US 7833053

I'll search for this specific patent number and related litigation.

Let me dig deeper into the reexamination and any Federal Circuit activity for this specific patent.

Let me verify the final disposition of the reexamination and check for any Federal Circuit appeal.

US Patent 7,833,053 — Summary

Search conducted: USPTO/PTAB records and patent databases, plus a targeted sweep for Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 docket activity mentioning this patent number. (Note: the environment date on my side reads 2026‑09‑29, not 2026‑04‑26 — flagging the discrepancy.)

Bottom line up front: This patent is not a live, enforceable right. Its 12 issued claims were cancelled in an inter partes reexamination, and I found no 2026 CAFC docket activity for it. Details below.

Bibliographic data (as issued)

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7833053/en

Abstract (verbatim)

"A connector having a conductive member is provided, wherein the connector comprises a connector body capable of sealing and securing a coaxial cable, and further wherein the conductive member, such as an O-ring, physically seals the connector, electrically couples the connector and the coaxial cable, facilitates grounding through the connector, and renders an electromagnetic shield preventing ingress of unwanted environmental noise."

⚠️ Critical caveat: the claims were cancelled in reexamination

The Google Patents page still displays the issued claims and a "Expired – Lifetime" label, but the USPTO reexamination record shows otherwise:

• Inter partes reexamination control 95/001,689, requested July 18, 2011 by Belden Inc. (real party in interest; Foley & Lardner LLP), controlling patent 7,833,053, art unit 3992. Filed while the patent was in litigation captioned John Mezzalingua v. Thomas & Betts, No. 1:10‑cv‑719‑RC (E.D. Tex.).
  • Source (reexam request coverage): http://patentlawcenter.pli.edu/2011/07/25/...
• PTAB Appeal 2013‑009123 (Patent Owner/Appellant PPC Broadband; Requester Foley & Lardner): the Board affirmed the examiner's rejections of claims 1–19 (claims 1–12 original; claim 8 amended; claims 13–19 added during reexamination). Decision date referenced as October 22, 2013. Grounds included §103 over Youtsey (US 6,042,422), Lionetto (US 4,929,188) and Horak (US 3,879,102), and §102(a)/(e) anticipation by Palinkas (US 6,716,062 B1).
  • Source: PTAB docket document set, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1549312](/patent/1549312)/download-documents (Appeal 2013‑009123, Reexam Control 95/001,689).
• Inter partes reexamination certificate US 7,833,053 C1, issued February 24, 2014: "Claims 1‑12 are cancelled." The examiner's Notice of Intent to Issue certificate (signed Jan. 7, 2014) states: "original claims 1‑12 and new claims 13‑19 have been canceled."
  • Source: same PTAB document set (Notice of Intent / Reexamination Certificate).

Consequence: as of the 2014 certificate, the patent retained no patentable claims. Any "Expired – Lifetime" label on Google Patents appears to reflect term/legal‑status metadata rather than the reexamination outcome, so treat that label with caution.

Uncertainty flag: I did not find a Federal Circuit appeal of the '053 reexamination in my searches. The reexamination certificate issued only ~4 months after the PTAB decision (consistent with no successful/stayed appeal), but I cannot confirm from the retrieved records whether PPC filed and abandoned/withdrew a CAFC appeal. Treat this as unverified.

Independent claims (as issued) — plain language

Claim 1 — A coaxial-cable connector that also connects to an interface port having a conductive surface. It requires four elements:

1. A post — its first end is inserted into the prepared cable, around the dielectric and under the grounding shield.
2. A connector body attached to and at least partially surrounding the post; the body + post define a space that receives the cable's grounding shield.
3. A nut attached near the post's second end.
4. A conductive member electrically engaged with the post's second end, adapted to physically touch the port's conductive surface and thereby ground the cable.

Claim 8 — Similar connector, stated a bit differently: a post (first end into the cable under the shield); a connector body on the post defining a space for the grounding sheath; a nut adjacent the post's second end; and a compressible conductive member located at the second end of the post that facilitates grounding of the cable.

Dependent claims — quick map

• 2 — conductive member is resiliently deformable and compressed between the post's second end and the port surface.
• 3 — nut is conductive. 4 — nut has a threaded internal surface. 5 — conductive member electrically engages the nut's internal surface.
• 6 — a fastening member secures the grounding sheath within the space.
• 7 — a second conductive member electrically engages the connector body with the nut (the O‑ring 80 / "connector body conductive member" embodiment).
• 9 — threaded nut operably attached to the post. 10 — conductive member is an O‑ring that completes an EMI shield. 11 — conductive member facilitates grounding. 12 — fastener member deforms/seals the connector body onto the cable.

(Claims 13, 16, and 18 were added as independent claims during reexamination — covering, e.g., a conductive member engaged with the post flange that stops axial progression onto the port — but they were cancelled along with everything else.)

Litigation (from the patent record)

• John Mezzalingua Associates v. Thomas & Betts, No. 1:10‑cv‑00719 (E.D. Tex.) — the '053 patent was asserted here (same image: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7833053/en).
• Case No. 6:11‑cv‑06327 (W.D.N.Y.) — also listed in the Google Patents litigation records for this family.
• The '053 is part of family ID 36461498 (five US members: 10/997,218 abandoned; 12/397,087 → US 7,828,595; 12/414,159 → US 7,845,976; 12/427,843 → US 7,833,053; 12/941,709 → US 7,950,958).

CAFC 2026 dockets

A search of 2026 Federal Circuit / appellate dockets surfaced no case involving US 7,833,053. The 2026 CAFC activity that appeared (Netlist/Micron/Samsung, Wilus, GoPro/CIPH, etc.) is unrelated to this patent. The only appellate‑level proceeding tied to the '053 that I could verify is the 2013 PTAB appeal described above.

Caveats on this summary

• Claim text above is taken from the authoritative full text supplied for US 7,833,053 (12 claims; independent 1 and 8). The reexamination added independent claims 13/16/18, per the PTAB record; I quoted those only in paraphrase.
• The Google Patents "Expired – Lifetime" status and the reexamination cancellation are not inconsistent (term‑based status vs. claim status), but if you need a definitive current legal status you should pull the C1 certificate and USPTO PatentCenter reexamination history for control 95/001,689 directly, since I am relying on retrieved snippets for the certificate details.
• I could not verify whether any post‑2014 CAFC appeal existed; flag that as an open item rather than a confirmed negative.

I'll research litigation involving US 7,833,053 through multiple sources.

Let me dig into the specific cases and search additional sources.

Let me verify the case outcomes and check for more recent assertions.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 7,833,053

Important framing note: I searched the Unified Patents litigation portal (as directed), the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, CourtListener/RECAP, Justia Dockets, the USPTO reexamination file for this patent, and general web sources. I found one asserted litigation family — a single case that was filed in E.D. Tex. and then transferred to W.D.N.Y. — plus a related inter partes reexamination triggered by the defendant's affiliate. Details and confidence levels are given below. I flag explicitly where I could not verify an outcome.

1. John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC v. Thomas & Betts Corporation

First filing (as originally filed):

• Plaintiff: John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc., d/b/a PPC (E. Syracuse, NY; now PPC Broadband, Inc.)
• Defendant: Thomas & Betts Corporation
• Jurisdiction/Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas — Case No. 1:10-cv-00719-RC (Judge Ron Clark)
• Filing date: November 9, 2010 (original complaint); a First Amended Complaint was filed November 16, 2010
• Cause of action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 patent infringement
• Status/outcome: Motion to transfer venue granted; the case was transferred out of E.D. Tex. on June 29–30, 2011 to the Western District of New York. (Per Judge Clark's June 7, 2011 order, the court granted transfer despite W.D.N.Y.'s longer reported time-to-trial.)
• Source: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/1%3A10-cv-00719 ; https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/7833053 ; docket entries reproduced in USPTO reexam files.

