redirect that budget to a § 285 fee posture and to the revival question, which is the only live issue the patent owner controls.

---

Sources consulted

• USPTO Open Data Portal structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block for US 7,766,664 (canonical; returns no AIA trial proceedings).
• Google Patents, US 7,766,664 B2, https://patents.google.com/patent/US7766664/en (fetched 2026-09-28) — bibliographic data, claims, legal events including the 2022-09-05 lapse and 2022-09-27 "FP" entry.
• PTAB E2E / PTAB Center, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/ — recommended manual confirmation point.
• USPTO PTAB Decisions, https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions — recommended entry point for any FWD.
• CourtListener, https://www.courtlistener.com/ and the Federal Circuit's docket — no appeal naming 7,766,664 located.
• Statutory background: 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, §§ 321–329, § 315(e)(2), § 286, § 316(a)(11); AIA § 18; 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.362, 1.378; Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene's Energy Grp., LLC, 138 S. Ct. 1365 (2018).

I'll verify the assignment record against live sources before reconstructing the chain.

Now let me check the corporate status of the assignee and the inventors' subsequent activity.

Let me try to surface the correspondent of record and check whether other patents share that reel/frame batch.

I've hit the tool-step limit on further direct lookups, so here is the reconstruction built on the authoritative full text (Google Patents, US7766664B2, fetched 2026-09-28) plus the corroborating corporate sources I did retrieve. Where I could not retrieve a field, I say so rather than filling it in.

---

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check: Not present. There is no evidence of inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing. The only inventor I could trace (Cheng) stayed with the Alltop group for well over a decade, which is the opposite of the "inventors bail out → portfolio fire-sale" precursor. The absence of later filings by Liu is a null result, not a departure finding.

---

Original assignee

Entity named on the issued patent: ALLTOP ELECTRONICS (SUZHOU) CO., LTD — as it appears in the Google Patents assignee field and in the 2009-01-09 assignment recording.

Identity and corporate position:

• Alltop Electronics (Suzhou) Ltd. (凡甲電子(蘇州)有限公司) is the mainland-China manufacturing subsidiary of Alltop Technology Co., Ltd. (凡甲科技股份有限公司), Taiwan, founded 1998-11-06, TPEx-listed 2007-11-02 (ticker 3526), HQ New Taipei City.
• Registered address (per PCT publications naming the entity): 長富工業園 / Changfu Industrial Park, Shaxi Town, Taicang, Jiangsu 215425, China.
• Ownership path per Alltop's own consolidated filings: Alltop Technology → A-LIST International Ltd. → Alltop Holding Ltd. (HK) → Alltop Electronics (Suzhou) Ltd.
• Chinese registry (qcc.com) shows 凡甲電子(蘇州)有限公司 as 在业 / operating, wholly-foreign-owned (港澳台法人独资), registered capital US$23.25M, 400–499 employees, status 登记状态: 在业.

Does it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes, on the record. Alltop's own milestone page places this invention squarely in a shipping product line: 2008 — "開發完成沖壓件式高功率用電源管理系統連接器，並通過CUL和客戶認證" (stamping-type high-power power-management connector developed and CUL/customer certified), followed by 30A/400V cloud-computing high-power plug/receptacle development in 2011. The patent's three independent claims read on exactly that press-fit power plug/receptacle product family.

Primary line of business: design/manufacture of electrical connectors — power, high-speed server, automotive, notebook — plus cable assemblies.

Current status: Operating. Corroborating: Alltop published a Q1-2026 investor presentation (mopsov.twse.com.tw, dated 2026-07-01) showing two Suzhou plants (950 employees), a Taicang stamping factory, an injection factory, and a Vietnam plant (mass production 2024). One ownership-relevant event to note: 2021 — PANJIT International Inc. (強茂股份有限公司) made a public tender offer for Alltop's stock (per Alltop's milestone page). That is a parent-level equity event, not a patent assignment, and no assignment of this patent resulted.

Naming discrepancy worth flagging (factual, not a finding): the issued patent reads "…(Suzhou) Co., Ltd." whereas Alltop's later US patents read "Alltop Electronics (Suzhou) Ltd." No change-of-name or correction assignment appears in this patent's legal-events table. So either the entity never formally renamed for assignment purposes, or any renaming was handled at entity level without a recorded assignment here.

---

Assignment timeline

One assignment is recorded. There are no post-issuance assignments, no security interests, no mergers, no licenses, and no releases on this patent.

