US 8630917

I'll search for this patent in the requested sources.

Let me check the CAFC 2026 dockets and litigation history.

Let me run a couple more targeted checks on litigation/appeal history and PTAB records.

US Patent 8,630,917 — Analyst Summary

Note on scope of search: I searched for the exact number "8630917" / "8,630,917". I found no USPTO/CAFC 2026 docket activity, no PTAB (IPR/PGR/CBM) proceeding, and no district-court or Federal Circuit litigation tied to this patent. One search hit referencing a "'917 Patent" (Ricoh Co. v. Zoom Communications) concerns a different patent about video-conferencing transmission terminals — that is not US 8,630,917, and I have not conflated the two. I cannot rule out litigation/appeal activity that is not indexed in the sources I could reach; treat the "no litigation found" statement as a search limitation, not a definitive negative.

Bibliographic Data

Abstract

A computer-implemented method guides a user in designing a product defined by data. The method examines data items to detect whether each conforms to rules or violates them; performs at least one action in response to a detected rule violation; displays the data to the user emphasizing at least one particular data item that caused the rule violation; receives any new data input from the user; and repeats the examining, action-performing, and displaying steps using the new data. The displaying step may present the product's current state in a tabular (spreadsheet-like) format, showing rule-violating data in a manner visibly distinct from data that is not rule-violating.

Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

Claim 1 — Method (as granted)
A processor-implemented method with these steps:

1. Examine the data items against a set of rules.
2. Take an action when a rule violation is detected — where the action includes the displaying step (a notable point of claim structure).
3. Display the data items in a tabular format of cells, emphasizing both (a) a first data item that caused the rule violation, and (b) a second data item that existed before the first item but is associated with the violation caused by the first item. (In practice: a newly entered value conflicts with pre-existing cell values, so the pre-existing conflicting cells get highlighted too.)
4. Receive a control input from the user (e.g., clicking a correction tab).
5. In response to that control input, automatically change the second data item to one of a plurality of possible values, where the processor selects the value so that the rule violation is corrected.

The distinctive limitation versus the parent patent's broader disclosure is the combination of highlighting a pre-existing ("earlier") data item implicated by a newly caused violation plus processor-driven automated selection of a corrective value for that earlier item upon user control input.

Claim 11 — Tangible machine-readable storage medium
Same substantive operations as claim 1 (examine; act on violation, the action comprising the display; display in tabular cells emphasizing the first item and the earlier, associated second item; receive user control input; automatically change the second item to a processor-selected value that corrects the violation), implemented as instructions that cause a machine to perform them.

Claim 16 — System
A memory storing machine-readable instructions plus a processor that executes them to perform the same operations as claims 1/11 (examine; act on violation including display; tabular display emphasizing the causing item and the earlier associated item; receive user control input; automatically change the earlier item to a processor-selected corrective value).

Notable Dependent Claims (context, not independent)

• 2–4: Rules are if/then statements; examining uses an inference engine in a rule-based expert system; actions from the "then" clauses may be performed in parallel via server applets.
• 5: Violating data shown with distinguishing emphasis selected from color, font, font size, cell outlining, italicization.
• 6 / 15 / 18: Without regard to new user input, automatically change a third data item that caused a second rule violation.
• 7–8: Product is a telecommunication service; rules define network characteristics; rule categories include network technical, customer account, cost, and pricing requirements.
• 9: Preliminary step of inputting rule definitions.
• 10 / 14 / 17: After automated correction, display the changed item without emphasis.

Cited Prior Art (as listed on the face)

US 5,889,932 (Barco Graphics); US 5,999,908 (Abelow); US 6,167,383 (Dell USA); US 2005/0021599 (Peters); US 2005/0131783 (Myoung Jin); US 6,937,913 (Toshiba); US 7,162,703 (Altera); US 2006/0123364 (IBM); US 2008/0255926 (Nakano). Later-citing families include Ab Initio Technology LLC (data lineage/validation rules) and a JD.com CN filing.

Uncertainty / Caveats

• No authoritative record of any 2026 CAFC docket, appeal, or IPR involving US 8,630,917 surfaced. I could not verify the absence of such proceedings with certainty from the sources available.
• The Google Patents page itself flags legal status and priority/assignee data as assumptions, not legal conclusions; the fee-lapse status (expired 2018-02-12, effective 2018-01-14) comes from the USPTO legal-events record reproduced there.
• Multiple "continuation / continuation-in-part" relationship notations appear for the parent US 11/233,705; the specification text states this patent is a continuation claiming priority to 11/233,705 and provisional 60/689,029.
• Inventor name differs slightly across sources ("Sam Parker" on the patent record vs. "Sam Houston Parker" in a third-party aggregator) — I report the patent record version.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 8630917 across patent litigation sources.

Let me search specific litigation databases.

Let me check additional litigation-specific sources.

Litigation Search Results — U.S. Patent No. 8,630,917

Summary: No litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 8,630,917 was found.

I searched for litigation records matching this specific patent number and found no cases — no district court complaints, no CAFC appeals, and no PTAB post-grant proceedings (IPR/PGR/CBM) that name this patent. Below are the details of what I searched and the caveats you should be aware of.

What I searched

• General web searches for "8630917 litigation," "8,630,917" combined with complaint/lawsuit/docket/case number terms.
• Delaware, E.D. Tex., W.D. Tex., and other district court docket aggregators surfaced for related searches.
• PTAB/USPTO petition document repositories.
• Unified Patents and RPX Insight-type litigation coverage.

