US 8083195

Patent Overview: US8083195B2

Title: Cradle device and electronic equipment support device

Patent Number: US8083195B2

Application Number: US12/044,247

Inventor: Yasuo Osada

Assignee: Sony Corporation (original and current assignee, per the listing)

Key Dates:

• Priority date: 2007-03-30 (Japanese Application JP 2007-094756)
• Filing date: 2008-03-07
• Publication of application: 2008-10-02 (US20080237416A1)
• Grant/publication date: 2011-12-27
• Adjusted expiration: 2030-10-27
• Legal status: Expired – Fee Related

Purpose (from the supplied text): The invention relates to a cradle device having a connector to which electronic equipment — such as a portable telephone, PHS (Personal Handy-phone System), or portable music player — is electrically connected. The cradle may charge a portable power supply unit included in the electronic equipment and may reproduce music with high sound quality. The invention also relates to an electronic equipment support device that supports the electronic equipment.

Plain-Language Scope (from the supplied text): The disclosed subject matter concerns a support/cradle mechanism for holding and electrically connecting portable electronic devices, with associated charging and audio reproduction functions. The text lists "support member," "support," "brake," "holder," and "electronic equipment" as prior-art keywords, suggesting a support member with a brake mechanism and a holder. Classifications include F16M13/00, F16M11/04 (quick release of apparatus), and F16M2200/02 (locking means), indicating a mechanical stand/support with locking features.

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8083195](/patent/US8083195)/en

What the excerpt does not establish: The supplied text does not reproduce the claims, detailed description, or drawing descriptions — the images section consists of blank placeholders. It does not establish the specific structural limitations claimed, the exact relationship among the support member, brake, and holder, or the full technical operation of the device. The excerpt mentions Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2006-4261 but marks it "[Excerpt only; consult the source for omitted text]," so its content and relevance cannot be assessed here. No litigation, ownership-transfer, validity, or prior-art analysis has been performed.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 8083195. Let me search multiple sources.

Let me dig into those results and search additional litigation databases.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases and check whether 8083195 was ever asserted.

Litigation Search: US Patent 8,083,195

Bottom line: I found no known litigation in which US 8,083,195 ("Cradle device and electronic equipment support device," Sony Corp., inventor Yasuo Osada, granted Dec. 27, 2011) is asserted, challenged, or otherwise at issue.

Patent identity confirmation

Before reporting "no results," I verified I was tracking the correct patent literally:

The "Expired – Fee Related" status and the absence of any post‑grant assignment activity are themselves consistent with a patent that was never enforced.

The one document that contained "8083195" in a litigation context — and why it is not an assertion

A single litigation-adjacent hit surfaced: Malikie Innovations Ltd. et al. v. Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. — but the '195 patent is not one of the patents‑in‑suit in that case.

• Case: Malikie Innovations Ltd. et al. v. Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court, W.D. Wash. (Seattle)
• Case no.: 2:24‑cv‑01490 (JLR)
• Filed: Sept. 17, 2024
• Plaintiffs: Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations, Ltd. (Ireland; NPEs / BlackBerry-lineage portfolio)
• Defendants: Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America, Inc.
• Status: On Nov. 7, 2025 the court stayed the case pending ex parte reexamination (of U.S. 9,313,065) and IPR proceedings (of the remaining five patents); the stay vacated the trial date. A stipulated dismissal with prejudice was later entered (dated Dec. 2, 2025) per the PACER docket.
• Patents actually asserted (the "Asserted Patents"): U.S. 8,545,247; 8,115,731; 9,542,571; 8,610,397; 7,529,305; and 9,313,065. US 8,083,195 is not among them.

The string "8083195 B2* 12/2011 Osada 348/974" appears in the Malikie complaint materials next to citations such as "7,916,467 B2* 3/2011 Hotelling et al." and "2010/0158297 A1* 6/2010 Stuczynski." That formatting (patent number, issue date, inventor, U.S. classification, and an asterisk) is the "References Cited / U.S. Patent Documents" table from a patent's front page, not a list of asserted patents. The hit almost certainly comes from the front page of one of the asserted patents (the '247 "Dock for Portable Electronic Device" patent is a natural candidate, since a Sony cradle/dock patent would be cited as prior art against a dock patent). In other words, the '195 patent appears in that litigation as prior art cited against someone else's patent — not as a patent being litigated.

Other searches performed (all negative for 8,083,195 as a litigated patent)

• Unified Patents litigation/PTAB portal — no entry for 8,083,195. The Unified-patent hits that surfaced concern unrelated patents (e.g., Dolby v. Unified Patents, and Unified's ex parte reexam of Malikie's U.S. 9,313,065).
• Stanford NPE Litigation Database — Nintendo's list of infringement suits does not include any case over 8,083,195.
• General litigation searches for the number plus "litigation," "lawsuit," "case," "defendant," "infringement," "complaint," "PTAB," and "IPR" returned no case naming 8,083,195 as a patent‑in‑suit.
• USPTO.report / FreePatentsOnline entries for the patent show prosecution and bibliographic data only — no litigation or PTAB tab entries.