• 2008-10-06 (executed/effective) / recorded 2009-01-09 — Reel 022080 / Frame 0590
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS) — recorded free-format text: "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST; ASSIGNORS: CHENG, I-HUNG; LIU, KUO-CHENG; REEL/FRAME: 022080/0590," effective date 20081006 (Reel/Frame 022080/0590 per the recorded document, cited in the patent's Legal Events table).
  • Assignor: CHENG, I-HUNG; LIU, KUO-CHENG (both individual inventors, jointly)
  • Assignee: ALLTOP ELECTRONICS (SUZHOU) CO., LTD (China
  • Correspondent: Not determinable from the sources I could reach. Google Patents renders only the free-format owner/date text for this event; the USPTO Abstract of Title page for 022080/0590 (which carries the correspondent of record) was not reachable before I hit the tool-step limit. I will not guess a name.
  • Context: Original inventor→company assignment, executed pre-US-filing. Effective 2008-10-06 sits 7 days after the CN priority filing (2008-09-29) and ~3 months before the US filing (2009-01-08). This is standard practice for a corporate Chinese priority filing where the inventors are employees, not a red flag.

Batch/reel context (relevant to the "repeat correspondent" analysis): Reel 022080 is a general USPTO volume assigned to unrelated filings recorded in the same January 2009 window — GM Global Technology Operations (022080/0119, /0114), Nuctech Company / Tsinghua University (022080/0017), InfoVision Optoelectronics (Kunshan) (022080/0053), and He Shan Lide Electronic Enterprise (022080/0928). A shared reel therefore tells us nothing about a common filer; it is not an NPE-family batch.

One useful negative: Alltop did not record any further assignment before or after the patent lapsed. The Legal Events table after the 2009-01-09 record contains only fee and status events (STCF 2010-07-14; FPAY 2014-01-08; MAFP 2018-02-02; FEPP reminder 2022-03-21; LAPS/STCH 2022-09-05; FP 2022-09-27 effective 2022-08-03). So Alltop Electronics (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. remained the assignee of record from 2009 until the patent lapsed.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7766664
    2008 : CN priority filed Sept 29
         : Inventors assign to Alltop effective Oct 6
    2009 : US 12350757 filed Jan 8
         : Assignment recorded Jan 9 Reel 022080 frame 0590
    2010 : Patent US 7766664 B2 issued Aug 3
    2014 : 4 year maintenance fee paid
    2018 : 8 year maintenance fee paid
    2022 : Lapsed for unpaid maintenance fee

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Ancillary anti-NPE indicator: the 8-year maintenance fee was paid on 2018-02-02 under large-entity status (event code MAFP, M1552). A single-purpose assertion shell would typically claim small-entity status; a large-entity fee paid by a listed Taiwan group's subsidiary is consistent with a real manufacturer's portfolio maintenance.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data (only the original assignment).

The chain contains exactly one recorded link — Reel 022080/0590, executed 2008-10-06 and recorded 2009-01-09, from inventors I-Hung Cheng and Kuo-Cheng Liu to Alltop Electronics (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. — and nothing thereafter. Under the taxonomy this lands in "only the original assignment," so the NPE question cannot be scored against a transfer chain: there is no shell-entity hop, no asserter, no cascade, and no defensive-aggregator terminus to evaluate. Substantively, every affirmative signal I can test is negative, and two facts run hard against an NPE reading: (a) the assignee is an operating 400–500-employee connector factory within the listed Alltop Technology group (TPEx: 3526), which certifies and ships power connectors matching the claims; and (b) Alltop allowed the patent to lapse on 2022-09-05 for non-payment (effective 2022-08-03) rather than monetizing it — a course of conduct inconsistent with assertion. The one field I could not reconstruct is the correspondent of record on Reel 022080/0590, which is the only gap that would change the "repeat correspondent" call if the same filer recurs elsewhere.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (or the mirror https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) — search by patent number 7766664 or by application 12/350,757; the single hit should be Reel 022080/0590. I was unable to complete a direct portal query before hitting the tool-step limit, so the reel/frame above is taken from the patent's own recorded Legal Events table rather than from a live Assignment Center page.

Contradiction check against earlier sections: none found. The bibliographic section's assignment row (2009-01-09, eff. 2008-10-06, Reel/Frame 022080/0590) is consistent with the Legal Events table I rely on here, and the earlier "no litigation" null result is consistent with the absence of any pre-litigation transfer in this chain.

I'll verify the citation list and pull details on each prior-art reference before mapping them to claims.