Every search that returned a hit matched only on an unrelated numeric string (e.g., a Brazilian corporate registry entry "8630917 BMT LOGISTICA TERRESTRE LTDA," and other patents numbered ...,917 such as the Seiko Epson '917 / '902 patents). None of these relate to U.S. Patent 8,630,917.

Patent identification (confirmed, not assumed)

• Patent: U.S. 8,630,917 B2 — "Arrangement for guiding user design of comprehensive product solution using on-the-fly data validation"
• Patentee/Assignee: AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P. (originally AT&T Corp.)
• Inventors: David G. Belanger, Adrian Kester, Sam Parker, Sarat Puthenpura, Phyllis Weiss
• Application: 12/646,036, filed 2009-12-23 (continuation of 11/233,705, now U.S. 7,689,467; priority to provisional 60/689,029, 2005-06-09)
• Grant date: 2014-01-14
• Status: Expired — Fee Related. Per the Google Patents legal events, the patent expired 2018-02-12 for failure to pay maintenance fees (37 CFR 1.362), with an effective lapse date of 2018-01-14.

Assessment

1. No infringement suits found. I identified no plaintiff/defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome for any case asserting this patent. Notably, it was never asserted in the years it remained in force.
2. No PTAB challenges found. No IPR, PGR, or CBM petition referencing this patent appeared in searches. This is consistent with its status as an AT&T-internal design/pricing tool patent that lapsed for non-payment of fees.
3. No CAFC or PACER matches. No appellate record surfaced.

Important caveats

• I was unable to complete a definitive, exhaustive query against PACER, Docket Navigator, or a full RPX/Unified litigation database before reaching my search-step limit; those are the authoritative sources, and my searches were limited to web-indexed results. If a case existed but its documents are not web-indexed (e.g., sealed or low-profile), I would not have seen it.
• The patent expired in 2018, which sharply reduces the likelihood of any litigation post-2018.
• Per my operating rules, I am reporting the literal results: I found no litigation. I have not auto-corrected or substituted any numbers, and I have not inferred cases from similarly numbered patents.

Bottom line: Based on the available search results, there is no known litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 8,630,917. To be fully certain, a direct PACER/Docket Navigator query for "8,630,917" across all federal districts (and the PTAB) should be run, which I was unable to complete here.

I'll verify the structured data with targeted searches before reporting.

Let me run a few more targeted checks before I conclude.

Let me do a final confirmation search on docket-style databases.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 8,630,917: 0. The structured USPTO Open Data Portal block in this prompt reports no AIA trial proceedings, and my independent web searches surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming this patent (or its parent, US 7,689,467). Because there is nothing to break down by institution/denial/invalidation/settlement status, the "bottom line" is unusual and worth stating plainly: this patent was never tested at the PTAB at all — but that is not because it is a hardened, victorious patent. It lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees in 2018 and has been expired for roughly eight years.

That is the single most important defensive fact. A patent that expired for fee non-payment cannot be asserted for any post-expiration infringement, and the potential pre-expiration damages window (issued 2014-01-14, lapsed effective 2018-01-14) is short and long past. Any demand letter citing US 8,630,917 today should be scrutinized immediately for either (a) a mistaken patent number, (b) reliance on a related but different family member, or (c) a bad-faith demand.

Proceedings

No proceedings to report. No PTAB proceeding number, petitioner, panel, institution decision, final written decision, settlement, or Federal Circuit appeal exists for US 8,630,917 in the sources available to me. I will not manufacture one.

What the record actually shows

• Patent: US 8,630,917 B2 — "Arrangement for guiding user design of comprehensive product solution using on-the-fly data validation."
• Assignee: AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P. (via AT&T Properties, LLC), a large-entity owner.
• Application: US 12/646,036, filed 2009-12-23, granted 2014-01-14 (published as US 2010/0100220 A1 on 2010-04-22).
• Priority: 2005-06-09 (provisional 60/689,029); continuation of US 11/233,705, filed 2005-09-23, which issued as US 7,689,467.
• Legal status: Expired – Fee Related. Lapse-for-failure-to-pay event entered 2018-02-12; FP (lapsed due to failure to pay maintenance fee) effective 2018-01-14, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.362. Google Patents lists an "adjusted expiration" of 2027-01-20, but that is the nominal term if fees had been paid — the operative status event is the 2018 lapse.
• Claim set at lapse: claims 1–18 (method claims 1–10; a tangible machine-readable storage medium claim 11–15; and system claims 16–18). Claims 1, 11, and 16 are the independent claims. None were ever canceled, amended, or held unpatentable in an AIA trial.

Why the absence of PTAB activity looks the way it does

The typical driver of an IPR is a live infringement campaign. Nothing in my searches shows US 8,630,917 being asserted in litigation, which is consistent with its early lapse. By contrast, the patent's named inventors and assignee family do appear in unrelated AT&T-side litigation, but as defendants in other parties' patent suits (e.g., UST Technology, XR Communications/Vivato, ASUS Technology Licensing) — none of which involves this patent as an asserted asset. I found no defensive-aggregator activity (no Unified Patents, RPX, or similar filing).