What I can and cannot confirm

• Confirmed: The patent is a Sony cradle/dock patent; it is expired for failure to pay maintenance fees; it was never (per the sources searched) asserted in any district court or PTAB proceeding; its only appearance in litigation files is as a cited prior-art reference.
• Caveat: I could not run exhaustive, paywalled queries of PACER across all districts or of Docket Navigator / Lex Machina. It is possible (though I found no indication) that a short-lived complaint asserted the '195 patent and was terminated early. Based on every public source available to me, no litigation involving US 8,083,195 is known.

Requested table

Since no litigation is known, there are no cases to tabulate. For completeness, the closest number-adjacent matter (in which the patent appears only as a prior-art citation) is:

If you want, I can attempt a deeper PACER docket sweep or check foreign (e.g., UPC/EPO) counterparts of the JP 2007‑094756 family, but the JP priority family and the absence of any U.S. enforcement activity make foreign litigation against this specific U.S. patent unlikely.

I'll verify the structured data against live sources before writing anything up.

Search results are returning look-alike patent numbers (8,421,195; 8,070,319). Let me run tighter queries.

No hits on the patent itself. One last pass on litigation/PTAB dockets.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 8,083,195: zero. The canonical structured record supplied in this prompt states that the USPTO Open Data Portal returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest, and my independent web searches did not surface any IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding naming this patent — so the count is 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials. The bottom-line defensive posture is therefore not "the patent has survived IPRs and is hardened" and not "claims 1–5 are canceled" — it is "the patent has never been tested at the PTAB, and it appears to have lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees, which is a far more decisive defense than any IPR outcome." See the caveat on lapsed status in the strategic summary before relying on it.

Proceedings on file

None. There is no proceeding to itemize.

Because the task template calls for per-proceeding detail, the honest answer is that there is no petition number, no petitioner, no judge panel, no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, and no Federal Circuit appeal to report. I am deliberately not naming any proceeding number here, because every candidate number my searches surfaced belongs to a different patent (see the confusion warning below) and inventing one would be worse than reporting none.

Strategic summary

Claims CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. With no PTAB proceeding on record, the claim set of 8,083,195 is entirely UNTESTED at the Board. No independent claim has been canceled, no dependent claim has been held unpatentable, and no substitute claim has issued. Nothing in the file history has been narrowed by an adverse judgment. For a defendant, that cuts both ways: there is no pre-packaged PTAB result to invoke, but there is also no § 315(e) estoppel and no Board precedent on claim construction or on the scope of the "support member fixing mechanism" / "brake" limitations that would shape a district court fight. If you are forced to litigate validity, you would be building the obviousness case from scratch. (Note: the full claim text was not included in the material provided to me, so I cannot enumerate claim numbers or quote limitations verbatim — do not treat any claim-number reference in a demand letter as verified until you pull the patent's claims from the USPTO PatentCenter record.)

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estoppel is a non-issue: because no IPR or PGR was ever instituted, no petitioner — and no privy or real party in interest of any petitioner — is barred from raising any ground in a civil action. Every prior-art ground, whether or not it was previously before the Examiner, remains available to you. The only prior-art risk is the ordinary one: references that were squarely before the Examiner during prosecution may invite § 325(d)-style discretionary skepticism if you later file an IPR, and the two Japanese applications cited on the face of the patent (JP 2006-4261 and JP 2003-283609, discussed in the Background) are the art the Examiner already engaged with. Art outside that set — particularly non-Japanese cradle/dock art and mechanical-detent art — is untapped.

Pattern signals. No repeat-petitioner pattern (there are no petitioners). No PTAB appeal history for the patent owner. No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) in the chain — nothing on file at all. That absence is itself informative: this is a 2007-priority Sony mechanical/electromechanical patent that, on the available record, was never a serial-assertion asset, which is consistent with the lapse-for-nonpayment status.

⚠️ Number-confusion warning — check before you cite anything. My searches repeatedly surfaced look-alike patent numbers that are not this patent. Do not let any of these migrate into your analysis:

• US 8,421,195 — semiconductor/drift-layer patent, subject of IPR2020-00289 and related petitions.
• US 8,070,319 — Luminara Worldwide / Shenzhen Liown candle patent, IPR2015-01656.
• US 8,717,101 — power-amplifier patent, IPR2025-00373.
• US 10,257,319 — Netlist patent in Samsung v. Netlist (IPR2025-00002; appeal No. 25-1378).
• US 8,083,195 is the Sony cradle patent at issue here, and none of the above proceedings involved it.

Status caveat worth verifying yourself. The structured data lists this patent's legal status as "Expired - Fee Related," with an adjusted expiration of 2030-10-27. Read literally, that indicates the patent lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees rather than running its full adjusted term. If that status is accurate and no petition to revive was granted, it dramatically changes the defensive calculus: a lapsed patent cannot be asserted against ongoing or post-lapse conduct, which would make the PTAB question largely academic. Two caveats: (1) the source block itself disclaims that the legal status listed is "an assumption and not a legal conclusion"; and (2) U.S. patents that lapse for fee nonpayment may be revivable under 35 U.S.C. § 41(c) if the lapse was unintentional. Do not advise a client that this patent is unenforceable on the strength of the Google Patents status line alone — confirm maintenance-fee payment history in PatentCenter and check for any revival petition before taking that position.