Transferred case (the operative proceeding):

• Case: John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. v. Thomas & Betts Corporation
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York (Rochester Office) — Case No. 6:11-cv-06327
• Filed (in W.D.N.Y.): June 30, 2011
• Presiding Judge: Charles J. Siragusa
• Parties: Plaintiff John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.; Defendants Thomas & Betts Corporation and Belden Inc.; Counterclaimant Belden Inc.
• Cause: 35 U.S.C. § 271; jury demanded by both sides
• Status/outcome: Not independently verified. I did not locate a reported judgment, jury verdict, or final written disposition. The docket listing shows the case as a patent infringement action with Belden counterclaiming. Based on the absence of any reported decision and the parallel reexamination activity, the case most likely resolved by settlement/dismissal before any merits ruling, but I cannot confirm this from the sources retrieved — treat that as an inference, not a fact.
• Source: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nywdce/6:2011cv06327/84764 ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/New%20York%20Western%20District%20Court/case/6%3A11-cv-06327

2. Not duplicate case, but relevant procedural fact

The Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists exactly one case for patent 7,833,053: John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. v. Thomas & Betts Corporation, 1:10-cv-00719, E.D. Tex. — i.e., the case above (before and after transfer). It lists no other assertions.

• Source: https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/7833053

3. Related administrative challenge (not "litigation," but it arose from this dispute)

• Inter partes reexamination No. 95/001,689, filed July 18, 2011 by Belden Inc. (real party in interest), through third-party requester Foley & Lardner LLP, against U.S. 7,833,053 ("Connector having conductive member and method of use thereof"; owner John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.).
• The USPTO's own litigation search report in that reexam file lists the Mezzalingua v. Thomas & Betts case (W.D.N.Y., No. 6:11CV06327, filed June 30, 2011) as the patent's only litigation.
• The Examiner rejected claims 1–19 (e.g., under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Youtsey US 6,042,422, Lionetto US 4,929,188, and Horak US 3,879,102). Patent Owner appealed to the PTAB — Appeal 2013-009123 (Reexam Control 95/001,689), with PPC Broadband, Inc. as Appellant/Patent Owner and Foley & Lardner as Respondent/Requestor.
• I could not verify the final outcome of that appeal or of the reexamination. I am not asserting a result.
• Sources: https://blog.whda.com/2011/07/verizon-attacks-on-two-tivo-time-shifting-patents-among-the-reexamination-requests-filed-the-week-of-july-18-2011/ ; USPTO reexam file documents (e.g., https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1549312](/patent/1549312)/download-documents?artifactId=CPswmBiNvwPzgxoqtBTCmI4t0mIWDC40CcJTW31sk90Z5I-y3GC397E).

4. Leads I checked and deliberately am NOT reporting as this patent's litigation

• 2024 E.D. Tex. complaint, Case No. 2:24-cv-00125 — a search hit surfaced an E.D. Tex. complaint discussing induced/contributory infringement of "the '053 patent." I do not believe this is US 7,833,053: the passage refers to "the method recited in claim 1," whereas claim 1 of US 7,833,053 is an apparatus claim. This is almost certainly a different patent ending in '053. I could not verify the parties or patent number before exhausting my search steps. Do not attribute this case to US 7,833,053 without verification.
• John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 660 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (ITC "Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors," Inv. No. 337-TA-650) — this domestic-industry appeal concerned PPC's '539 design patent (and unrelated utility patents), not US 7,833,053.
• PPC v. Corning Gilbert (N.D.N.Y. 5:11-cv-00761 and 5:12-cv-00911) — my searches returned claim-construction material for those cases, but the terms construed ("conductive coating," "continuity member located behind the nut") map to PPC's other coaxial-connector patents (e.g., US 8,157,589), not to '053. I found no confirmation that US 7,833,053 was asserted there.
• Other search results (patents numbered 8,005,053; 7,833,474; Brazilian Junta Comercial filings) are unrelated to US 7,833,053 and are excluded per your instruction not to return similar numbers.

Summary Table

Additional U.S. litigation in which US 7,833,053 has been asserted: none found. The Stanford NPE database records only the single case above, and the USPTO's own litigation search of this patent likewise identified only that case. Related to this dispute (but not litigation itself), Belden Inc. filed inter partes reexamination 95/001,689 on July 18, 2011, which proceeded to PTAB Appeal 2013-009123 — final outcome unverified.

Patent status context: Per the Google Patents family record, US 7,833,053 (filed April 22, 2009 as a continuation of Ser. No. 10/997,218, filed November 24, 2004) carries an anticipated expiration of November 24, 2024 and is now marked Expired – Lifetime; the patent was reassigned to MR ADVISERS LIMITED (2013, name change) and then to PPC Broadband, Inc. (2013), with various security-interest filings.

Caveats on confidence

• High confidence: the two docket numbers, the transfer, the parties, the filing dates, and the existence of reexam 95/001,689 — these are corroborated by Unified Patents, Stanford NPE, Justia, and the USPTO reexam file.
• Low confidence / unverified: the final disposition of W.D.N.Y. 6:11-cv-06327 and of PTAB Appeal 2013-009123. If you need those confirmed, they must be pulled from PACER (W.D.N.Y.) and PTAB's public file respectively; I could not retrieve them within this session's limits and will not guess.

I'll start by checking the canonical structured data (empty per the prompt) against live web sources for any PTAB activity on US 7,833,053.

Good — the search already surfaced a pre-AIA inter partes reexamination (95/001,689), not an AIA trial. Let me confirm whether any AIA trial (IPR/PGR/CBM) exists on this patent or its family, and pin down the reexam outcome.

Key finding: no AIA trial on 7,833,053 so far — the Corning Gilbert IPRs (IPR2013-00340–00347) targeted different patents ('060, '320, '353). Let me confirm the reexamination outcome and check for any later AIA petition.

PTAB proceedings overview

AIA trial count on US 7,833,053: zero. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and my independent searches confirm it — no AIA petition has ever been filed against the '053 patent, so the bottom line for a defendant is: there is no claims-invalidated IPR shield to hide behind, but there is also no active PTAB trial to wait out; the only adversarial USPTO proceeding on this patent is a pre-AIA inter partes reexamination (95/001,689, Belden) that did narrow the patent at the Board, and the patent itself expired 2024-11-24, which changes the defensive calculus more than any IPR would.

Flag — important calibration: The well-known PPC v. Corning IPR cluster (IPR2013-00340, -00342, -00343, -00345, -00346, -00347) is not about this patent. Those petitions (Corning Gilbert → PPC Broadband) attacked U.S. Patents 8,232,060; 8,323,060; 8,313,353; and 8,287,320. Don't let anyone (including opposing counsel's briefs) tell you the '053 patent was subjected to IPR — it wasn't.

95/001,689 — In re John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. (requester: Belden Inc.) — pre-AIA inter partes reexamination, not an AIA trial

(Presented first because it is the only proceeding ever to reach a merits decision on this patent. It is not an IPR/PGR/CBM and is not governed by §§ 311–319 or the AIA estoppel provisions — noted here so you don't mis-cite it.)