Strategic summary

Claim status. For practical purposes there is no "canceled vs. sustained vs. untested" PTAB picture — all of claims 1–18 are simply untested at the PTAB and expired. There is no IPR estoppel to map, no § 315(e)(2) bar to navigate, and no FWD to quote, because no petition was ever filed. Any defense strategy should not be built around PTAB outcomes on this patent; there are none.

Validity posture if somehow still asserted. If a plaintiff nonetheless asserts this patent, the expiry is a threshold, potentially case-dispositive fact: no injunction, no ongoing royalties, and only a narrow historical damages theory at most (and only for conduct before 2018-01-14, subject to the six-year § 286 lookback — which would reach back only to 2012 at the earliest relative to a 2018 lapse, itself now time-barred). Separately, if validity were reachable, the claims' substance (tabular-interface, rule-based on-the-fly data validation with cell highlighting and auto-correction) sits squarely in territory that was heavily developed in the 1990s–2000s (see, e.g., the applicant's own cited art: US 5,889,932 to Barco Graphics; US 5,999,908 to Abelow; US 6,167,383 to Dell; US 6,937,913 to Toshiba; US 7,162,703 to Altera; and US 2006/0123364 to IBM). I flag this only as potential § 102/§ 103 fodder — I have not evaluated it, and I will not represent that any particular reference anticipates or renders obvious any claim.

Family exposure. The parent, US 7,689,467, shares the same priority and specification. If a defendant is being approached, confirm which family member is actually being asserted — the '917 continuation and the '467 parent are different patents, and I found no PTAB activity on either.

Recommended next steps

1. Verify the patent number on any demand. The most likely explanation for a demand citing US 8,630,917 is a citation error pointing to a sibling or unrelated patent. Require the plaintiff to identify the asserted patent, asserted claims, and accused products.
2. Raise the § 1.362 lapse immediately. US 8,630,917 expired for non-payment of maintenance fees effective 2018-01-14. Confirm current fee/status data at the USPTO Patent Center / Global Dossier and PTAB E2E before responding, and put the plaintiff on notice. Note that reinstatement would require a petition under 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.378 (unintentional delay) or 1.137; absent that, the patent is not enforceable for post-lapse conduct.
3. If the demand instead implicates US 7,689,467, re-run the PTAB check against that number and its full family; my searching found no AIA trial there either, but confirm via PTAB E2E docket search and the ODP before relying on it.
4. Preserve the § 282 invalidity narrative. If pre-lapse infringement is ever alleged, the cited references from the '917 prosecution (Barco Graphics '932, Abelow '908, Dell '383, Toshiba '913, Altera '703, IBM '364) are the natural starting points for § 102/§ 103 analysis, since they were already before the examiner.
5. No monitoring burden is warranted for PTAB specifically. Because the patent is expired and no AIA trial was ever instituted, there is no PTAB docket to track, no institution/FWD deadline to calendar, and no § 315(b) one-year window to manage. Redirect any docketing resources to the live litigations named above if your client is a party to them.

Confidence note: My conclusion that zero AIA trial proceedings exist rests on (a) the ODP structured block stating none were returned and (b) targeted web searches that surfaced no IPR/PGR/CBM for this patent. Web indexes of PTAB filings are not perfectly complete for very old or never-filed matters, so if a proceeding is later identified, the correct treatment is to verify it directly at the USPTO PTAB E2E docket and CourtListener rather than relying on secondary sources.

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

Let me check for any litigation/assertion history and the nature of the assignee entities.

Ownership Reconstruction — US 8630917 B2

Patent: US 8,630,917 B2 — Arrangement for guiding user design of comprehensive product solution using on-the-fly data validation
App. No.: 12/646,036 (filed 2009-12-23) — continuation of 11/233,705 (now US 7,689,467 B1), which claims priority to provisional 60/689,029 (filed 2005-06-09)
Granted: 2014-01-14 · Status: Expired — Fee Related; lapsed 2018-01-14 for nonpayment of maintenance fees (37 CFR 1.362)

Source note (read first): I did not obtain a live hit from the USPTO Assignment Center or assignment.uspto.gov for this patent — those pages are not retrievable in this session, and the correspondent field in particular is not mirrored anywhere in Google Patents' legal-events table. Everything below is grounded in the authoritative full patent text and its embedded legal-events record (Google Patents, fetched 2026-09-24), cross-checked against independent AT&T entity records. The correspondent of record is therefore not determinable from the sources I could reach, and I am deliberately not naming one. Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search "8630917").

Inventors

Unusual patterns: None found. The employer inference is evidence-based, not assumed: the assignment of record runs directly from the five named inventors to AT&T Corp., which is the standard employment-obligation assignment signature. There is no evidence of inventors departing within 12 months of filing, and no inventor is named as an assignor on any later link in the chain — meaning no inventor carried rights out of the company. One minor timing artifact worth flagging neutrally: the inventor→AT&T Corp. assignment was executed in September 2005 but not recorded until 2011-03-22 (~5.5 years). That lag is routine for a continuation filing (the assignment was re-recorded against the newly filed 12/646,036), not evidence of a fire-sale.

Original assignee

AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P. — a Nevada limited partnership, incorporated 2006, listed by Google Patents as the original assignee on the face of the issued patent and as a current assignee of record. Address of record: 645 East Plumb Lane, Reno, Nevada 89502.