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm the fee-lapse status first — this is the highest-value action item. Pull the maintenance-fee history and any § 41(c) revival petition in USPTO PatentCenter (US Application 12/044,247 → Patent 8,083,195) before spending any attorney time on validity. If the lapse is real and unrevived, a demand letter asserting this patent against current conduct has a § 41 / enforceability problem that dwarfs any invalidity argument.

2. If the patent is revived or the lapse is contested, check the pre-AIA timeline. Priority date 2007-03-30 and filing date 2008-03-07 place this squarely pre-AIA for IPR purposes; institution would be governed by pre-AIA §§ 102/103 and by Fintiv-era and post-Fintiv discretionary-denial practice (noting the current Director's 2025 change in Fintiv practice). An IPR would be available under § 311 as a "patent" challenge, and PGR would be unavailable (well beyond the 9-month window).

3. Because there is no PTAB record, verify from primary sources rather than secondary aggregators. Confirm the null result directly in PTAB E2E and via the PTAB API before filing anything representing "no proceedings." I searched the open web and found nothing, but a null finding by web search is weaker evidence than a null query against the Board's own systems. If, as instructed, the ODP API is your canonical source, document the query date alongside the result.

4. Treat the "no PTAB activity" absence as a signal in itself. Well-asserted patents in the mobile-accessory space (docks, cradles, sync connectors) attracted substantial IPR activity in the 2012–2018 window. A 2007-priority Sony cradle patent with zero petitions is consistent with a patent that was licensed or cross-licensed within the Sony ecosystem rather than asserted against third parties — or one that simply lapsed. Either way, it tells you your opponent is unlikely to be holding a hardened, PTAB-tested asset.

Primary sources to link in any filing or client memo: PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/), USPTO PatentCenter for the maintenance-fee and enforcement history (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/), and the patent's public record at https://patents.google.com/patent/US8083195/en. There are no PTAB decisions or Federal Circuit opinions specific to US 8,083,195 to link, because none exist on the available record.

I'll research the assignment chain for US 8,083,195 using the USPTO Assignment Center and cross-reference sources.

Let me try more targeted searches on the assignment databases and cross-reference sources.

I was unable to pull the Assignment Center record's reel/frame directly through indexed web search — the tooling here returns search-engine results, not a live Patent Assignment Search API query. I'm reporting only what the available sources actually show, and flagging the gaps rather than filling them with invented reel/frame numbers.

Inventors

Unusual patterns: None determinable. This is a single-inventor patent; there is no co-inventor team to analyze for a coordinated post-filing departure. I found no evidence that Osada left Sony within 12 months of filing, and I would not infer it — I have no sourcing for his personnel history. Absence of a departure finding here is a genuine "no data," not a clean bill of health.

Original assignee

• Entity on the issued patent: Sony Corporation (original and current assignee of record per the granted front page and Google Patents legal events). Sony's corporate address is 1-7-1 Konan, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-0075, Japan.
• Primary line of business: Consumer and professional electronics; Sony is the classic operating company (portable audio, phones, speakers, gaming, imaging, media).
• Product embodying the claims: Yes, plausibly. The specification's FIG. 5/6 embodiments are a Sony-style docking cradle for a thin portable music player (portable music player 60) and a thicker portable telephone (portable telephone 61) — i.e., a Walkman/MDR-style dock plus an audio/speaker base unit (FIG. 15 speaker device 100). The device reads as a shipping-product family (network Walkman docking speaker/cradle line, ca. 2007–2009).
• Current status: Sony Corporation remains an operating company. Note for ownership hygiene: Sony renamed its electronics business and reorganized its corporate family (the names "Sony Corporation" and "Sony Group Corporation" have been used in different roles in the 2020–2021 reorganization). I saw trademark-side change-of-name recordings referencing "Sony Kabushiki Kaisha → Sony Corporation" and "Sony Group Corporation," but those are trademark records, not patent-assignment records for this patent — I am not treating them as evidence of any transfer of US 8,083,195. No bankruptcy, dissolution, or fire-sale status applies.

Assignment timeline

Only one assignment link is documented for this patent, and it is the original inventor-to-company assignment captured in Google Patents' legal events for US 8,083,195:

• Executed on or about the filing window / recorded 2008-03-07 — Reel not exposed by the indexed sources I could reach
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: Osada, Yasuo
  • Assignee: Sony Corporation (1-7-1 Konan, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan)
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable from the indexed sources. This is the one field I most wanted and could not get — see caveat below.
  • Context: Initial prosecution-stage acquisition — the standard employee/company vesting of title in the employer before/at filing. Not a fire-sale, not a reorg, not a transfer to an asserter.