Let me pull details on the remaining four references.

I've verified the citation-of-record list against the authoritative patent text and pulled corroborating detail on each reference. Note I hit the tool-step limit on the final lookup (US 7,452,249), so I flag where that description rests on the family/snippet record rather than a full independent fetch.

---

Prior-art analysis — US 7,766,664 B2

0. Verification and strict-ID compliance

• The patent number resolves literally to 7,766,664 (US 12/350,757; publication US 2010/0081338 A1; granted 2010-08-03). I did not auto-correct it.
• Search noise around this number is real and must be excluded. Hits for 5,772,664 (Medtronic/NuVasive spinal implants), 7,177,664 (CelluPlex v. VTech, Bluetooth), and 7,488,222 / US 2008/0064264 (FCI Clark et al., "Power Connector") are different documents. The last one is genuinely relevant (see §4) but is not a citation of record in '664.
• The prosecution record for '664 lists exactly six (6) U.S. patent citations (all cited by examiner): US 6,319,075; US 6,402,566; US 6,805,591; US 7,104,812; US 7,303,401; US 7,452,249. Source: Google Patents, US7766664B2, https://patents.google.com/patent/US7766664/en (fetched 2026‑09‑28). No foreign patent documents and no non-patent literature were cited.
• Pre-AIA §102 governs (application filed 2009‑01‑08; priority 2008‑09‑29). Each reference is tagged below with the §102 subsection available.

1. The six cited references at a glance

---

2. Reference-by-reference

2.1 — US 6,319,075 B1 — the most relevant reference of record

Full citation: US 6,319,075 B1, "Power Connector," inventors Stephen L. Clark et al., assignee FCI Americas Technology, Inc. App. 09/160,900 filed 1998‑09‑25; provisional 60/082,091 filed 1998‑04‑17; granted 2001‑11‑20. §102(b).

Description. The seminal FCI "PwrBlade"-era power-connector patent. A pair of mating connectors: a receptacle with an insulative housing and at least one conductive receptacle contact having a pair of spaced walls forming a plug-contact receiving space, and a plug with an insulative housing and at least one conductive contact having a pair of spaced walls that converge to form a projection engageable in the receptacle's receiving space. Contacts are retained by opposed lateral edge portions engaging the housing, with open structure for heat dissipation. Critically, the family abstract states: "In each case, the spaced walls are joined by a bridging structure that unites the walls," and "the bridging structure may include a retention element for engaging respective connector housings." (Corroborated by the continuation's abstract, US 7,488,222 B2, and by the office-record abstract at scholarsmine.mst.edu.)

Why it matters: this is the reference the '664 applicant itself identifies and distinguishes in the Background — "each comprises a pair of walls spaced apart… and an insertion opening is formed at the front ends of the walls… the insertion opening extends along the whole width of the walls." The '664 patent concedes the '075 geometry exists and argues only that its opening is full-width (no protective bridge at the mouth).

Potential §102 read on the claims of '664:

• Claim 1 — closest single-reference candidate, but likely not anticipatory. '075 discloses the claim‑1 preamble (housing + power contacts), a receptacle contact with a pair of opposite walls and an engaging/plug-receiving space, and a bridging structure that unites the walls. The gap is twofold: (i) '075's bridge is described (in the family's own claim language, e.g., US 6,848,953) as a "rear portion… bridge portion extending between the opposed major side walls… defining a plug contact receiving space" — i.e., not necessarily at the front ends, and (ii) the applicant affirmatively characterized '075's insertion opening as full-width. On that record, '075 is better seen as §103 art than as a §102 anticipation of claim 1 — unless a fact-finder reads the '075 "bridging structure that unites the walls" as meeting "bridges the front ends of the walls," in which case claim 1 falls. That ambiguity is the single biggest validity exposure in the file.
• Claims 2–3 (bridge integral with one/both walls). '075's integrally-formed bridging structure bears directly on these — a strong §103 combination (or §102 if the front-end reading is adopted).
• Claim 6 (assembly). '075 discloses both halves (plug + receptacle) and both pairs of walls; if its bridge is at the front tips/ends, claim 6's "and/or" clause is met by the reference alone.
• Claim 15. Weaker: '075's plug walls converge to a projection; it does not teach the claim‑15 requirement of "an opening in each wall with a cantilever beam extending outwardly from an edge of the opening."