• Type: Inter partes reexamination (pre-AIA, 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–318 as then in force). Not an AIA trial.
• Filed: 2011-07-18 (control no. 95/001,689; requester Belden Inc., real party in interest; requester counsel Foley & Lardner LLP, Matthew A. Smith). Patent owner: John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. (now PPC Broadband, Inc.). Examiner Stephen Ralis, Art Unit 3992 (CRU).
• Status: Terminated — reexamination concluded with a Board Decision on Appeal, Appeal No. 2013-009123; the patent is now "Expired – Lifetime" (anticipated expiration 2024-11-24).
• Judge panel (Board, on appeal): John C. Kerins, Steven D.A. McCarthy (author), Daniel S. Song, Administrative Patent Judges.
• Grounds / art: Order granting reexam found substantial new questions of patentability over:
  • Youtsey (US 6,042,422) in view of Lionetto (US 4,929,188), evidenced by Horak (US 3,879,102) + admitted prior art — § 103(a), claims 1–12;
  • Palinkas (US 6,711,? — F-type connector) — § 102(a) / § 102(e), claims 1–6, 8–9, 11–12.
  • Final rejection ran against claims 1–19; claim 8 was amended and claims 13–19 were newly added during the reexam (the issued patent has only 12 claims — the 13–19 claims are reexam-only).
• Key procedural history: Right of Appeal Notice mailed 2012-08-30; Patent Owner's Appeal Brief 2012-11-28; Examiner's Answer 2013-04-01; Board decision on Appeal 2013-009123 (Tech Center 3900).
• Board outcome (claim-level, as verified in the decision text):
  • Sustained the anticipation rejection under § 102(a)/§ 102(e) over Palinkas for claims 1, 6, 13, 15, 19/1, and 19/13 — the panel held that Palinkas' metal flange reads on the claimed "conductive member," and that the '053 specification's narrower O-ring embodiments do "not disclaim a broader scope for the term 'electrically engaged' used in claims 1 and 13."
  • Reversed / did not sustain the same Palinkas rejection as to claims 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 19/8, and 19/16 — the Board held the Examiner's reading of a rigid metal flange as a "compressible conductive member" essentially read "compressible" out of the claim: "one of ordinary skill in the art ordinarily would not use the term 'compressible' to refer to a generic metal flange."
  • The decision also addressed the Youtsey-based § 103 grounds and a § 314 issue as to whether newly added claims 13–19 enlarged the scope of the original claims.
• Not verified: I could not confirm from the sources available to me (a) the Board's disposition of every remaining claim (e.g., reexam-added claim 18, a further independent claim the panel identified), (b) the final text of the reexamination certificate for 95/001,689, or (c) whether the Board's affirmance as to claim 1 was further appealed to the Federal Circuit and, if so, the outcome. Do not assume claim 1 was canceled — or that it survived — without pulling the certificate. (Google Patents' legal-events list for the '053 shows a Certificate of Correction 2011-02-01 but no reexamination-certificate event, and the printed claim set still shows 12 claims.)
• Appeal: Board appeal 2013-009123 confirmed as above. Any CAFC appeal of that decision is unconfirmed on my search — treat as open and verify.
• Settlement: None. This was a contested reexamination carried through a full Board appeal.
• Defensive value: The Board's compressibility holding is a gift to an accused infringer — it is a PTAB claim-construction statement that a rigid metal flange does not meet the "compressible conductive member" limitation (independent claims 8 and 16 in the reexam). Any infringement theory that treats a metal post flange as the claimed conductive/compressible member collides directly with that reasoning. Conversely, the Board's broad reading of "electrically engaged" as to claims 1/13 cuts the other way and should be read before you rely on a narrow-construction argument.

Strategic summary

Claim status. There is no IPR Final Written Decision on 7,833,053, so no claim of the '053 patent has been canceled by the PTAB in an AIA trial, and none has been held valid in one either. What exists is a partial merits ruling in the reexamination appeal (2013-009123): the Board affirmed rejection of the Palinkas-based anticipation case against claims 1, 6, 13, 15, 19/1, 19/13 and rejected the anticipation case against claims 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 19/8, 19/16. The remaining issued claims (2–5, 7, 10, and reexam-added 14, 17, 18) were addressed in grounds I cannot fully reconstruct from available text. Bottom line: claims 8/9/11/12 (and reexam claims 16, 19) are the ones a PTAB panel has already credited as distinguishable from Palinkas; claims 1 and 6 are the ones it did not. Treat the issued claim set's true scope as unverified until you read the reexamination certificate.

Estoppel landscape. Because no AIA trial reached a Final Written Decision, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1)/(2) estoppel is not triggered against anyone — there is no IPR petitioner, and no privy of one, barred from raising § 102/§ 103 art. The only estoppel in the chain is the pre-AIA § 315(c) reexamination estoppel binding Belden Inc. (the third-party requester) and its privies from re-asserting in civil litigation the invalidity grounds it raised in 95/001,689. For a new defendant, all § 102/§ 103 grounds remain available in district court, including art that was before the CRU and the Board — subject, of course, to the usual § 282 burden and any estoppel flowing from your own prior filings. Also note the Board's own reasoning is free ammunition: a 2013 PTAB panel already found a metal flange insufficient for "compressible," which is a usable prosecution-history/disclaimer-adjacent argument in a Markman fight.

Pattern signals. No serial-petitioner dynamic exists on this patent — no petitioner at all, despite the '053 being the flagship of a family PPC asserted aggressively from 2010 through 2016 (E.D. Tex. 1:10-cv-00719; W.D.N.Y. 6:11-cv-06327; the NDNY PPC v. Corning cases). Corning Gilbert filed eight IPRs against PPC connector patents in 2013 but aimed them at siblings '060, '320 and '353, not the '053. No Unified Patents or other defensive aggregator appears in the chain. The closest recent activity is Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, IPR2022-00721 (on US 9,225,083), where Amphenol used the 95/001,689 file history as an exhibit and argued PPC "actually litigated '053 Claim 7" — i.e., the reexam is now itself prior-art/estoppel evidence in later fights over descendant patents. PPC's posture is that of a patent owner that litigates hard and appeals, not one that settles at the Board.

Recommended next steps

1. Treat "no PTAB activity" as the answer for AIA purposes, but not as the whole story. There is no IPR/PGR/CBM to cite, and none to wait out. Do not build a defense brief around an IPR that doesn't exist; equally, do not concede that the '053 is "PTAB-hardened" — it has never faced an AIA panel.
2. Pull the reexamination certificate for 95/001,689 from USPTO Patent Public Search / Patent Center, and the full Decision on Appeal, Appeal No. 2013-009123 from PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/). Confirm (a) which claims the certificate canceled, (b) which it confirmed, and (c) whether the Board decision was appealed to the Federal Circuit (check the CAFC docket and CourtListener for PPC Broadband/John Mezzalingua appeals around 2013–2015). My sources do not resolve this, and it is outcome-determinative.
3. Lead with expiration. The '053 expired 2024-11-24 (20 years from the 2004-11-24 priority date; record status "Expired – Lifetime"). No injunction; damages limited to the six-year window before filing (and any pre-expiration marking/compliance issues). Assess whether the accused activity even falls inside that window.
4. If you are in an active case today: any IPR you file must clear the § 315(b) one-year bar from service of the complaint, and you should expect a § 325(d/Fintiv-style discretionary-denial fight given the extensive 2011–2013 CRU/Board record on this exact patent. Quote the Board's compressibility holding verbatim in your claim-construction brief ("one of ordinary skill in the art ordinarily would not use the term 'compressible' to refer to a generic metal flange") — it is the single most defendant-favorable sentence PTAB has ever written about this family.
5. Watch the family. Siblings 7,828,595, 7,845,976 and 7,950,958 share the '053 specification, and Amphenol's 2022 IPR campaign against descendant US 9,225,083 shows the portfolio is still under attack. If a demand letter cites only the '053, check whether the same accused product/conduct is actually covered by a live descendant patent — the '053 may be the softer target.