No post-issuance assignment is recorded. Google Patents' legal events for US 8,083,195 show only: (1) the 2008-03-07 inventor→Sony assignment; (2) the 2008-10-02 pre-grant publication; (3) the 2011-12-27 grant; and (4) status events (expiry/adj. expiration). There is no re-assignment, merger, change-of-name, security agreement, or license recording downstream. That absence is itself the finding: the patent appears to have stayed inside Sony from filing until it went abandoned.

Caveat on completeness (important): I could not query the USPTO Patent Assignment Search API directly, and the search-engine index did not surface this patent's reel/frame or the correspondent attorney. To get the two missing fields, run the number directly here:

• https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 8083195)
• https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (same underlying records)

If the Assignment Center returns only the single 2008 link, that confirms the "captive-to-Sony" finding above.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8083195
    2007 : JP priority JP2007-094756 filed
    2008 : Inventor assigns to Sony Corporation
         : US application filed 07 Mar 2008
    2011 : Patent issued 27 Dec 2011
    2026 : No post-issuance assignment on record

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The only recorded conveyance runs to an operating company (Sony Corporation), not away from one to an "IP/Holdings/Licensing" LLC. No Delaware/Texas single-purpose LLC appears anywhere in the chain.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Neither Sony Corporation nor inventor Osada matches any public NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, etc.). Note the related-but-distinct Malikie Innovations case surfaced in my litigation search — US 8,083,195 was not an asserted patent there; it appears only as a cited reference on another patent's front page, which is not an ownership event.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / not assessable. There is only one link, so "recurrence" cannot be tested. The correspondent for that single 2008 recording was not retrievable from the indexed sources. I will not name an attorney I cannot verify. If you can read it off the Assignment Center entry, that single data point is low-value here precisely because there is no second link to compare it against.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Zero post-issuance links; a chain of one cannot cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. No infringement suit naming this patent exists (see litigation summary), and no assignment is dated within 6 months of any suit.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. Sony never filed Chapter 7/11, and no patent-sale proceeding touched this patent. (The patent's "Expired – Fee Related" status, adjusted expiration listed as 2030-10-27, reflects abandonment for non-payment of maintenance fees — a cost decision by Sony, not an insolvency event.)

7. Privateering — Not present. No transfer from any operating company to an NPE asserting on its behalf. There is no downstream transferee at all.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present as an aggregator transfer, though the practical effect is comparable: the patent was never asserted and lapsed in the hands of its operating-company owner. It did not pass to RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN, so I do not score this as a defensive-aggregation transfer — only as a non-asserted, self-neutralizing outcome.

Verdict

Insufficient data (only the original assignment).

Justification: the sole documented chain link is the 2008-03-07 assignment of assignors' interest from inventor Yasuo Osada to Sony Corporation (Google Patents legal events for US 8,083,195; reel/frame and correspondent not retrievable from the indexed sources). There are no post-issuance conveyances — no shell-entity transfer, no known asserter, no cascade, no privateering — and the patent is Expired – Fee Related (adj. expiration 2030-10-27). Every NPE/troll signal is either "not present" or "unclear/unassessable for lack of a second data point," so this is a captive, originally-owned operating-company patent, not an NPE asset. To close the reel/frame and correspondent gaps, verify directly at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (patent no. 8083195).

I'll research the cited references for US 8,083,195 on the USPTO and patent databases.

Let me pull the front-page reference list from patent databases.

Let me try to retrieve the front-page "References Cited" list directly.

USPTO / database search for 8083195 — result and scope

Confirmed hit: The number resolves to US 8,083,195 B2, "Cradle device and electronic equipment support device," app. 12/044,247, filed 2008‑03‑07, granted 2011‑12‑27, solo inventor Yasuo Osada, assignee Sony Corp. (full bibliographic block already established in the prior section — not repeated here).

Important retrieval limitation to state up front. The task asks me to "look at each patent citation for 8083195." The two references I can ground verbatim are the ones the specification itself discusses as related art (they appear in the authoritative patent text supplied). What I could not authoritatively retrieve through the open‑web searches available to me is the front‑page "(56) References Cited — U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS" list of the granted patent. Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, Justia, USPTO.report and the patentimages PDF surfaced the description/abstract text and "cited‑by" relationships, but not a clean front‑page cited‑reference table. I am therefore not going to fabricate U.S. patent numbers that may appear on that front page. Treat the list below as the confirmed cited references, and pull the granted PDF (column 1, "(56) References Cited") for the complete U.S.‑document list if you need every entry.

One negative finding worth recording: several searches returned US 8,083,195 appearing in the "Referenced Cited" list of later patents (e.g., design patent D876442, "Mobile device docking station," lists 8083195 | December 27, 2011 | Osada). That is 8083195 being cited by others — the reverse direction from the question — and is not a citation made for 8083195.

---

References cited for US 8,083,195 (confirmed)

Literal‑reading flag (carried forward, not corrected): R2 and R3 are almost certainly the same case — the specification first calls it "2003‑283609" three times and then, in the criticism paragraph, calls the very same "charger" reference "2006‑283609." Per the standing rule to interpret identifiers literally, I list R3 as a distinct string and do not silently merge it. A drafter charting these should verify which publication number is the true JP document.