• Primary line of business: Not a product company. AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P. is one of AT&T Inc.'s captive IP-holding entities — a structural/legal-entity division that holds patents and trademarks for the AT&T corporate family. Its predecessor-in-title, AT&T Corp., was the operating long-distance/telecom carrier.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? The claims are directed to a software tool (a spreadsheet-style, rule-driven solution configurator with automatic cell correction) used internally by AT&T's sales/solutions staff — not to a product AT&T sold under this patent. No commercial product is identified read on the claims.
• Current status: AT&T Corp. (the 2005-era assignee) was acquired by SBC Communications on 2005-11-18; the surviving entity took the AT&T name. The Nevada holding entities (AT&T Properties, LLC and AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P., both incorporated 2006) are artifacts of that merger's IP reorganization. AT&T Inc. is operating, not in bankruptcy and not dissolved. The patent itself is expired for failure to pay maintenance fees.

Assignment timeline

Three (3) assignment records exist. All are intra-family. No security agreements, licenses, releases, or corrections are recorded.

• 2005-09-13 → 2005-09-22 (executed — individual signing dates) / recorded 2011-03-22 — Reel 025995/0686
  • Conveyance: Assignment (recorded as "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: David G. Belanger; Adrian Kester; Sam Parker; Sarat Puthenpura; Phyllis Weiss (the five named inventors)
  • Assignee: AT&T Corp., a New York corporation
  • Correspondent: Not determinable — the correspondent of record is not exposed in any source I could reach. (First party to a chain this long is usually a company's own in-house IP legal group, but I will not name a firm without the record.)
  • Context: Original employment assignment — the inventors' rights transferred to their employer at filing; recorded late against the 2009 continuation application.

• 2013-05-08 (effective) / recorded 2013-08-29 — Reel 031112/0412
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: AT&T Corp., a New York corporation
  • Assignee: AT&T Properties, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company
  • Correspondent: Not determinable. Note: this frame and the next sit on the same reel (031112) with consecutive frames and the same recording date, which is a structural tell that both links were recorded in a single recording event by one correspondent — but the attorney/firm name is not in the retrievable data.
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization — AT&T's captive-IP-holding reorg (this same Corp → Properties LLC → Knowledge Ventures/AT&T IP LP pattern is visible in AT&T's trademark title records registered under the 2008–2009 AT&T restructuring).

• 2013-05-08 (effective) / recorded 2013-08-29 — Reel 031112/0772
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: AT&T Properties, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company
  • Assignee: AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P., a Nevada limited partnership
  • Correspondent: Not determinable — same single recording event as reel 031112/0412 above.
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization — terminal link in the chain; AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P. remains assignee of record.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8630917
    2005 : Inventors assign to AT&T Corp
         : Parent application filed
    2009 : Continuation filed
    2011 : Inventor assignment recorded
    2013 : Internal reorg effective
         : AT&T Properties LLC takes title
         : AT&T IP II LP takes title
    2014 : Patent issued
    2018 : Expired for unpaid upkeep fee

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Insufficient data — read as "no actionable NPE finding," not as "no records."

Justification: the entire recorded chain is three intra-family links — inventors → AT&T Corp. (reel 025995/0686, executed 2005-09-13 to 09-22, recorded 2011-03-22) → AT&T Properties, LLC (reel 031112/0412, effective 2013-05-08) → AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P. (reel 031112/0772, effective 2013-05-08) — with no third-party assignee at any point, no recorded license/security interest, and no infringement litigation located. Every NPE-typical signal fails on the evidence; the only open item is the correspondent of record for the two reel 031112 recordings, which I could not retrieve (signal 3 = unclear, all others = not present). The patent itself simply expired in 2018 for nonpayment of maintenance fees and never left AT&T.

Verification: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 8630917) · mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html · Google Patents legal events: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8630917/en

Caveats / what would change the call: (a) The Assignment Center reflects only recorded documents — an unrecorded transfer or license would not appear. (b) Google Patents shows "Adjusted expiration 2027-01-20" and a 2018-01-14 lapse; the lapse is the operative event (maintenance fee under 37 CFR 1.362 unpaid at the 3.5-year window). (c) If a future check of reel 031112/0412 and /0772 surfaces a repeat outside-counsel correspondent, re-run signal 3 — but on the present record that would still not overcome the absence of any third-party assignee.

I'll research this patent and its cited prior art. Let me start with several searches.

Let me research the remaining cited references.

Prior‑Art Analysis — US 8,630,917 B2

1. Patent identification (verified)

I retrieved the record through Google Patents and FreePatentsOnline, which mirror the USPTO bibliographic/assignment data (USPTO PatentCenter link: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/). No reference to any similarly numbered patent is included below; every citation is keyed to US 8,630,917 exactly.

2. What must be met to anticipate the granted claims

Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires a single reference to disclose every element. The granted claims were materially narrowed relative to the broad published application (US 2010/0100220 A1). Independent claim 1 (and its parallels in claims 11 and 16) require, in combination:

• (a) examining, by a processor, data items to detect whether each conforms to rules;
• (b) performing an action in response to a detected rule violation;
• (c) displaying the data items in a tabular format including cells, emphasizing (i) a first data item that caused the violation and (ii) a second data item that existed prior to the first but is associated with the violation — the action comprising the displaying;
• (d) receiving a control input from the user; and
• (e) in response to that control input, automatically changing the second data item to one of a plurality of possible values, the value being selected by the processor so as to correct the violation.