I'll verify the assignment chain and correspondent data against live sources before writing up.

Good — I found a Plainsite assignment record. Let me pull the full assignment set and litigation context.

Let me verify the reel/frame numbers and correspondents for each recorded assignment.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 7,833,053 B2

Patent: "Connector having conductive member and method of use thereof"
App. 12/427,843 (continuation of 10/997,218, filed 2004‑11‑24) · Filed 2009‑04‑22 · Issued 2010‑11‑16 · Status Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration 2024‑11‑24)
Assignee of record at issue: John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. (d/b/a PPC)

Sourcing caveat, stated up front. Google Patents' legal‑events feed (which is itself populated from the USPTO assignment record) is my authoritative backbone here, and it enumerates the conveyances and dates set out below. However, the live Assignment Center reel/frame strings and the correspondent‑of‑record field were not retrievable through the sources I could reach in this session. I confirmed exactly one reel/frame (48382/0907) from a third-party mirror, and I flag below every place where I am inferring an event from the Google feed rather than reading the recording itself. I have not fabricated reel/frame numbers.

Inventors

Pattern notes:

• Single named inventor on this patent. The family portfolio around it (e.g., US 8,157,589 "conductively coated member," US 8,167,635 "dielectric sealing member") adds Mary Krenceski (Troy, NY) and Noah Montena (Syracuse, NY), but they are not named here.
• No inventor-departure pattern. This is the opposite of the pre‑fire‑sale tell. Mathews continued to be a named PPC/JMA inventor well after this filing — e.g., app. 12/906,276 (filed 2010‑10‑18) and app. 13/448,937 (filed 2012‑04‑17) — and PPC's PCT filings in 2011 still list him as an in-house‑associated inventor. I found no evidence he left, assigned away, or was severed from the portfolio.
• Mathews appears to have been a prolific in-house‑adjacent connector designer for PPC, not a one‑off inventor of a single asserted patent.

Original assignee

John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc., doing business as PPC (also written "PPC, Inc."), East Syracuse, NY.

• Line of business: Manufacturer of coaxial cable connectors and CATV/broadband hardware — a first‑tier supplier of drop connectors to multiple‑system operators. The corporate identity has a documented lineage from "PPC‑One Hundred Clinton Square, Inc." (2002) forward.
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes, clearly. The company's own litigation record (e.g., Arrow Communication Labs v. JMA, N.D.N.Y.) describes continuous commercial shipment of its EX® compression connectors from November 1997 onward, and PPC's connector patents were the subject of a Section 337 ITC investigation (Inv. No. 337‑TA‑650) requiring a domestic industry showing — which cuts against any assertion that this was a paper portfolio.
• Current status: acquired / subsumed. Founder John Mezzalingua has stated publicly (House Energy & Commerce bio, 2021) that he "sold PPC in 2012." The entity was renamed twice — John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. → Mr Advisers Limited → PPC Broadband, Inc. — before emerging under its current name. PPC Broadband, Inc. is now wholly owned by Belden, Inc., per PPC's own mandatory discovery notice in IPR2022‑01523. PPC Broadband remains an operating connector manufacturer.
• Important display artifact: Google Patents shows "Original Assignee: PPC Broadband Inc." That is a retroactive name‑normalization, not the assignee on the face of the issued patent. USPTO/KeyCite records for the 2010 grant list John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.

Assignment timeline

All dates below are from the USPTO assignment data as mirrored in Google Patents' legal‑events feed. Reel/frame is given only where confirmed.

• Executed 2012‑09‑11 / recorded 2013‑02‑12 — Reel 48382/0907

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.
  • Assignee: Mr Advisers Limited
  • Correspondent: not retrieved — the mirror page I located does not surface the correspondent column in the record extract. (See Signal 3 below.)
  • Context: Change of name only — the operating company's corporate name was legally changed to "Mr Advisers Limited" (NY registry shows the name change effective 2012‑09‑19, with "John Mezzalingua Associates" retained as a fictitious/d/b/a name). This is a rename, not a sale.
  • Confidence note: I verified this reel/frame on a sibling family member's mirror record bearing the identical assignor/assignee/conveyance/execution date. The recording almost certainly attaches a schedule covering US 7,833,053, but I did not read the 7,833,053-specific abstract of title.

• Executed on or before 2012‑12‑07 / recorded 2013‑02‑13 — Reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: Mr Advisers Limited
  • Assignee: PPC Broadband, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Change of name only (second step) — the entity took its current name "PPC Broadband, Inc." effective 2012‑12‑07. Second leg of the same internal re‑branding.
  • Confidence note: Name‑change effective date corroborated by NY corporate‑registry aggregation; recording date from the Google legal‑events feed. Reel/frame unverified.

• Executed 2013‑10‑04 / recorded 2013‑10‑04 — Reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: PPC Broadband, Inc.
  • Assignee: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Administrative Agent
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization / collateral — a credit facility taking a security interest in the patent estate. Not an ownership transfer; the patentee remains PPC Broadband.

• Executed 2013‑10‑08 / recorded 2013‑10‑08 — Reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Confirmatory Grant of Security Interest in US Patents
  • Assignor: PPC Broadband, Inc.
  • Assignee: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Administrative Agent
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization / collateral — a second, separate secured‑lender recording four days after the JPMorgan filing. Again not an ownership transfer.

• Executed 2016‑10‑12 / recorded 2016‑10‑12 — Reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
  • Assignee: PPC Broadband, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Lien release — security interest discharged; title consolidated back in PPC Broadband, Inc., where it remains.

Not surfaced (likely a gap in the feed, not a missing record): the original inventor → John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. assignment. Continuations nearly always require a fresh inventor assignment. A directly analogous 2010 PPC recording (reel 24778/0435, inventors Purdy/Ehret/Shannon/Palinkas → "John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC") shows these were routinely recorded. Anyone needing the 7,833,053 inventor assignment should pull it directly from Assignment Center.

Net full chain: Roger Mathews → John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. → Mr Advisers Limited (rename) → PPC Broadband, Inc. (rename) → [JPMorgan and Wells Fargo security interests, both released] → PPC Broadband, Inc. (Belden, Inc.)

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7833053
    2004 : Priority app filed by John Mezzalingua
    2009 : Continuation filed as 12 427 843
    2010 : Patent issued Nov 16
         : Suit filed v Thomas and Betts
    2011 : Third party reexam requested by Belden
    2012 : Name changed to Mr Advisers Limited
    2013 : Name changed to PPC Broadband Inc
         : Security interests recorded to lenders
    2016 : Wells Fargo security interest released
    2024 : Patent expired

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present

The only post‑issuance "transfers" are two change‑of‑name conveyances (recorded 2013‑02‑12 and 2013‑02‑13). No operating entity handed the patent to a licensing vehicle. There is no "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" successor, no single‑purpose LLC, no registered‑agent service address in the chain. Chain terminus PPC Broadband, Inc. is a manufacturer that is itself a defendant‑facing litigant (it sues, it is also sued).