Prior‑art status under the applicable (pre‑AIA) statute. Because the application was filed 2008‑03‑07 (before the AIA's 2013‑03‑16 change), pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 governs. Both R1 (pub. 2006) and R2 (pub. 2003) published before the 2007‑03‑30 priority date and, more than one year before the 2008‑03‑07 filing date, so each is at minimum a § 102(b) statutory bar and also § 102(a) art.

---

Reference‑by‑reference anticipation analysis (35 U.S.C. § 102)

The novelty of the '195 patent resides in one combination: (a) a support member having a support and a brake formed integrally with the support, and (b) a support member fixing mechanism that lets the support slide freely but grips the brake to stop movement when an external force is applied to a certain region of the support (the far end near the user's finger). This is what both independent claims recite (the cradle claim with a connector, and the connector‑less "electronic equipment support device" claim) — subject to the claim‑numbering uncertainty flagged in the prior section.

R1 — JP 2006‑4261

• Full citation: Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2006‑4261.
• Publication/filing date: Pub. 2006 (exact date unverified).
• Brief description (per the '195 specification): A cradle / information‑terminal system for a PDA, digital camera, or portable telephone having a first mounting part (first position) and a second mounting part (second position), a first processing device and a second processing device; the first process runs when the terminal is at the first mounting part and the second process when at the second mounting part, so "different processing operations" occur "depending on a position or attitude of the portable information terminal."
• Anticipation potential — § 102: Essentially none for the independent claims. Every element‑for‑element comparison fails: R1 discloses multiple mounting parts and multiple connectors, whereas the claimed invention requires a single connector plus a slidable support member with an integrally‑formed brake and a force‑responsive fixing mechanism. R1 has no support member, no brake, and no self‑actuating clamp triggered by where force is applied. It is distinguishing background art (the patent expressly criticizes it for needing "connectors as many as the mounting parts").
• Where R1 could matter: only as § 103 combination material, or to anticipate a hypothetical dependent claim that recited nothing more than "a cradle/charger with a connector and multiple mounting positions." Whether such a dependent claim exists is unverified (see caveat).

R2 — JP 2003‑283609 (+ literal variant R3 "2006‑283609")

• Full citation: Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2003‑283609 (specification's variant: "2006‑283609").
• Publication/filing date: Pub. 2003 (exact date unverified).
• Brief description (per the '195 specification): A portable‑telephone system / terminal / charger / music‑reproduction method, where music data is passed through the charging terminal and reproduced sound is emitted from a built‑in speaker in the charger. The specification notes the terminal "is mounted on the charger by laying the terminal on the mounting surface," i.e., a large, lay‑flat charging surface.
• Anticipation potential — § 102: None for the independent claims. R2 discloses charging + audio output through a connector (arguably anticipating only the trivial "connector to which electronic equipment is connected" fragment of claim 1), but it lacks the brake integrally formed with a support and the support member fixing mechanism that grips the brake on application of force to a certain region — the limitations that carry the claim. It is again distinguishing background art.
• R3 ("2006‑283609"): treated as the same document for substance; the citation‑number discrepancy is itself a drafting error worth verifying, but it flows through the same analysis.

Net § 102 conclusion

On the confirmed record, neither cited reference anticipates any independent claim; the references serve as background art that the patent distinguishes over, and any viable challenge would be a § 103 obviousness combination (e.g., R1's multi‑position cradle + a slidable back support), not single‑reference anticipation. Reproducing the '195 claims' force‑responsive, region‑triggered brake clamp from either reference alone is not possible.

---

Caveats you should act on before relying on this

1. Front‑page U.S. "References Cited" not retrieved. I could not obtain the granted patent's (56) U.S.‑patent‑document list from the sources available. Do not treat this response as the complete citation set — pull the granted PDF / USPTO PatentCenter "References Cited" tab.
2. Claim numbering unverified. As flagged earlier, I could not confirm the exact number of claims or which independent claim is which. The claim mapping above is expressed functionally (independent cradle claim vs. independent support‑device claim; dependents unspecified). Verify against column 13+ of the granted PDF before doing any § 102 chart.
3. Exact JP publication dates unverified. I confirmed the numbering years (2006 and 2003) only; verify the precise Kokai publication dates on JPO/Espacenet if a date‑critical § 102(b) argument depends on them.
4. The "2006‑283609" vs. "2003‑283609" discrepancy is un‑resolved and is reported literally, per the no‑auto‑correction rule.

If you want, I can attempt a more targeted pull of the granted PDF's front‑page (56) list, or query the JPO for the exact Kokai dates of R1/R2/R3 — those two steps would close the remaining gaps above.

I'll ground this analysis by pulling the actual claim text and the cited prior-art documents before applying § 103.

Let me attempt to retrieve the verbatim claim set and check for additional analogous prior art on self-energizing friction locks.