Dependent claims 2–10 (and 12–15, 17–18) add: inference‑engine/expert‑system rule application (2, 12); "then"‑clause actions (3, 13); parallel server applets (4); visibly distinct emphasis, incl. color/font/size/outlining/italicization (5); auto‑change of a third item (6, 15, 18); telecom‑service/network context (7, 8); and rule‑definition input (9).

The commercially distinctive limitation is (e) coupled with (c)(ii) — i.e., automatically rewriting a pre‑existing cell that the user did not touch, choosing among multiple possible corrective values, after the user confirms. No cited reference appears to disclose this full combination; several disclose the rule‑checking and rule‑violation‑highlighting sub‑parts. Below, "potentially anticipates" is used only where a reference is arguably material to a given claim; where a limitation is missing, I say so.

3. Analysis of each cited reference

3.1 US 6,167,383 A — Dell USA, L.P. (Henson)

• Citation: US 6,167,383 A; filed 1998‑09‑22; issued 2000‑12‑26; "Method and apparatus for providing customer configured machines at an internet site."
• Description: Web‑based online store with a configurator for customizing a computer system. The configurator presents options/pricing per customer set, dynamically supplied by a database, and includes a warning indicator for options that adversely impact shipment. Its figures and text expressly address that "2 selections may require changes to other configuration choices," and the background criticizes prior stores for giving "no means for warning customers as to known compatibility issues between select options."
• Relevance: The most material reference for claim‑element (c)(ii) — flagging a previously selected option that conflicts with a newly selected option. Also touches (a)/(b) (rule/compatibility checking of configuration data).
• § 102 mapping: A strong § 102(b) reference against claim 1's elements (a)–(d), and directly against dependent claim 5. However, I do not see disclosure of (e) — a processor automatically changing a pre‑existing item to one selected from a plurality of possible values to correct the violation upon user control input. Dell appears to warn rather than auto‑correct. It is therefore best viewed as the closest art for the characterizing feature plus a § 103 combination anchor, not a clean § 102 anticipation of claim 1.

3.2 US 7,162,703 B1 — Altera Corporation

• Citation: US 7,162,703 B1; filed 2003‑06‑19; issued 2007‑01‑09; "Electrical design rule checking expert traverser system."
• Description: A design‑rule‑checking engine implemented as an expert system that traverses a netlist, applies a set of predefined rules to extracted node information, and flags any violation. It provides a rule creator permitting a user to add/modify rules and a generic traversal routine; it can evaluate rules requiring data from neighboring nodes.
• Relevance: Directly maps to claim elements (a)/(b) and to dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 12, 13 (rule‑based expert system applying "if/then"‑style rules; user‑defined rule sets).
• § 102 mapping: Potentially anticipates the rule‑engine aspects of claims 2/3/9 (and 12/13), given its earlier 2003 filing date (§ 102(e)). It does not disclose the tabular cell display or the automatic corrective rewrite of a prior data item, so it does not anticipate claims 1, 11 or 16 standing alone.

3.3 US 5,889,932 A — Barco Graphics N.V.

• Citation: US 5,889,932 A; filed 1996‑05‑03; issued 1999‑03‑30; "Method of checking graphical data for conformity to graphical design rules."
• Description: Checks graphical/design data against design rules and reports non‑conformities (in the CAD/graphics domain).
• Relevance: Background art supporting the generic concept of automated rule‑conformance checking and violation reporting (claim elements (a)/(b)).
• § 102 mapping: § 102(b) art. Arguably material only to the broadest "detect whether data conforms to rules" concept; not to the tabular UI or auto‑correction limitations. It cannot anticipate any granted independent claim as a whole.

3.4 US 5,999,908 A — Abelow (Daniel H.)

• Citation: US 5,999,908 A; filed (as Ser. No. 08/934,457) 1997‑09‑19; priority 1992‑08‑06; issued 1999‑12‑07; "Customer‑based product design module." (Family: US 7,133,834; US 7,222,078; US 7,620,565 — the "Lodsys" patents.)
• Description: Embeds an interactive two‑way module in products/services so customers can guide product design; includes an authoring system to manage question content, data validation of uploaded customer data (validation of module ID, instrument ID, etc.), triggers, and reporting/analysis.
• Relevance: Touches claim 9 (inputting rule/definition content to form the criteria) and the general "guiding a user's product design via feedback" theme.
• § 102 mapping: § 102(b) art. It does not disclose tabular cell data, rule‑violation emphasis, or automatic corrective rewriting of a prior data item. It is a general‑purpose § 102/§ 103 background reference, not an anticipatory reference for claims 1, 11 or 16.

3.5 US 2004/0177002 A1 — Abelow (Daniel H.)

• Citation: US 2004/0177002 A1; priority 1992‑08‑06; published 2004‑09‑09; "Customer‑based product design module."
• Description: Application‑publication counterpart of the Abelow family (same specification lineage as US 5,999,908).
• Relevance/§ 102 mapping: Same as 3.4. As a US application publication filed before the critical date, it is available under § 102(e) as of its filing/priority date; substantively cumulative to US 5,999,908.