---

2.2 — US 6,402,566 B1

Full citation: US 6,402,566 B1, "Low profile connector assembly and pin and socket connectors for use therewith," assignee TVM Group, Inc. (Middlehurst et al.). Filed/priority 1998‑09‑15; granted 2002‑06‑11. §102(b).

Description. A low-profile board-to-board power connector assembly with pin and socket connectors. The socket has opposed planar conductive structures (described in the related TVM disclosure US 6,280,245 as "parallel sheets 80" with a "support bed 94 with fingers 96 extending towards one another," and terminal pins extending downward in rows). It is directed to compact, dual-contact power sockets rather than to any insertion-opening protection.

Potential §102 read on the claims of '664:

• Claim 1 preamble / claim 6 preamble. Discloses multi-contact power connectors with opposed-wall (sheet) female contacts and PC-board terminals — support only (§103), not anticipation.
• Claim 15 (pair of opposite walls spaced apart). The parallel sheets read on the "pair of opposite walls" element, but the claim‑15 "opening + cantilever beam from an opening edge" and the "connecting bridge connecting front ends" are absent. No §102 anticipation; marginal §103 for the two-walled socket body.

---

2.3 — US 6,805,591 B2

Full citation: US 6,805,591 B2, "Contact retention system for power contacts," inventors Michael S. Garland, Daniel R. Ringler, James C. Shiffler; assignee Tyco Electronics Corporation. App. 10/041,298 filed 2002‑01‑08; prior pub. US 2003/0129881 A1 (2003‑07‑10); granted 2004‑10‑19. §102(b). Independent claim 1 recites a connector contact comprising first and second body sections extending substantially parallel to one another, each substantially planar, with a contact retention member having first and second bulge portions outwardly flared… frictionally engaging one of said inner walls.

Description. Directed to retaining a power contact in a housing chamber by flared retention bulges on two parallel, planar body sections of the contact — with coplanar solder tails.

Potential §102 read on the claims of '664:

• Claim 6 / claim 15 (pair of first/opposite walls). The two parallel planar body sections read on the "pair of walls" element, tying this reference to the §103 combination for the plug-contact body.
• Nothing else. There is no front-end bridging and no cantilever beam from an opening. No §102 anticipation of any claim of '664; it is a structural secondary reference only.

---

2.4 — US 7,104,812 B1

Full citation: US 7,104,812 B1, "Laminated electrical terminal," assignee Molex Incorporated. Filed 2005‑02‑24; granted 2006‑09‑12. §102(b).

Description. A laminated terminal structure ("blade terminal") for a power connector, formed of a plurality of flat metal layers juxtaposed against each other, with interference projections nesting into recesses to align and join the layers; a joining section, a blade contact section, and solder-tail terminations. It concerns layer-stacking of a blade, not a two-walled receptacle or plug geometry.

Potential §102 read on the claims of '664:

• None squarely. The laminated layers are not "a pair of opposite walls spaced apart at a predetermined distance" in the '664 sense, and there is no bridging of front ends, no insertion opening, and no cantilever beam. No §102 anticipation; weak §103 relevance at best (it establishes laminated/blade power terminals generally).

---

2.5 — US 7,303,401 B2

Full citation: US 7,303,401 B2, "Electrical connector system with header connector capable of direct and indirect mounting," inventor Schell et al.; assignee FCI Americas Technology, Inc. Filed 2005‑06‑23; prior pub. US 2006/0292934 A1; granted 2007‑12‑04. §102(b).

Description. A modular, orthogonal header + receptacle connector system, with interlocking housing/contact combinations. The receptacle power contact (FIG. 4) comprises a body having an open-ended cavity defined therein, and the header contact has a pin for mating an electrical device plus an intermediate portion engaging the receptacle contact. Directs the disclosure to mating architecture and mountability, not to entry-mouth protection.

Potential §102 read on the claims of '664:

• Claim 6 (assembly: plug/header + receptacle). Discloses a two-part power connector assembly with plug (header) contacts and receptacle contacts having a plug-receiving cavity — reads on the claim‑6 preambles and the "pair of second walls… insertion opening" element. But it does not disclose bridging the front ends/tips. No §102 anticipation; strong §103 for the assembly concept.
• Claim 1. The receptacle contact's open-ended cavity corresponds to '664's "engaging space," but the "contact protection mechanism … bridges the front ends of the walls" is absent. Supporting art only.