Obviousness Analysis — US 8,083,195 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Patent: US 8,083,195 B2, "Cradle device and electronic equipment support device" (Osada; Sony Corp.)
Priority: 2007-03-30 (JP 2007-094756) · Filed: 2008-03-07 · Granted: 2011-12-27
Governing law: Pre‑AIA § 103(a) (application filed before 2013-03-16). "Obvious … at the time the invention was made."
Sources: patent full text supplied in this prompt; Justia claim text at https://patents.justia.com/patent/[8083195](/patent/8083195) ; JP 2006-4261 at https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2006004261A/en ; JP 2003-283609 record at https://jglobal.jst.go.jp/detail?JGLOBAL_ID=200903038678595198

---

1. Correction and refinement of the prior claim analysis

Two things must be flagged before the analysis, per the cross-reference instruction.

(a) The claim set is now partially verified — upgrading the earlier "unconfirmed" flag. The previously generated sections correctly inferred that there are two independent claims (one cradle, one generic support device). I have now recovered verbatim claim text for claims 1–6 from Justia. This partially resolves the earlier uncertainty, with one important refinement flagged in (b) below. I still could not verify the total claim count or any claims beyond 6; treat claims 7+ as unconfirmed. (Note: 12 claims is the count for JP 2006-4261, not for the '195 patent — do not conflate them.)

(b) An important omission in the earlier claim‑1 characterization. The earlier plain-language overview of independent claim 1 reproduced only the Summary‑of‑Invention language (connector + support member + brake + fixing mechanism). The issued claim 1 contains a substantial additional "wherein" clause that is the actual point of novelty over the cited art:

"wherein the support member fixing mechanism includes a holding member having a first holder and a second holder rotatably connected to each other by a hinge, the first holder and the second holder are each provided with a holding projection that holds each side of the brake when the external force is applied, and one of the first holder and the second holder is provided with an action part that supports the brake at a position more distant from the support than the holding projection."

This is the self‑energizing lever geometry (FIG. 16: F2 = P·(L_P/L3)·(L1/L2)). Any serious § 103 chart must attack this clause, not the Summary language. The earlier sections' summary language is therefore accurate as to the specification, but under‑states what claim 1 actually requires. No contradiction, but a material gap that changes the analysis below.

Recovered claim set (verbatim, claims 1–6):

Note the drafting oddity: claim 6 depends on claim 3 but is numbered after independent claim 5. That is legally permissible but unusual, and it is a signal that the claim set may have been amended late in prosecution. Claims 7+ were not recovered — verify before relying on any "all claims" statement.

---

2. Legal framework applied

• Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966): scope/content of the prior art; differences; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations.
• KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007): a combination is obvious where (i) a known technique is used to improve a similar device in the same way, (ii) familiar elements are combined according to known methods to yield predictable results, (iii) a design need or market pressure prompts a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, or (iv) the combination is "obvious to try." Articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning is required; the patent may not be used as a roadmap (hindsight guardrail).
• Analogous art (pre‑AIA): In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) — same field of endeavor, or reasonably pertinent to the problem the inventor faced. This matters because the two references on the face of the patent are cradle/dock art, whereas the claimed clamp geometry is mechanical-lock art; the plausible § 103 theories all turn on whether that mechanical art is analogous. Cradle/stand/dock art is the same field; adjustable-support/friction-lock art is at minimum reasonably pertinent to the stated problem ("support a device of varying thickness and resist push force without a user-operated latch").
• Anticipation check first: neither JP reference discloses the claim‑1 "wherein" clause, so there is no § 102 rejection on the face‑of‑patent art. The case is purely § 103.

---

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

A bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering (or equivalent), plus 2–4 years of experience designing consumer‑electronics accessories (docks, cradles, stands, holders) and small electromechanical assemblies. Such a person is familiar with: injection‑molded engineering plastics and sheet‑metal stampings; springs (coil, leaf, plate); friction and detent mechanisms; simple linkages and lever statics; connector retention and insertion/extraction forces. The specification's own force derivations (§ FIG. 16) use nothing beyond first‑year statics — a point that bears directly on the "predictable result" prong.

---

4. Prior art inventory

4.1 Art cited on the face of the patent (authoritative per the supplied text)

Identifier integrity note (carried forward, not repeated in full): the specification also cites "Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2006‑283609" in its criticism paragraph. Per instruction I do not auto‑correct this. For § 103 purposes it is an evidentiary complication only — if a rejection or invalidity contention cites the "2006‑283609" string, the reference must be matched to an actual document before it can be relied on.

4.2 Supplementary analogous art surfaced and partially verified in this session

These are not on the face of the patent. I identified them to test whether the claim‑1 "wherein" clause is independently known. Dates and disclosures should be re‑verified against the primary documents before use in a filing; I am flagging them as leads, not as established § 102(b) art.

Do not confuse any of the above with the look‑alike patent numbers flagged earlier (US 8,421,195; US 8,070,319; US 8,717,101; US 10,257,319). None of those are this patent or its art.

---

5. Element‑by‑element: what the face‑of‑patent art does and does not show

Conclusion of step 5: the two references on the face of the patent establish context (a cradle/dock for a portable terminal with a single electrical interface that both charges and carries audio) but do not reach limitations (b)–(e). Standing alone, they do not render claim 1 obvious. This is consistent with the patent having issued over them.