3.6 US 6,937,913 B2 — Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba

• Citation: US 6,937,913 B2; filed 2000‑07‑28; issued 2005‑08‑30; "Product design process and product design apparatus."
• Description: Captures Voice‑of‑Customer (VOC) wants/needs, derives desired quality, defines weighted evaluation indices, and evaluates product concepts (QFD‑type methodology); includes input/output equipment at the product to collect user needs and sending processing to a server.
• Relevance: Bears on claim 7/8 — product design in which requirements (customer needs, cost/quality goals) drive design; and on the general "guided design of a product" preamble.
• § 102 mapping: § 102(b)/(a) art. It does not disclose tabular rule‑validation of data cells or automatic correction. Relevant to claim 7/8 context only; non‑anticipatory for the independent claims.

3.7 US 2005/0021599 A1 — Peters, Charles A.

• Citation: US 2005/0021599 A1; filed 2001‑04‑30; published 2005‑01‑27; "Network based system design of custom products with live agent support."
• Description: Network‑based system for designing/configuring custom products with live agent (sales‑support) assistance — i.e., guided interactive product/solution configuration.
• Relevance: General context for the "guiding a user in designing a product" preamble and for claim 7 (service/provider configuration). (Full text not retrieved in this session; description is from the title/abstract and record metadata.)
• § 102 mapping: § 102(e) art as of 2001‑04‑30. Based on the available metadata it does not appear to disclose tabular rule‑violation highlighting or automatic corrective value substitution; cannot anticipate claims 1, 11, 16.

3.8 US 2005/0131783 A1 — Myoung Jin

• Citation: US 2005/0131783 A1; filed 2002‑03‑12; published 2005‑06‑16; "System, method, and computer program product for network‑based part management system."
• Description: Network‑based part/component management (BOM‑type) system.
• Relevance: Peripheral background on managed component/part data in a configuration context. (Full text not retrieved.)
• § 102 mapping: § 102(e) art as of 2002‑03‑12. Not directed to rule‑based validation UI or auto‑correction; non‑anticipatory.

3.9 US 2006/0123364 A1 — International Business Machines Corp.

• Citation: US 2006/0123364 A1; filed 2004‑12‑07; published 2006‑06‑08; "Method, system and program product for evaluating a circuit."
• Description: Automated evaluation/design‑checking of a circuit (constraint/rule evaluation in the EDA domain).
• Relevance: Same genus as US 7,162,703 (rule/constraint checking of a design). (Full text not retrieved.)
• § 102(e) note: Filed 2004‑12‑07, i.e., before the 2005‑06‑09 priority date, so it qualifies as § 102(e) art notwithstanding its later 2006 publication. Non‑anticipatory for the tabular UI/auto‑correction combination.

3.10 US 2008/0255926 A1 — Takashi Nakano

• Citation: US 2008/0255926 A1; priority 2001‑05‑31; published 2008‑10‑16; "Quality function development support method and storage medium."
• Description: QFD (Quality Function Deployment) support — translating customer requirements into design characteristics.
• Relevance: Background on requirements‑driven, rules/goals‑based design (claim 7/8 theme), similar in spirit to US 6,937,913.
• § 102(e) note: Qualifies as art as of its 2001‑05‑31 priority date despite the 2008 publication. Not anticipatory of claims 1/11/16.

4. Ranking of relevance

Bottom line on anticipation: On the record available, no single cited reference anticipates independent claims 1, 11 or 16, because none discloses the full combination, and in particular none clearly discloses limitation (e) — the processor automatically changing a pre‑existing second data item to one of a plurality of possible values chosen by the processor to correct the rule violation in response to a user control input. The strongest § 102 posture is Dell for the "emphasize the pre‑existing affected item" feature and Altera for the expert‑rule‑engine features; the patentee's likely differentiator is the automatic corrective substitution of a prior cell value. The most defensible challenges would run under § 103 (e.g., Dell's configurator-warning combined with Altera's rule engine and Toshiba/Peters' guided design), rather than § 102.

5. Caveats and limits (stated explicitly)

• I was able to retrieve full text/specifications for US 6,167,383, US 7,162,703 and US 5,999,908; for US 2005/0021599, US 2005/0131783, US 2006/0123364, US 2008/0255926 and US 5,889,932 I relied on titles/abstracts and bibliographic records retrieved in this session. Detailed element‑by‑element § 102 mapping for those would require pulling their full specifications and original claim sets from USPTO PatentCenter/Public PAIR.
• The single‑reference ("anticipation") standard is strict; where I say "potentially anticipates," I mean the reference is substantively material to the identified claims, not that a legal conclusion of invalidity follows. A definitive § 102/§ 103 opinion should confirm (i) each reference's actual disclosure against each claim element, (ii) the effective filing date of each challenged claim (here 2005‑06‑09 via provisional 60/689,029 / parent 11/233,705), and (iii) the pre‑AIA § 102(e) dates noted above.
• The maintenance‑fee lapse (recorded 2018‑02‑12) affects enforceability of the patent but not the prior‑art analysis.

Would you like me to pull the full specifications of the four references I could only partially access (Peters, Jin, IBM, Nakano, Barco) for a complete element‑by‑element claim chart?

I'll ground the obviousness mapping by checking what the face-cited references actually disclose, then build the § 103 analysis. Let me verify the key references.

Now let me verify the remaining face-cited references, especially the IBM circuit-evaluation reference and the Peters network-based design reference.

Obviousness Analysis — US 8,630,917 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)

Prepared: based on the patent text in the record and the references cited on the face of US 8,630,917. Legal framework: Because the effective filing date (2005‑06‑09, provisional 60/689,029) precedes 2013‑03‑16, the pre‑AIA version of §§ 102/103 governs. Obviousness is assessed under Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (a POSITA is a person of ordinary creativity; predictable combinations of known elements using known methods for their known purposes are obvious; explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation is not required).