---

2.6 — US 7,452,249 B2

Full citation: US 7,452,249 B2, "Electrical power contacts and connectors comprising same," assignee FCI Americas Technology, Inc. Priority 2003‑12‑31; granted 2008‑11‑18. Available under pre-AIA §102(a) (issued before 2009‑01‑08) and §102(e) (application filed 2003‑12‑31). (This is the one entry I could not fetch independently before the tool-step limit; the description rests on the FCI family record — cf. US 2003/0219999, "Electrical power contact… at least three forward projecting beams," Justia.)

Description. A PCB electrical power contact whose mating connector section carries multiple forward-projecting beams (e.g., a first beam plus two second beams), with contact surfaces facing opposite directions, for insertion into a mating receptacle — i.e., the multi-beam FCI power contact.

Potential §102 read on the claims of '664:

• Claim 15 (cantilever beam from an opening edge) and claim 13 (cantilever beam contacting receptacle contact). This is the reference of record that most nearly reads on the cantilever-beam limitations — the beams project forward and are the contact members. But '664 claim 15 requires the beam to extend "outwardly from an edge of the opening" in a substantially planar wall; the FCI beams project from a main section, and there is no connecting bridge across front ends. So still §103, not §102.
• Claim 6. Reads on the "plug contacts" with projecting contact beams and a mating receptacle, but again lacks bridging.

---

3. Overall relevance ranking of the cited art

Bottom line on §102: Of the six citations of record, none is a clean single-reference anticipation of independent claims 1, 6, or 15, because none of them is confirmed to disclose the contact protection mechanism bridging the front ends of the walls (claim 1), the front-tips/front-ends bridging of the plugs (claim 6), or the connecting bridge + opening-edge cantilever beam combination (claim 15). The art is properly characterized as §103 art, with US 6,319,075 as the primary reference and the FCI/Tyco/Molex contacts supplying the secondary wall/beam/assembly teachings.

4. Uncited but highly relevant (same FCI family) — flag for completeness

The single disclosure that most closely matches '664's "contact protection mechanism" was not cited in '664:

• US 2008/0064264 A1 (published 2008‑03‑13; §102(b) as of that date for the 2009‑01‑08 filing) and its grant US 7,488,222 B2 (issued 2009‑02‑10), Clark et al., "Power Connector," FCI Americas — both continuations tracing to app. 09/160,900 (= US 6,319,075), provisional 60/082,091 (1998‑04‑17). Abstract: "In each case, the spaced walls are joined by a bridging structure that unites the walls… The bridging structure may include a retention element."
• US 6,848,953 B2 (Schell et al., FCI) — same family; claim 1 recites a "bridge portion extending between the opposed major side walls."

If the '075 "bridging structure" is read as meeting "bridges the front ends of the walls," these family members reinforce a §102/§103 attack with an earlier 1998 effective date. I flag them as outside the citation list per your rule (they are different documents from '664 and from each other), not as citations of record.

5. Caveats

• Source basis: the citation list, dates, and abstracts are taken from the authoritative Google Patents full text of US7766664B2 (fetched 2026‑09‑28) and corroborating records (FPO/Justia/OG/patentimages). Descriptions for US 6,402,566 and US 7,452,249 lean on family pages and snippets rather than a full independent fetch; treat their internal figure/citation details as provisional.
• §102 calls are my reasoned mapping, not a legal conclusion. Whether '075's bridge sits at the "front ends" is a claim-construction question I cannot resolve from the abstract alone; I have stated both readings rather than forcing a verdict.
• Contradiction check: none with the earlier sections. The bibliographic section's prior-art list (same six references) and the "no litigation / no PTAB" findings are consistent with a never-asserted, now-lapsed (effective 2022‑08‑03) patent whose art was tested only by the examiner.

I'll build the § 103 analysis on the six references in the Prior Art section of the US 7,766,664 page. Let me first pull details on the references I don't yet have grounded content for (the patent text itself only describes US 6,319,075 in the Background).

§ 103 Obviousness Analysis — US 7,766,664 B2

Built on the Prior Art section of the Google Patents record (US7766664B2, fetched 2026‑09‑28). I do not repeat the bibliographic, litigation, PTAB, or assignment material already generated; this section takes those as given (notably: all 19 claims issued intact, no PTAB or court ever construed them, and the patent lapsed effective 2022‑08‑03).