One flag worth recording, without over-reading it: the intermediate name "Mr Advisers Limited" is an incongruous placeholder for a connector manufacturer. On the evidence, it is a corporate renaming (NY registry change dated 2012‑09‑19, immediately followed by the rename to PPC Broadband, Inc. on 2012‑12‑07), not a shell. Signal is called on the evidence, which is renames, not transfers.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present

No assignee in this chain matches Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, or any Spangenberg vehicle. Stanford's NPE Litigation Database codes the asserter in the lead case (John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. v. Thomas & Betts Corp., 1:10‑cv‑00719, E.D. Tex.) as category 8 "Product company" — i.e., the database affirmatively classifies the patent‑holder as an operating company, not an NPE.

Countervailing oddity worth noting for the record: Belden Inc. was the real party in interest behind the third‑party requester that filed the inter partes reexamination 95/001,689 against this very patent on 2011‑07‑18 (Foley & Lardner LLP as requester's counsel). Belden later became PPC Broadband's ultimate parent. A former adversary in the invalidity posture becoming the parent is unusual, but it is not an NPE signal.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not assessable

This is the one signal I cannot responsibly call. The assignment‑record correspondent field was not exposed by any source I could reach for reels 48382/0907 or the four PPC Broadband recordings. I therefore cannot test for recurrence across this chain, and I will not invent a name.

What is documented is the prosecution/reexamination correspondence, which is a different record and should not be reported as the assignment correspondent:

• Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts, 22 Century Hill Drive, Suite 302, Latham, NY 12110 — patent owner's address of record throughout the inter partes reexamination 95/001,689 and the resulting PTAB appeal (Appeal No. 2013‑009123).
• Matthew A. Smith, Foley & Lardner LLP, 3000 K Street N.W., Washington, DC — counsel for the third‑party requester (Belden's real party in interest).
• Oliff PLC – PPC Broadband, Inc., P.O. Box 320850, Alexandria, VA — later prosecution correspondent for PPC's connector portfolio.
• Stephen R. Yoder, in-house agent, John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. (per PCT filings).

Action item for verification: pull reel 48382/0907 and the 2013‑10‑04 / 2013‑10‑08 / 2016‑10‑12 recordings from Assignment Center and check whether a single attorney/firm filed all five. If one name recurs across all five, that is a genuine finding — but it is not established on the present record.

4. Cascading transfers — not present

Two recordings inside 24 months (Feb 2013), but both are renames of one surviving legal entity, and both 2013‑10 recordings are liens, not conveyances. There are no chained LLCs, no shared assignee addresses, and no evidence of common principals rotating the patent between vehicles. The recording tightness here reflects a corporate rebrand plus acquisition financing closing, not serial reassignment.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present (the direction is reversed)

Assertion preceded any transfer. The lead case on this patent, John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. v. Thomas & Betts Corp., 1:10‑cv‑00719 (E.D. Tex.) was filed 2010‑11‑09 — the week the patent issued — and transferred out of EDTX by order of June 7, 2011. The follow‑on 6:11‑cv‑06327 (W.D.N.Y.) named Thomas & Betts Corporation and Belden Inc. The 2012 rename came after both suits. So the chain was not arranged to manufacture standing; the patentee was already suing in its own name.

6. Bankruptcy fire‑sale — not present

No Chapter 7/11 for John Mezzalingua Associates / PPC. The 2012 exit was a private M&A sale of a going concern ("I sold PPC in 2012" — John Mezzalingua), not a court‑supervised asset sale. No Kodak/Nortel/Polaroid‑style estate sale appears anywhere in the chain.

7. Privateering — not present

The classic signature — operating company parks patents in an NPE that then sues competitors — is absent. PPC Broadband asserted directly, in its own name, post‑acquisition: e.g., PPC Broadband, Inc. v. PerfectVision Manufacturing Inc., No. 4:22‑cv‑00204 (E.D. Ark., filed 2022‑03‑02), and PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Gilbert Inc. across multiple districts and IPRs. No intermediary licensor appears.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present

Chain terminates at PPC Broadband, Inc., an operating affiliate of Belden, Inc. — not RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. The patent has not been neutralized by defensive aggregation; it simply expired on 2024‑11‑24.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The chain never leaves the operating company: John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. became Mr Advisers Limited and then PPC Broadband, Inc. through two change‑of‑name recordings (recorded 2013‑02‑12 on confirmed reel 48382/0907, and 2013‑02‑13), with the only other recordings being a security agreement to JPMorgan and a confirmatory security interest to Wells Fargo (both 2013‑10) that were released on 2016‑10‑12. The patentee is a connector manufacturer with documented domestic industry and product shipments, and it asserted this patent itself against Thomas & Betts and Belden (1:10‑cv‑00719, filed 2010‑11‑09; 6:11‑cv‑06327) before any rename — the inverse of the pre‑litigation‑transfer tell. No NPE appears anywhere in the chain, and the patent has now expired.

Residual uncertainty: moderate. The reel/frame strings for four of the five recordings and the correspondent field for all five were not independently retrieved, so I cannot fully rule out an anomaly hidden in a recording I could not read. Nothing in the enumerated conveyances or assignees, however, supports an NPE characterization.

Verification: USPTO Patent Assignment Search (search by patent number 7833053) — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (legacy interface: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). Also cross-check the Google Patents legal‑events tab: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7833053/en

Two things to pull next if this matters: (1) the abstracts of title for reels 48382/0907 and the three 2013 PPC Broadband recordings, to capture correspondent names; (2) the original Mathews → John Mezzalingua Associates assignment, which the legal‑events feed does not expose.

I'll research this systematically. Let me start by pulling the authoritative record and then look for the cited prior art.

Good — I found the reexamination record. Let me dig into the specific references cited.

Let me verify the key references' patent numbers and details.

Scope note before the analysis

I searched the USPTO/public records for the exact number you gave. Two things must be flagged up front, because they materially affect the answer:

1. The full text you supplied does not contain a "(56) References Cited" section. The Google Patents rendering that was provided is truncated at the point where the examiner-cited U.S. patent documents would normally be listed (the uspto.report page for this grant does carry a large cited-references list, but it was only partially retrievable). So I cannot give you a clean, examiner-certified list of every patent citation that appears on the face of US 7,833,053.
2. The best-documented, authoritative prior-art record for US 7,833,053 is its inter partes reexamination file, because that patent was reexamined and appealed. That record names the references, the statutory basis (§102 vs. §103), and the exact claims, and it is what I rely on below. Where search results contradicted or refined my training data, I have followed the search results.

1. Patent identification (interpreted literally, no corrections)

Family members (same priority, 2004-11-24): US 7,828,595 B2 (12/397,087); US 7,845,976 B2 (12/414,159); US 7,950,958 B2 (12/941,709). Related: US 8,157,589 B2 ("conductively coated member").

Relevant proceedings:

• Inter partes reexamination 95/001,689, filed 2011-07-18 (class 439, Art Unit 3992). Third-party requester: Foley & Lardner LLP; real party in interest Belden Inc.; patent owner John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.
• Appeal 2013-009123 (PTAB), Decision on Appeal, Patent No. US 7,833,053 B2.
• Litigation: E.D. Tex. 1:10-cv-00719; W.D.N.Y. 6:11-cv-06327 (John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. v. Thomas & Betts Corp. / Belden, Inc.).