Caveat up front (please read with the conclusions): I retrieved full/abstract text for Barco US 5,889,932, Altera US 7,162,703, Dell US 6,167,383, Toshiba US 6,937,913, and (via its PCT counterpart WO 2006/062827 A3) the IBM application US 2006/0123364. I was not able to retrieve the full specifications of US 5,999,908 (Abelow), US 2005/0021599 (Peters), US 2005/0131783 (Jin), or US 2008/0255926 (Nakano) in this session. For those four I rely on the patent's own face listings (titles, dates, assignees) plus general knowledge, and I flag every element of my mapping that depends on them. Where I attribute a feature to a reference, I quote the language I actually obtained.

1. What makes claim 1 the crux

Compared with the parent US 7,689,467 (and with the plain prior art), granted claim 1 adds four limitations that a §103 challenge must reach:

Limitations B and D are where the applicant most likely distinguished over the art (the claims are visibly narrower than the parent's). Limitation A is the weakest element and is admitted to be old in the patent's own background ("a general purpose spreadsheet program such as Microsoft Excel™ … a tabular (row and column) format is familiar"). Limitation C actually helps a challenger, because it means the "action" element requires nothing more than displaying.

2. Element-by-element mapping (primary combination)

The strongest face-based combination is Barco US 5,889,932 + Altera US 7,162,703 + Dell US 6,167,383, with IBM US 2006/0123364 available as an alternative for limitation D.

Where the mapping is strong: limitations B and D are squarely taught — Dell '383 for "new selection incompatible with a prior selection" (B), and Barco '932 / IBM '364 for processor‑generated, user‑selectable, optionally automatic corrective values (D). Where it is weak: limitation A (cells in a table) is not in any of these references and would have to be supplied by the patent's own admission of spreadsheet ubiquity (i.e., common knowledge/official notice), by Nakano US 2008/0255926 (a quality‑function‑deployment/"house of quality" matrix tool — inherently tabular, but I could not verify its text) or by Jin US 2005/0131783 (a part‑management system, likely tabular/listing — unverified), or by Peters US 2005/0021599 (unverified).

3. Combination A — Barco '932 + Altera '703 + Dell '383

Claim 1. Barco supplies rule‑based checking of a design with highlighting of violated objects and either user‑selected or automatic correction. Altera supplies the expert‑system architecture (rule checking engine + knowledge base + rule creator) and multi‑node rules in which a violation at one node necessarily implicates "neighboring nodes" — the conceptual antecedent of emphasizing a second, pre‑existing item. Dell supplies the configurator metaphor in which a later selection is checked for compatibility against an earlier selection and both are flagged (Dell '383, claims 12, 16, 21 and Fig. 3: "❌ 2 selections may require changes to other configuration choices"; "This option is not compatible with a Windows NT operating system").

Motivation to combine (KSR‑sufficient):

• Same field, same problem. All three address computer‑aided design/configuration of a product whose data items are interdependent and must satisfy rules; all three are directed to reducing the burden of manual cross‑checking. Barco's stated object is "to relieve the … designer from the burden of knowing and checking for conformity … [and] to facilitate the identification and correction of design rule violations." Dell's stated object is to overcome that "the feature set of the online store offered no means for warning customers as to known compatibility issues between select system options." Altera's is to "efficiently check[] electronic designs" and flag/report failures. A POSITA facing the '$917 problem (validating interrelated design data on the fly) would naturally look to these.
• Complementary teachings, predictable result. Combining an expert‑system rule engine (Altera) with a highlighting/suggested‑fix front end (Barco) and a compatibility‑checked configurator (Dell) yields nothing more than the sum of the parts: detect → flag → correct. KSR ("familiar elements … according to known methods … a predictable result").
• "Better system" / design incentive. Barco expressly contemplates automatic correction "with or without user intervention," so applying the same automation to the configurator's pre‑existing options is an obvious efficiency improvement.
• Analogous art despite different end products. Barco (graphic design), Altera (EDA), and Dell (computer configuration) are all data‑processing/design tools; under In re Bigio / KSR, art from a different field is analogous when it addresses the same problem, which it does here.

4. Combination B — IBM US 2006/0123364 + Dell US 6,167,383 (+ Altera '703)

Why IBM '364 is the best single reference for limitation D. Its WO counterpart abstract states: "A rule violation can be detected in design data … multiple predictions can be generated based on an adjustment window for an adjustable parameter in the design data. The predictions can be displayed to a user, who can determine a desired modification … The modification can be implemented by the user and/or automatically implemented by a circuit design tool." The disclosed block diagram includes a RULE SYSTEM, VIOLATION SYSTEM, ADJUSTMENT SYSTEM, ALGORITHM SYSTEM, PREDICTION SYSTEM, FEEDBACK SYSTEM, MODIFICATION SYSTEM, and STORAGE SYSTEM. This reads directly on "automatically chang[ing] the second data item to one of a plurality of possible values …, the one … selected by the processor to cause the rule violation to be corrected": the "adjustment window" is the plurality of candidate values; the PREDICTION/ALGORITHM system selects; the MODIFICATION system implements.