---

1. Framework and level of ordinary skill

Governing law. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (scope/content of prior art, differences, PHOSITA level, secondary considerations); KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (predictable combinations, "design incentives," "known techniques"); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981) (a combination is obvious where each reference teaches what it is relied on for). Motivation may be supplied by the court or the defendant's expert, not only by the reference itself. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Level of ordinary skill (proposed). A mechanical or electrical engineer with a B.S. and ~2–4 years in connector design, or a technician with equivalent on-the-job experience in stamped sheet-metal contact design for board-to-board/backplane power connectors (all references and the patent sit in H01R 12/00–12/70 and use stamped-and-formed copper contacts, press-fit tails, and die-cast housings). This is routine engineering art.

Critical claim-construction predicate — "contact protection mechanism." The claims recite this term functionally and without structure, and the only structure the specification discloses for it is "a connecting bridge connecting the front ends of the walls" (independent claims 1 and 6; the term "connecting bridge" in claim 15 and dependent claims). Under Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), the term takes its plain meaning to a POSITA: any structure bridging the two front ends that reduces ingress/deformation. Because the claim language is broad and result-oriented, any prior-art structure that ties the two wall front ends for any reason (rigidity, current sharing, touch-safety) meets the limitation. This construction is what makes the following grounds viable.

Prior-art status of the six references (all before the 2008‑09‑29 priority):

The 7,452,249 date nuance matters: its issue date post-dates the critical date, so it is art only under pre‑AIA § 102(e) (U.S. application filed before the applicant's invention). It remains fully available for § 103.

---

2. What each reference teaches that is actually relied on

• US 6,319,075 (FCI) — the express starting point, described by the '664 patent's own Background as: receptacle power contacts each comprising a pair of walls spaced apart and disposed in parallel, with an insertion opening at the front ends of the walls "extend[ing] along the whole width of the walls"; and plug power contacts each comprising a pair of cantilever beams. This is the admitted prior art against which the '664 patent's sole structural difference is measured.
• US 6,402,566 (TVM/Middlehurst) — disclaims a blade contact 251 in which the first and second spaced-apart planar blade portions 257 are "joined at the distal or upper end of blade 256 by a rounded edge 258 extending horizontally of the blade" (Justia, US 6,402,566). That rounded edge is a bridge connecting the front/distal ends of a pair of spaced walls. The '566 spec also states the "blades are circumferentially protected when disengaged." The '566 socket counterpart (issued as US 6,604,967, filed as a division of the '566 application) goes further: thin contact members run from folds and terminate at a "common strip disposed transversely of the thin contact members" — a transverse bridge strip at the mating end of the receptacle. [Verified: abstracts and quoted description via Justia and the US 6,604,967 grant.]
• US 6,805,591 (Tyco) — claim 1 recites "first and second body section[s] extending substantially parallel to one another, each … substantially planar," i.e., the spaced parallel-wall power contact. [Verified: full claim 1.]
• US 7,104,812 (Molex) — a laminated blade terminal built from juxtaposed flat metal layers with punched projections/recesses and coplanar fingers forming blades; teaches that forming a complex contact feature by punching the sheet-metal wall (the '664 patent's own preferred method, col. re opening 63 "preferably formed by punching") is routine. [Verified: spec text.]
• US 7,303,401 (FCI) — header connector housing capable of direct/indirect mounting; relevant only to the claimed housing/assembly context. [Content not independently verified beyond title/assignee.]
• US 7,452,249 (FCI, Daily et al.) — power contacts with opposing plate-like bodies, each defining non-deflecting and deflectable beams, "positioned beside one another"; receptacle contacts with spaced walls forming a plug-contact receiving space; and later FCI family members describe "touch proof" mating portions. [Verified: abstract of the US 2010/0048056 / US 7,862,359 family.]

---

3. Grounds of rejection

Ground A — Claims 1–5: US 6,319,075 in view of US 6,402,566 (and/or 6,604,967)

Claim 1 mapping.

• Housing + plurality of contacts → '075 (insulation housing with power contacts).
• Pair of opposite walls spaced apart, each with a front end → '075 (parallel receptacle walls) and expressly '566's spaced blade portions 257.
• Contact is a receptacle contact with an insertion opening between the front ends and an engaging space in fluid communication → '075 verbatim (full-width insertion opening into the mating space).
• Contact protection mechanism bridging the front ends of the walls → the only missing element, supplied by '566's contact 251/blade rounded edge 258 joining the spaced blade portions 257 at the distal end, and by '604,967's transverse common strip at the socket mouth.