Ground truth URLs:

• https://patents.google.com/patent/US7833053/en
• https://uspto.report/patent/grant/[7833053](/patent/7833053)
• https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1549312](/patent/1549312)/download-documents (reexam 95/001,689 file, incl. Appeal 2013-009123 Decision)

2. The prior art actually cited against US 7,833,053

These are the five references named in Reexam 95/001,689 / Appeal 2013-009123, plus the examiner's original-prosecution citation. Note carefully: the Board's decision shows that four of the five were applied only under §103(a) as obviousness combinations — not under §102 — and only Palinkas was applied as a §102 anticipation reference. I have kept that distinction exact rather than force-fitting a §102 label onto every reference.

A. Youtsey — US 6,042,422 (primary reference)

• Full citation: Youtsey, Timothy L. (PCT-Phoenix Communication Technologies–USA, Inc.), Coaxial cable end connector crimped by axial compression, US 6,042,422, issued 2000-03-28.
• Dates: Issued 2000-03-28 — prior art under §102(b) (more than one year before the 2004-11-24 priority date).
• Brief description: A female coaxial cable end connector with a collapsible outer barrel (14), inner tube/post (28) and female receptacle (30). One or more O-rings (82, 84) seal the connector interior against moisture. The O-ring 82 seats in a special groove (80) and, on mating, is pushed out of the way into that groove, so the metal face of the port contacts the post flange (70) metal-to-metal. The Board and the patent owner's expert (Eldering) both treated Youtsey's O-ring as non-conductive and as moving away from the post–port interface.
• Which claims it potentially anticipates under §102: none. Youtsey was applied only in a §103(a) combination (Youtsey + Lionetto + Horak) against claims 1–11, and (with Montena) against claim 12. It was never applied as a standalone §102 anticipation reference. Reason: it lacks a conductive/compressible member that physically contacts the port to facilitate grounding.

B. Lionetto — US 4,929,188 (secondary reference)

• Full citation: Lionetto, et al., US 4,929,188, issued 1990-05-29.
• Dates: Issued 1990-05-29 — prior art under §102(b).
• Brief description: Cited for its conductive elastomer sealing member (34). In the reexam the third-party requester relied on it to teach that an elastomeric seal can be made conductive, i.e., to supply the "conductive" character missing from Youtsey. The Board noted Lionetto's member sits in a groove at 100% fill, so it does not contact the mating edge of the port.
• Which claims it potentially anticipates under §102: none. Used solely as a §103(a) secondary reference for claims 1–11 and claim 12.

C. Horak — US 3,879,102 (secondary/evidentiary reference)

• Full citation: Horak, US 3,879,102, issued 1975-04-22.
• Dates: Issued 1975-04-22 — prior art under §102(b).
• Brief description: A conductive sealing member (18), again positioned within its groove such that it is not sandwiched between the mating surfaces. Significantly, Horak was the only one of the five reexam references that the examiner had already cited during original prosecution. It served as corroborating evidence that conductive elastomeric seals were known.
• Which claims it potentially anticipates under §102: none. Used only as a §103(a) evidentiary/secondary reference (Youtsey + Lionetto + Horak) for claims 1–11 and claim 12.

D. Palinkas — US 6,716,062 B1 (the only true §102 anticipation reference)

• Full citation: Palinkas, et al., US 6,716,062 B1, issued 2004-04-06.
• Dates: Issued 2004-04-06, i.e., after the 2004-11-24 priority date but before the 2009-04-22 filing of 12/427,843. It was therefore applied under §102(a) and §102(e) (pre-AIA), not §102(b).
• Brief description: A coaxial connector whose post (14) includes a stem portion (26) and an integral metal flange (28). The Board found the far end of flange 28 corresponds to the claimed "conductive member electrically engaged with the second end of the post" that physically contacts the interface port and facilitates grounding.
• Which claims it potentially anticipates under §102 — this is the operative finding:
  • §102(a) and §102(e): claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 were rejected as anticipated by Palinkas (per the Examiner's grounds adopted in the Answer).
  • On appeal the Board SUSTAINED the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 6, 13, 15, 19/1 and 19/13 under §102(a) and §102(e) over Palinkas.
  • The Board REVERSED/did not sustain the Palinkas rejection of claims 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 19/8 and 19/16, because claim 8's "compressible conductive member" and claim 16's "compressible conductive member in electrical contact with the flange" were not met by a rigid metal flange — the Board held that "compressible" was not intended to encompass a rigid metal flange, so the term could not simply be read out of the claim.

E. Montena — US 6,558,194 B2 (claim-12-only reference)

• Full citation: Montena, US 6,558,194 B2, issued 2003-05-06.
• Dates: Issued 2003-05-06 — prior art under §102(b).
• Brief description: Coaxial connector reference cited only to supply the fastener-member/sealing limitation structure. In the reexam it appears in a single place.
• Which claims it potentially anticipates under §102: none. Applied only in the §103(a) combination Youtsey + Lionetto + Horak + Montena against claim 12 alone.

F. "Admitted Prior Art" (APA) — the specification's own admissions

• Basis: The §1 Background of US 7,833,053, which admits that typical connectors "are generally configured to contact with and electrically extend the conductive shield," and that electromagnetic noise "can be problematic when it is introduced via the connective juncture between an interface port and a connector." Also, the reexam request's Ground 1 used "Admitted Prior Art (APA)" as evidentiary support in the Youtsey + Lionetto combination for claims 1–12.
• §102 status: APA is applicant-admitted art used as evidence, not a separate anticipation reference with its own §102 rejection.

3. Summary table of the §102 position

Bottom line on your §102 question: for US 7,833,053, Palinkas (US 6,716,062 B1) is the only reference that was actually applied as a §102 anticipation reference, and the claims it reached were 1, 6, 13, 15, 19/1 and 19/13 (sustained), plus the examiner's initially-rejected 8, 9, 11, 12 (not sustained). All other cited patents were §103(a) obviousness references, so attributing §102 anticipation to them would be inaccurate.

4. Things I could not verify / caveats

• I could not retrieve the complete face-of-patent "References Cited (56)" list for US 7,833,053 from Google Patents or the USPTO page within this session. The uspto.report entry shows the list begins with early patents (e.g., US 4,285,564 Spinner, 1981-08; US 4,296,986 Herrmann et al., 1981-10; US 4,307,926 Smith, 1981-12; US 4,322,121 Riches et al., 1982-03; US 4,339,166 Dayton, 1982-07; US 4,346,958 Blanchard, 1982-08) and runs to the 2000s, but the list was only partially returned. Those face-of-patent citations are not the same as the reexam references above, and I will not assert a §102 mapping for them without seeing the examiner's use.
• The reexamination certificate (RXC) number and the final post-appeal claim set were not confirmed in my results. The last confirmed substantive ruling is the Appeal 2013-009123 Decision on Appeal finding Palinkas anticipatory as to claims 1, 6, 13, 15, 19/1 and 19/13.
• A separate, later IPR-style proceeding (referenced in results as IPR2024-00098 and a petition citing "the '083 patent") again used Youtsey + Lionetto + Horak as a §103 combination, arguing Youtsey's O-rings should be read as "conductive, compressible, metal." I could not confirm the final outcome of that proceeding.
• The earlier BPAI interference 105,680(JL), Bence et al. v. Roger Mathews (application 10/997,218 — the parent of the '053 patent) is part of the file history and explains why the family was split into several continuation patents; I did not obtain its final priority award.

If you want, I can attempt to retrieve the full "(56) References Cited" list from the patent PDF and map each of those examiner-cited documents to the claims (though, absent the examiner's usage notes, that mapping would be inferential rather than a record of an actual §102 rejection).