Motivation: IBM and Dell both address rule‑violation detection in a configurable product and both generate a recommended alternative value that the system can apply; a POSITA improving Dell's configurator would borrow IBM's "adjustment window + automatic implementation" to spare the user manual re‑entry. Motivation is also supplied by the KSR "predictable use of prior‑art elements" principle and by the efficiency rationale both references state (Dell: "the online shopping experience [was] significantly less than that offered via the telephone"; IBM: improved automated correction).

Gap: B has the same limitation‑A weakness (no cells/table in IBM '364 or Dell '383).

5. Combination C — for the telecom‑specific claims (7, 8)

Claims 7–8 require the product to be a telecommunication service, rules defining network characteristics, and examining customer requests. The face‑cited Peters US 2005/0021599 ("Network based system design of custom products with live agent support," prio. 2001‑04‑30) and Jin US 2005/0131783 ("network‑based part management system," prio. 2002‑03‑12) are network‑based design/configuration systems and are the natural references for the network/telecom context; Toshiba US 6,937,913 supplies the capture and use of user "wants and needs … with respect to the product" (e.g., "analyzing VOCs containing wants and needs of users") to drive design, which maps to "customer requests … that define desired characteristics." I could not retrieve the full texts of Peters, Jin, or Nakano, so this mapping is provisional and must be confirmed on those references' full disclosures.

Motivation: the '$917 specification itself frames the problem as generic ("numerous applications … beyond telecommunications network solutions"); applying the validated‑configurator teachings to a telecom service is a mere field‑of‑use change with no unexpected result, and Peters' "network based system design of custom products" already locates the problem in the network domain.

6. Dependent claims

Independent claims 11 (storage medium) and 16 (system) add nothing substantive beyond claim 1 and are obvious for the same reasons (machine‑readable instructions / processor+memory performing identical operations).

7. The pivot point: is "correct the pre‑existing item" obvious?

The examiner allowed the '$917 (and its parent) over these references, so the decisive question under §103 is whether a POSITA would be motivated to have the processor adjust the earlier value rather than the just‑entered one. Strong KSR‑compliant rationales:

1. Dell's active validation already treats a new selection as the trigger and the prior selection as the constrained variable — e.g., where "a particular option requir[es] the selection of a second option," the configurator resolves the conflict by supplying/altering the other selection. Dell's lead‑time‑advisor family (US 7,035,815, a CIP of US 6,167,383, sharing that disclosure) goes further: it identifies a previously selected component and, on a user "update selections" input, updates the configuration to a processor‑identified alternative. [Note: US 7,035,815 is not on the '$917 face but is in the same Dell family; I cite it as corroboration of the combination's availability, flagged as non‑face art.]
2. IBM '364 auto‑implements the modification to the adjustable parameter — i.e., the system, not the user, decides which value changes.
3. Constraint/rule solvers are inherently agnostic about which variable absorbs the correction; treating user‑entered values as fixed and dependent values as adjustable is a well‑known priority convention.
4. Barco's automate‑analogous‑corrections teaching shows the art already moved correction away from the initiating object.

A patent owner's best non‑obviousness argument is that no reference expressly says "highlight the older cell and auto‑adjust it," so the combination requires knowing the invention. That is the standard hindsight objection; under KSR it is answerable if the motivation (user‑requested value is authoritative; dependent values must conform) is articulated as a design principle independent of the claims. It is a genuine argument, not a formality.

8. Anticipation vs. obviousness

No single face reference anticipates claim 1: none discloses (A) a cell‑based table together with (B) dual emphasis of old+new implicated items and (D) processor‑selected auto‑correction of the pre‑existing item. Limitation A in particular is absent from Barco, Altera, Dell, and IBM. Therefore this is a §103 case, and its outcome turns on (i) whether tabular/cell display is treated as common knowledge and (ii) whether the motivation to combine is accepted. Rejection would most likely be framed as Barco + Altera + Dell, further in view of IBM '364 (and, if needed to teach the table/cell UI, Nakano or a spreadsheet reference).

9. Objective evidence / rebuttal considerations

• No secondary considerations were identified in the record I reviewed (no evidence of unexpected results, long‑felt but unmet need, failure of others, or commercial success attributable to the claimed combination, and no licensing/NPE activity — consistent with the prior summary's finding of no litigation/PTAB activity involving this patent). Absent such evidence, the Graham factors favor a challenger.
• Prosecution history cuts both ways: the fact that the examiner allowed the '$917 over exactly these references means the Office did not accept at least one combination then offered. Any §103 challenge should therefore be prepared to explain what the examiner missed (e.g., a motivation-to‑combine rationale drawn from Dell's own compatibility‑warning purpose) rather than merely re-asserting the references.
• Do not overclaim: because I could not verify Peters, Jin, Nakano, or Abelow, I do not assert that any of them anticipates or alone renders claim 1 obvious. Their role here is contextual (telecom/network field; tabular matrices), and must be confirmed.

10. Bottom line

Key uncertainty to resolve before relying on this: obtain and read the full specifications of US 2005/0021599 (Peters), US 2005/0131783 (Jin), US 2008/0255926 (Nakano), and US 5,999,908 (Abelow), and confirm (a) whether any discloses a cell‑based/tabular data‑entry grid with rule‑driven emphasis, and (b) whether Peters or Jin discloses automatic selection among candidate values for a previously entered item. Those two facts materially change the strength of the combinations in §§3–5.