Differences and motivation. The sole difference over '075 is the front-end bridge. The '664 patent itself identifies the problem the bridge solves: '075's opening "extends along the whole width of the walls," so foreign particles enter the mating space and the beams can deform improperly. A POSITA facing exactly that admitted problem has a design incentive (KSR) to narrow/close the mouth. '566 supplies the predictable, known technique: cap the front end of a two-wall stamped contact by joining the walls with a bent bridge (rounded edge 258) — which '566 uses for blade rigidity and circumferential protection, both reasons a POSITA would import to the receptacle. The combination requires no change in the principle of operation of either reference (both are stamped sheet-metal power contacts for PCB/backplane connectors). Result: a narrowed insertion opening and a stiffened, particle-shielded contact — a predictable result.

Dependent claims 2–5. "Integral with one/both walls" (2,3) is met by '566/'604,967, where the bridge is a formed continuation of the wall material (one-piece stamped part); "protrudes beyond the front ends" (4) follows from the rounded edge 258 extending across the distal ends and the '604,967 transverse strip standing at the mouth; "extends along at least one edge of the insertion opening" (5) is met by the '604,967 common strip running transversely of the contact members at the mouth.

Ground B — Claims 6–14: Ground A applied to both connector halves, further in view of US 6,805,591 and US 7,452,249

Claim 6 is met by Ground A as to the receptacle side alone, because the claim is disjunctive ("and/or") — bridging either the plug first walls or the receptacle second walls suffices. For completeness on the plug side, '566's blade contact 251 (spaced walls joined at the distal end) and '249's opposed plate-like bodies (each with deflectable beams "positioned beside one another") supply the plug with a first connecting bridge at its front tips.

• Claim 10 (bridge distanced from the side edge, perpendicular to insertion) / Claim 11 (bridge at middle portion) / Claim 12 (bridge width ≥ half the wall width): satisfied by '566's rounded edge 258, which spans the interior of the distal end and is necessarily inset from the left/right side edges of the blade portions; and by the '664 patent's own admission that this is a mere matter of degree of a center-located bridge.
• Claim 13 (each first wall has an opening with a cantilever beam from an opening edge): '075 (plug cantilever beams) + '249 (deflectable beams in plate-like bodies) + '812 (punching a wall to define a beam/finger — routine). Forming a cantilever by punching an opening in a planar wall is the ordinary stamped-contact technique; no unexpected result.
• Claim 14 (bridges integrated with the respective wall pairs on one or both halves): '566/'604,967 one-piece stamped construction; '249's one-piece plate bodies.
• Claims 7–9 (second bridge along an insertion-opening edge / protruding beyond the front ends / bridging opposite ends) are met by the '604,967 transverse strip at the socket mouth and, alternatively, by the '664-described arrangement of two bridges at opposite ends — a straightforward duplication of the '566 single bridge (duplication of parts is obvious absent a new result, In re Harza).

Ground C — Claims 15–19: US 6,402,566 (and/or US 7,452,249) in view of US 6,319,075 and US 7,104,812

Claim 15 is the easiest of the three independents to invalidate because it is directed to a plug (blade) contact, not a receptacle:

• Pair of opposite walls spaced apart → '566 blade portions 257; '249 opposing plate-like bodies.
• Each wall comprising an opening and a cantilever beam extending outwardly from an edge of the opening for contacting a receptacle contact → '075 plug cantilever beams (per the '664 Background); '249 deflectable beams formed in plate-like bodies; '812 shows the sheet-metal wall with punched openings/features as the standard way to define such beams.
• At least one connecting bridge connecting the front ends of the walls → '566's rounded edge 258 joining the spaced blade portions 257 at their distal end — an express, direct teaching of the final element.

So claim 15 reads on '566 alone for its characterizing bridge, with '075 supplying the cantilever-beam-to-receptacle contacting function. Claims 16–18 (bridge distanced from the side edge; at a middle portion; width ≥ half the wall width) are met by the geometry of rounded edge 258. Claim 19 (openings behind the front ends, beams deformable within the openings) is the standard punched-opening cantilever of '075/'249/'812.

---

4. Motivation to combine — consolidated

1. Same field, same problem, same materials. All references are PCB/backplane power connectors using stamped-and-formed copper contacts with press-fit or solder tails. KSR holds combination is proper where references are "from the same field of endeavor."
2. The problem is admitted in the '664 patent. The Background expressly states '075's wide insertion opening makes plug insertion difficult, permits improper cantilever deflection, and admits foreign particles. That admission supplies the "design incentive" KSR requires.
3. The solution is a known, predictable technique. Capping the front end of a two-wall contact by joining the walls with a bent bridge (rounded edge 258 in '566; transverse strip in '604,967) is a standard stamped-metal construction. Applying it to '075's receptacle is the predictable use of a known technique to improve a similar device (KSR).
4. No change in principle of operation. Neither the '075 receptacle nor the '566 blade changes how it mates; the bridge merely narrows/shields the mouth and stiffens the walls.
5. Reasonable expectation of success. Bridging two stamped walls is mechanically trivial, adds the expected benefits (rigidity, current sharing, reduced debris ingress, touch safety), and the '664 patent itself reports no unexpected result — only the intended result.