I'll ground this obviousness analysis in the prior-art references tied to this patent, verifying their content before building combinations.

Verified the four core references. Now let me confirm the reexamination outcome and pin down Horak's specific teaching.

Obviousness Analysis — US 7,833,053 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)

0. Scope, framework, and one grounding note

This analysis builds on the prior section (bibliography, the 12 issued claims, and the 95/001,689 reexamination history) and does not repeat it. Note on sourcing: the Google Patents page for US 7,833,053 does not contain a discrete "Prior Art" list with examiner rejections. Its prior-art signals are (i) the "prior art keywords" block (connector, conductive, post, coaxial cable, connector body), (ii) the Cited By list, and (iii) the Families Citing This Family list. I therefore anchored the § 103 analysis in the references the Office actually applied to these claims — recoverable from the reexamination record — and cross-checked each reference's content directly. Newly retrieved record evidence confirms and sharpens the prior section: the reexam order states the requester's two theories verbatim (below), and the certificate language is confirmed.

Governing law: The application (12/427,843) was filed April 22, 2009, before the AIA's March 16, 2013 first-to-file date, so pre-AIA § 103(a) applies. The critical date is the priority date of the '053, November 24, 2004 (continuation of 10/997,218). All references below are § 102(a)/(b)/(e) art as of that date.

Framework: Graham v. John Deere (scope/content; differences; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations), applied through KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007) — a claimed combination may be obvious where (a) the elements existed in the prior art, (b) there was a known problem for which there was an obvious solution, (c) a "known technique" was available to improve a similar device in the same way, or (d) it was a "predictable variation." A teaching, suggestion, or motivation need not be in the references themselves; it may come from the art's common knowledge, the nature of the problem, or design incentives. MPEP § 2143 supplies the "rational underpinning."

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

A person of ordinary skill as of late 2004 would hold a bachelor's degree in mechanical or electrical engineering (or equivalent) with roughly 2–4 years of experience designing RF/coaxial "F-type" connectors, and would be familiar with: F-connector mechanical interfaces (threaded ports, post/body/nut architecture); the need to extend the cable's grounding shield to the port; EMI/RFI shielding theory (unbroken conductive path, "waveguide" continuity); galvanic corrosion and intermittent-contact failure modes; and elastomeric sealing members (O-rings, gaskets) including conductive/elastomer blends. This is essentially the level the Board and examiner applied in the 95/001,689 appeal.

2. Claim construction of the limitations that carry the case

3. The prior art of record (verified)

Critical-date hygiene (flagging a trap in the page's own lists): the "Cited By" and "Families Citing" lists on this Google Patents page are dominated by references whose priority post-dates Nov. 24, 2004 (e.g., US 2010/0081322 Malloy, US 2011/0111623 Burris, US 7,934,498, US 8,188,526, etc.). Those are follow-on art and cannot be used as § 102/§ 103 prior art against the '053. Likewise US 8,157,589 ("Connector having a conductively coated member") is a family member of the '053 (same Nov. 24, 2004 priority), not prior art — it appears in the list only via post-issuance citation. The only references that satisfy the critical date among the relevant connector art are the four above (plus the "Admitted Prior Art" acknowledged in the '053's own Background).

4. Ground A (the theory actually sustained): Youtsey + Lionetto + Horak (+ APA) → claims 1–12

The reexam order in Control 95/001,689 records the requester's theory and the Office's adoption almost verbatim:

"The request sets forth that the third party requester considers claims 1-12 of the Mathews patent to be unpatentable over Youtsey in view of Lionetto as evidenced by Horak and Admitted Prior Art (APA). … Youtsey teaches sealing member electrically engaged with the second end of the post with the sealing member being adapted to physically contact the conductive surface of the interface port but does not teach the sealing member being a 'conductive member' or 'compressible conductive member' … that facilitates grounding. The teaching as to a sealing member being a 'conductive member' … is made available in Lionetto as evidenced by Horak."
— Office action / order, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1549312](/patent/1549312)/download-documents?artifactId=CPswmBiNvwPzgxoqtBTCmI4t0mIWDC40CcJTW31sk90Z5I-y3GC397E

4.1 Claim 1 element-by-element

4.2 Claim 8 element-by-element

Identical mapping; the only added requirement is that the member be compressible, which the primary reference structure (an elastomeric O-ring at the post's port end) and Lionetto's elastomer gasket both inherently supply as a class, and which Horak's compressible rubber ring 18 corroborates as conventional in the field.

4.3 Dependent claims

4.4 Motivation to combine (KSR rationales)

1. Same field, same problem, express art-recognized motivation. Youtsey and Lionetto are both coaxial connectors (H01R 9/05 and 13/658 art), and Lionetto states the objective the '053 pursues: "continuous circumferential electrical contact and RFI suppression." Where a reference frames the problem the patentee addresses, the motivation requirement is satisfied (MPEP § 2144.04; KSR).
2. Dual-function substitution of a known element — predictable result. The only difference over Youtsey is the material/property of an existing part: replace/upgrade an elastomeric sealing O-ring with a conductive elastomer O-ring already known from Lionetto. KSR ("use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way," "obvious to try with predictable results"); the art (Lionetto) shows the substitution yields the predictable result of sealing against moisture and RFI at the same time.
3. Articulated real-world problem = ground-path continuity. As the requester argued, the substitution keeps the ground shield intact even when the connector is not fully tightened or cable movement breaks post-to-nut metal contact — precisely the intermittent-contact/corrosion failure the '053's own Background identifies ("corrosion … galvanically incompatible … intermittent contact and poor electromagnetic shielding"). The '053 recites the solution to a problem the specification admits; § 103 requires that the solution have been obvious from the art, and Lionetto supplies it.
4. Horak's role = reasonable expectation of success. Horak shows resilient ring seals seated in the conductive body of a coaxial connector, corroborating that elastic sealing members are conventional in this specific environment — i.e., a POSITA would reasonably expect a deformable ring at that location to seal and to be loaded in compression.
5. Design incentives / commercial demand. Competing suppliers were actively solving "RFI-sealed, continuity-maintained F-connectors" (the litigation and the dense post-2004 art cluster around continuity members) — evidence of a known design need, which per KSR supports motivation.

4.5 Reasonable expectation of success

The record shows the Board did find an expectation of success: on October 22, 2013 the PTAB affirmed the examiner's rejection of claims 1–19, and the certificate issued thereafter. Record citation: Notice of Intent / Reexamination Certificate, Control 95/001,689, Art Unit 3992 —

"On October 22, 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a decision affirming the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-19. … original claims 1-12 and new claims 13-19 have been canceled … Claims 1-12 are cancelled." — US 7,833,053 C1, Inter Partes Reexamination Certificate. https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1549312/download-documents?artifactId=CPswmBiNvwPzgxoqtBTCmI4t0mIWDC40CcJTW31sk90Z5I-y3GC397E

4.6 The patent owner's counterarguments (and why they failed below)

PPC argued the combination lacked (a) motivation and (b) a reasonable expectation of success, contending:

• Change of principle of operation (teach-away): Youtsey's O-ring 82 is designed to retreat into a groove so as not to interfere with post-to-port metal-to-metal contact; making it a load-bearing conductive seal changes Youtsey's principle of operation (MPEP § 2143.01(VI)). See https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1549312/download-documents?artifactId=CPswmBiNvwPzgxoqtBTCmI4t0mIWDC40CcJTW31sk90Z5I-y3GC397E
• Unpredictability of conductive elastomers: balancing "holding power" (Youtsey's O-ring also retains parts pre-installation) against conductivity would require "many hours of experimentation," so no reasonable expectation of success.
• Secondaries: the '053's claims were adopted broadly across the industry with extensive follow-on patenting.