---

6. § 103 combination theories

Theory 1 — Two‑reference combination on the face of the patent: JP 2006‑4261 + JP 2003‑283609

Reaches: the preamble and the "one connector / charge + high‑quality audio" commercial framing. Not claim 1 as a whole.

Motivation to combine (strong):

• Same field of endeavor (cradles/charging stands for portable terminals).
• JP 2006‑4261 solves multi‑function docking by providing multiple mounting parts, which the '195 specification expressly criticizes as requiring "connectors as many as the mounting parts," increasing component count, cost, and size. That criticism is an admission of a known design deficiency in the art the patent itself identifies — usable as a KSR "design need" rationale.
• JP 2003‑283609 teaches that a single charging terminal can carry both charging power and reproduced audio to the stand's speaker, satisfying "reproduce music with high sound quality."

Why this theory is insufficient: neither reference says anything about a movable back support, a brake plate, or a hinged self‑energizing clamp. A rejection resting only on these two would fail the "articulated reasoning" requirement for limitations (b)–(e). Do not build an invalidity case on this theory alone.

---

Theory 2 — Cradle art (JP 2006‑4261 and/or JP 2003‑283609 and/or JP 2002‑127834) + adjustable‑support/self‑energizing‑lock art → claim 1

This is the only viable route to claim 1.

Proposed combination:

• Primary reference (context): JP 2006‑4261 and/or JP 2003‑283609 (dock with connector; charge + audio; terminal held inclined).
• Secondary reference (support/backstop): JP 2002‑127834 A — a cradle with a pivoted, spring‑biased holding member (13) pressing a pressing part (13c) against a side of the terminal, and a position‑adjustable support on a long hole (27). Supplies "support member supporting a side of the equipment" and adjustable positioning.
• Tertiary reference (the lock): art disclosing a self‑energizing, load‑responsive friction lock — e.g., the wrap‑spring self‑energizing grip of US 3,315,538; hinge/clamp brake designs generally; or, more directly, a hinged jaw clamp that tightens on a plate when the plate is urged at a distance from the jaws. (A primary‑document search should be run to find a reference that expressly shows hinged jaws with an offset action point — see § 8 below.)

Articulated reasoning (KSR):

1. Same field / reasonably pertinent. All references address the problem of holding a portable electronic device at an inclined, operable position while it is electrically docked.
2. The problem is expressly identified in the art and in the patent. JP 2002‑073206 identifies the exact problem the '195 patent claims to solve: vibration/force on a docked terminal disconnects or damages the connector; JP 2006‑4261 shows the art's answer (multiple mounting parts) and the '195 specification explains why that answer is uneconomical and bulky.
3. Finite number of predictable solutions. Given the requirement "easy to reposition for different device thicknesses, but automatically resists pushing on the device," the mechanical designer's toolbox is small and well known: (i) friction detent, (ii) screw/long‑hole clamp, (iii) over‑center toggle, (iv) spring‑biased detent (as in EP 1 732 291's leaf spring 17g), (v) self‑energizing wedge/lever clamp. Selecting (v) is a predictable choice, and its performance is calculable a priori by simple moment balance.
4. Predictable result — evidenced by the patent itself. The '195 specification derives the clamping force as F2 = P·(L_P/L3)·(L1/L2) and the holding force P(L_P/L3)(L1/L2), using nothing but lever/moment arithmetic. Where the patentee's own disclosure establishes the result through textbook statics, the "predictable results" prong of KSR is satisfied as a matter of the document's own content. No unexpected result is asserted.
5. Design incentive. Market pressure toward thinner, single‑connector docks accommodating heterogeneous devices, and the acknowledged need to protect the connector and improve key‑press feel, supply the "improve a similar device in the same way" rationale.

Weakness of Theory 2: the hinge‑plus‑offset‑action‑part geometry (limitation (e)) is specific. If no analogous reference discloses or fairly suggests an offset action point relative to the holding projections, the theory collapses into "obvious to try," which is weak where the prior art provides no direction (In re O'Farrell; KSR itself cautions against pure "obvious to try" where the art gives no guidance). This is the single most attackable limitation.

---

Theory 3 — EP 1 732 291 A1 alone (or in combination) against claims 2, 3 and 6

EP 1 732 291 is unusually close on the dependent claims:

• Claim 2 (long hole + stopper pin controlling direction/quantity of movement): EP 1 732 291's slide plate 17d / rail 17h / stopper claw 17j assembly and leaf spring 17g projection fitting a hole to stop the slide at defined positions; JP 2002‑127834's long hole 27 and screws 24/25. Combined with the '195 specification's own admission that "it is not necessary to provide a guide formed by a guide shaft … the degree of freedom in designing is increased," the long‑hole/stopper‑pin expedient is plainly a routine design choice. → Claim 2 is highly vulnerable.
• Claim 3 (elastic member elastically deforming when sliding into contact with the brake): a spring‑loaded detent is the classic solution to "hold position but allow manual repositioning." EP 1 732 291's leaf spring 17g is a direct analogue; a plate spring bearing on a sliding member is elementary. → Claim 3 vulnerable.
• Claim 6 (elastic member mounted to the first holder via a guide pin engaged with a hole in the support member): the combination of a spring and a guide pin in a slot is the standard construction for a spring‑loaded linear detent, and is essentially the structure the '195 specification describes. → Claim 6 vulnerable, subject to verifying claim 6's exact wording.