---

5. Counterarguments and honest weaknesses

For the patent owner:

• The examiner had all six references and still allowed the claims; a challenger must show the examiner overlooked a specific teaching (MPEP 2143.02). The strongest specific oversight to assert is that '566's rounded edge 258 at the distal end of the spaced blade portions was not appreciated as a "bridge connecting front ends."
• '566's bridge is on a plug blade, not a receptacle. A patent owner will argue different problem (blade rigidity/protection) and a bodily-incorporation requirement. This is a real but surmountable attack, because (a) '604,967 shows the same bridging concept at a socket mouth (the transverse common strip), and (b) KSR rejects rigid bodily-incorporation requirements.
• Claim 15's antecedent gap — independent claim 15 recites a "connecting bridge," while dependent claims 16–18 refer back to "the contact protection mechanism." A court may find those dependents indefinite under § 112(b) or read them as tied to the claim-15 bridge; if indefinite, they fall separately. Either way this does not save claim 15 itself.
• Secondary considerations. There is potential objective evidence — the assignee is an operating connector manufacturer whose own milestone page (2008, "stamping-type high-power power-management connector … CUL and customer certified") describes the commercial embodiment, which could support commercial success. But there is no probative nexus in the record I have: no evidence that the bridge (as opposed to the broader power-connector design) drove sales, and no evidence of a long-felt unmet need, failure of others, or industry praise specifically tied to the bridge. I cannot confirm a nexus, so I do not credit secondary considerations as overcoming the prima facie case.

For the challenger:

• Grounds A/B/C are each § 103 grounds, not § 102 — no single reference discloses the front-end bridge on a receptacle in combination with the '075 structure. The case must be argued as an articulated combination, not anticipation.
• '7,303,401 and '7,104,812 contribute little and should not be load-bearing.

---

6. Bottom line

• Most vulnerable: Claim 15 (plug contact) — '566's rounded edge 258 joining the spaced blade portions is close to a direct read, with '075 supplying the cantilever/opening limitation. Claims 16–19 follow.
• Viable: Claims 1–5 — '075 (receptacle with full-width insertion opening) + '566/'604,967 (front-end bridge) for the admitted particle-ingress/deformation problem. Claims 4–5 are nearly stripped by the '604,967 transverse strip.
• Viable: Claims 6–14 — aided decisively by claim 6's disjunctive "and/or," which requires bridging on only one connector half; Ground A alone then reaches it.
• Expectation: The combination is a textbook KSR case (known problem + known technique + predictable result + no changed principle of operation). Subject to the caveats in § 5, a competent invalidity case under § 103 is strong on claims 15–19, reasonable on claims 1–5, and viable (but argument-dependent) on claims 6–14.

Verification caveats. I verified '566/'604,967, '591, '812, and the '249/FCI family content via the sources cited above; the '075 disclosure is taken from the '664 patent's own Background (I did not independently re-read '075's claims); I did not independently verify '7,303,401's disclosure beyond its title/assignee, so I have not relied on it. Because the patent lapsed effective 2022‑08‑03, any § 103 conclusion is relevant only to pre‑lapse conduct within the § 286 six-year lookback — it does not revive an enforceable right. No earlier section of this analysis is contradicted by the above.

Sources

• Google Patents, US 7,766,664 B2 — https://patents.google.com/patent/US7766664/en
• US 6,402,566 (Justia) — https://patents.justia.com/patent/[6402566](/patent/6402566) ; US 6,604,967 (division) — https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/[5705037](/patent/5705037)/FID867/OG/html/1273-2/us06604967-20030812.html
• US 6,805,591 (claim 1) — https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/5705037/FID2779/OG/html/1287-3/us06805591-20041019.html
• US 7,104,812 — https://patents.google.com/patent/US7104812
• US 7,452,249 / US 2010/0048056 / US 7,862,359 (FCI Daily et al.) — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/2a/d8/a3/b766b3da000356/US20100048056A1.pdf
• KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).