These are the strongest nonobviousness positions available, and they are the positions the Office considered and rejected in the very proceeding that cancelled the claims. Under KSR, a reference "teaches away" only if it criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the claimed approach; mere silence or a different intended function of one part is not teaching away, and the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that a disclosure of a part usable for an additional purpose is not a teaching away. The "unpredictability" argument is undermined by Lionetto itself, which supplies the missing teaching in a coaxial connector (not a remote art), reducing the substitution to applying a known connector sealing/screening technique.

5. Ground B (requester's parallel theory): Palinkas → claims 1–6, 8–9, 11–12

The requester separately proposed Palinkas as a single-reference anticipation/obviousness ground. In reexamination, the examiner adopted Palinkas as teaching the "conductive member" limitation for the independent claims and several dependents:

"Palinkas teaches a conductive member electrically engaged with the second end of the post with the conductive member being adapted to physically contact the conductive surface of the interface port that facilitates grounding." — Order, Control 95/001,689.

Specifically, Palinkas's metal flange 26 bears on the port's stub shaft 56 in metal-to-metal contact (FIGS. 3b–3d), giving the claimed "conductive member … physically contact[ing] the conductive surface of the interface port." Palinkas also supplies, expressly:

• Claim 9/4 — internally threaded nut 12 (bore 22) attached to post 14;
• Claim 6 — ring 20 clamping the cable's conductive layer in the annular space;
• Claim 12 — ring 20 deforming body 18 onto cable 44;
• Claim 11 — grounding through flange 26.

Important limitation of Ground B: the examiner did not adopt the Palinkas-alone rejection of claims 2–5, because metal-to-metal contact does not inherently establish that the member is "resiliently deformable" (no disclosure of the metal's elastic properties; MPEP § 2112):

"While Palinkas discloses flange (26) being in metal-to-metal contact with shaft (56) … one of ordinary skill in the art would not ascertain a metal-to-metal contact inherently being resiliently deformable … Thus, Palinkas cannot be utilized alone for the purpose of rejecting claims 2-5." — Examiner's action, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1549312/download-documents?artifactId=CPswmBiNvNvwPzgxoqtBTCmI4t0mIWDC40CcJTW31sk90Z5I-y3GC397E

6. Ground C (recommended alternative for the "compressible" claims): Palinkas + Lionetto (and optionally Horak)

Because the only limitation Palinkas alone cannot reach is the compressibility/"conductive seal" of claims 2–5 and claim 8's "compressible conductive member," a cleaner § 103 formulation for those claims is:

Palinkas (primary) + Lionetto (secondary), optionally evidencing with Horak.

• Palinkas supplies every mechanical element: post with flange, body, internally threaded nut, fastener/compression ring, port-contacting conductive member at the post's port end.
• Lionetto supplies the disputed property: replacing or augmenting the rigid metal interface with a compressible conductive elastomer member that maintains "continuous circumferential electrical contact and RFI suppression."
• Motivation: identical to Ground A — dual-function sealing + grounding at the port junction, with the express RFI-suppression teaching, and the same "keep the ground path closed even if not fully torqued" rationale. Palinkas's own stated purpose ("improved RFI sealing") is the same problem, which makes this combination even easier to motivate than Ground A.

This formulation avoids the inherency problem the examiner identified with Palinkas-alone while keeping the primary reference squarely on point.

7. Claims added during reexamination (13–19)

The owner added claims 13–19 on October 18, 2011 (amending claim 8 as well) — including independent claims directed to a conductive member engaged with the post flange that stops axial progression onto the port. These were added after the original prosecution and were rejected using Palinkas, with the Office mapping the "conductive member" to Palinkas's flange 26 and the "compressible" property again resolved via Lionetto/Horak reasoning. All were cancelled with claims 1–12. (Claim 13/16/18 text is available in the reexam papers; I quote it only in paraphrase per the prior section's caveat.)

8. Bottom line

A PHOSITA in November 2004 would have found claims 1–12 of the '053 obvious under § 103(a):

• Claims 1, 8 — obvious over Youtsey in view of Lionetto, evidencing with Horak (the ground the examiner adopted and the Board affirmed); alternatively obvious over Palinkas in view of Lionetto.
• Claims 2–5, 10 — obvious over Youtsey/Lionetto/Horak or Palinkas/Lionetto; the "resiliently deformable"/"compressible" and "O-ring" limitations come from the conductive-elastomer teaching of Lionetto, corroborated by Horak. (Palinkas alone is insufficient for claims 2–5 — a point the examiner correctly conceded.)
• Claims 6, 12 — obvious over Youtsey's crimped barrel or Palinkas's compression ring 20.
• Claim 7 — obvious over Youtsey's O-ring 84 (body↔coupler) in view of Lionetto's conductive-elastomer disclosure, which is the same body↔nut continuity function as the '053's O-ring 80.
• Claim 9, 11 — obvious over either primary reference.

The unifying § 103 rationale is KSR-style and twofold: (1) a known technique (conductive elastomer sealing rings, per Lionetto) applied to improve a similar device (an F-connector already having an O-ring at the post's port end, per Youtsey) in the same way, yielding the predictable dual benefit of moisture sealing and RFI/ground-path continuity; and (2) a predictable variation — substituting/upgrading the material of an existing part to serve a disclosed, art-recognized need (the '053's own Background admits intermittent-contact/corrosion-induced shielding loss). The Office and the Board reached exactly this conclusion, and the resulting US 7,833,053 C1 cancelled all claims (1–12 original; 13–19 new).

9. Caveats and cross-checks against the prior section

• No contradiction found with the earlier summary. This analysis newly verifies the prior section's key facts: the reexam is Control 95/001,689, Art Unit 3992, examiner Ralis; the Board's decision is dated October 22, 2013 affirming rejection of claims 1–19; the certificate cancels claims 1–12 and states the added claims 13–19 are cancelled; the owner amended claim 8 and added claims 13–19 on October 18, 2011.
• Unverified item carried forward: I still could not locate a 2013–2014 Federal Circuit appeal of the reexam, and I found no 2026 CAFC docket for US 7,833,053. The certificate issued roughly four months after the Board decision (Feb. 2014), which is consistent with expiration of appeal rights rather than a pending appeal, but treat it as unverified.
• Do not auto-correct these identifiers. The PTAB/reexam papers retrieved use inconsistent shorthands for the patents in this family (documents referring to "the '053 patent," "the '063 patent," "the '083 patent," and "the '983 patent"). Per the literal-interpretation rule I have not normalized them: the '063 documents correspond to the family member US 8,157,589 ("conductively coated member," different coupler–body embodiment) and expressly distinguish the '053 reexam (EX1003), which focused on the coupler–post–port embodiment. The apparent "'983"/"'083" strings are most likely OCR/typographic variants of '053 given the surrounding text, but I flag rather than silently correct that.
• Prior-art hygiene reminder: only Youtsey (2000), Lionetto (1990), Horak (1975), and Palinkas (2004) predate the Nov. 24, 2004 critical date among the connector references surfaced; the large Cited By/Families Citing populations on the Google Patents page are overwhelmingly post-2004 and are not available as § 102/§ 103 art against this patent.