These three dependent claims are the most likely to fall, and they are also the claims most likely to be asserted in an infringement case because they capture the commercial embodiment.

---

Theory 4 — Claim 4 (engineering plastic) and Claim 5 (support device without connector)

• Claim 4 — "integrally formed of engineering plastic." In re Kuhle/In re Larson line: selection of a known material for a known purpose, with no unexpected property, is routine and non‑obviousness‑conferring. The specification itself names ABS and adds that "another engineering plastic may obviously be used" and that "a metal such as an aluminum alloy or magnesium alloy may be used" — an express admission that material choice is a design option. → Claim 4 is weak.
• Claim 5 — independent support device, i.e., claim 1 minus the connector. If claim 1 falls, claim 5 falls for the same reasons plus the obviousness of omitting a connector for a wireless (Bluetooth) link — a change the specification itself states as an alternative ("an embodiment of the invention may obviously [be] an electronic equipment support device to which electronic equipment is connected by Bluetooth"; "the electronic equipment support device is realized by excluding the connector"). That is an express admission of an obvious design variant.

---

7. Claim‑by‑claim conclusion

Overall: a § 103 case against claim 1 is not currently supported by the references on the face of the patent; it depends entirely on supplementary analogous art establishing the self‑energizing hinged‑clamp geometry. A § 103 case against claims 2–4 and 6 (and likely 5) is comparatively strong on routine‑design‑choice and predictable‑result grounds.

---

8. Hindsight guardrails and weaknesses in the obviousness theory (state these candidly)

1. The gap is real. The prior art on the face of the patent contains no movable back support, no brake plate, and no clamp. The step from "multiple mounting parts" (JP 2006‑4261) and "speaker in the charger" (JP 2003‑283609) to "self‑energizing hinged brake clamp on a sliding back plate" is not a small, mechanical substitution — it is a change in the kind of solution. A court applying the KSR "articulated reasoning" requirement will demand a reference that puts the offset‑action‑point geometry on the table.
2. "Obvious to try" is the fallback, and it is a weak fallback absent any teaching in the art that a push on the far end of a support should be converted into a clamp force near the near end.
3. Relative terminology. "A certain region of the support" is functional/relative (see Datamize/Interval Licensing lines of cases on relative terms), which both complicates an invalidity chart (what is the metes and bounds of "a certain region"?) and narrows the effective claim scope. If the specification's FIG. 16 geometry supplies the only definition of that region, the limitation may be construed narrowly enough to complicate any prior‑art mapping.
4. Secondary considerations: I found no evidence of unexpected results, licensing, industry praise, or copycat conduct, and the patent is recorded as Expired – Fee Related. The specification's "advantages" are bare assertions of design freedom ("it is possible to freely select an interlocking condition…"), which are design‑choice statements and cut against non‑obviousness rather than for it. There is no nexus evidence to weigh.
5. Citation integrity: the "JP 2006‑283609" string in the specification's criticism paragraph does not match the front‑page citation "JP 2003‑283609." Any rejection or invalidity contention must resolve that mismatch against the actual document before relying on it.

---

9. Recommended next steps

1. Pull the full claim set (claims 7+, if any) and the file wrapper from USPTO PatentCenter (application 12/044,247) before relying on the claim count or on any unverified claim.
2. Run a focused prior‑art search on the actual point of novelty, in these CPC/class areas: F16M11/041 (quick release of apparatus), F16M13/00, F16C11/10 (pivotal connections with locking), F16D (self‑energizing brakes), A47B23/00, H04M1/04, and the "one‑way clutch / self‑locking linear device" art. Search terms: self‑energizing clamp, offset action lever brake, hinged jaw friction lock, sliding back support detent, wrap spring lock, over‑center clamp, one‑way linear lock. The goal is a single reference that shows a hinged clamp whose jaws grip a plate, with the reaction point offset from the gripping point — that one reference converts Theory 2 from "obvious to try" to an articulated KSR combination.
3. Primary‑verify JP 2002‑127834 A, JP 2002‑073206 A, EP 1 732 291 A1, US 3,315,538 and US 2,905,024 (exact publication dates, and the precise disclosures relied on) before citing any of them in a filing — they surfaced through search snippets, and dates/disclosures here are flagged as unverified.
4. Priority of attack: if asserting invalidity, lead with claims 2, 3, 4 and 6 (routine design choice / predictable result) and use them to erode the dependent scope, while reserving claim 1 pending the targeted search in step 2.
5. Enforceability check first. The record shows Expired – Fee Related. Confirm the maintenance‑fee history and any § 41(c) revival petition in PatentCenter before investing further in validity work — as the earlier sections concluded, the lapse question dominates the § 103 question.