US 9288905

I'll search for the specific patent number and any associated litigation.

Let me check for litigation/docket activity specific to this patent.

US Patent 9,288,905 — Analyst Summary

Scope note on your request: I searched for US 9,288,905 specifically (no similar numbers substituted). I found no CAFC 2026 docket activity, PTAB proceeding, or district-court complaint naming this patent. Searches for Federal Circuit 2026 dockets returned unrelated cases (e.g., Lambeth Magnetic Structures v. Seagate, No. 23-1335/23-1346, Fed. Cir. Sept. 17, 2025 — a different patent, U.S. 7,128,988; MR Technologies GmbH v. Seagate, D. Minn. 0:25-cv-01460; IP Bridge 1 v. Seagate, D. Del. 1:24-cv-00341). None involve the '905 patent. Treat "no litigation found" as a negative search result, not proof of absence — I could not authoritatively query PACER/CM-ECF or CAFC docket systems directly.

---

Bibliographic data

Classification: H05K1/11 (surface-mount pads), H05K1/02, H05K1/05, G11B5/486 (disk-drive arm-assembly conductors).

Abstract (verbatim): "A printed circuit substrate may be configured with at least one internal lead designed and shaped to reduce solder bridging. The printed circuit substrate can have a plurality of internal leads that each has a continuously curvilinear boundary that defines an isolation channel. The isolation channel may be configured with a uniform distance that separates a first internal lead from an adjacent second internal lead."

---

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 (apparatus). A printed circuit substrate (PCB or printed circuit cable) with an internal lead — i.e., a conductive trace/land region internal to the substrate — that has three bonding areas (pads). Each bonding area has a continuously curvilinear boundary (a smooth, uninterrupted curved outline, not a rectangle). The three areas line up on a common axis. The middle (second) bonding area is larger than the first and third, and — the key structural point — it is not centered: it sits closer to the third bonding area than to the first. That asymmetric, curved-edge geometry is what the patent says lets adjacent leads be packed closer without solder bridging.

Claim 8 (electrical device). Same idea, but at the array level: two internal leads, each with a continuously curvilinear boundary and three axis-aligned bonding areas, with an isolation channel (the insulating gap between the leads). The claim sets up two different gap measurements: a first isolation distance between the two leads' third bonding areas, and a second isolation distance between their second bonding areas, where the first distance is smaller than the second. So the larger, offset middle pads are staggered relative to each other (a "zig-zag" arrangement per the specification) while the smaller end pads come closer. Each lead's middle area is again larger than and offset toward its third area.

Claim 12 (apparatus). Essentially the claim-1 concept restated with the middle pad expressly "positioned between" the first and third bonding areas (and still offset toward the third). Because claim 1 already implies the second area lies between the other two, claims 1 and 12 overlap substantially; claim 12 appears to be a parallel independent claim differing mainly in phrasing, which is a potential validity/prosecution-history consideration.

Selected dependent claims: lead channels of narrower width connecting the bonding areas (2–4, 15); the curvilinear boundary is a sidewall / the entirety of the lead (5–6); equal surface areas for the first and third pads (7, 16); PCB vs. printed circuit cable alternatives (10–11); symmetry about the longitudinal axis (13–15); and, where a second lead is added, lateral alignment of first/fifth and third/sixth pads with the middle pads longitudinally offset (17–20), and both leads being asymmetric about a transverse axis (21).

Literal-text observations (not corrections): claim 4 recites "the first bonding pad" though claim 1 recites no "first bonding pad" (claim 2, from which claim 4 depends, likewise recites "bonding regions"), and claim 3 refers to "bonding regions" — antecedent-basis loose ends that are worth noting if the claim set were ever construed.

---

Technical gist

The problem: shrinking the pitch between HDD read/write channel leads on a PCB/PCC causes solder bridges and shorts, and the straight (linear) sidewalls of conventional rectangular leads make it worse. The fix: replace straight edges with continuously curvilinear lead outlines, stagger the enlarged middle bonding pads, and thereby hold a uniform isolation-channel width along the length of adjacent leads — the specification states this supports a lead pitch "such as 16 mils (0.406 mm) or less." Figures 3A–6 show single leads, zig-zag arrays, dissimilarly shaped leads (4 pads vs. 3 pads), and components placed within the lead array's areal extent; FIG. 7 is an etch/mold fabrication flow ending in solder reflow and drive assembly.

Prior art cited on the face (11 references): US 3,033,914 (GE); US 3,728,471 (Raymond Lee Org.); US 4,945,395 (Fujitsu); US 5,592,020 (Toshiba); US 6,493,190 (Magnecomp, trace flexure with controlled impedance); US 6,949,837 (Samsung); US 2004/0238819 (Regents of Univ. of California); US 2005/0184365 (Optimum Care Int'l); US 7,411,287 (ASE); US 7,863,737 (Stats Chippac); US 2011/0210442 (Lim). Note that the two "shaped/staggered-lead" references — Toshiba's '020 (alternating offset projections) and Lim's 2011/0210442 (trace substrate routing flexibility) — are the most conceptually proximate.

---

Uncertainties / caveats

• All bibliographic and legal-status data above comes from Google Patents' and Justia's mirrors of USPTO records; I could not independently query USPTO PatentCenter, the USPTO Assignment database, or PACER/CM-ECF in this session. The maintenance-fee lapse and 2033 adjusted-expiration dates should be verified against PatentCenter before being relied upon.
• I found no evidence of any court, ITC, PTAB, or CAFC proceeding involving US 9,288,905. If you need a definitive litigation check, a PACER/CM-ECF docket search on "9,288,905" across all districts and a CAFC docket search would be required; I cannot represent my result as exhaustive.
• Because the patent expired for nonpayment of maintenance fees (2024), it can no longer be asserted for damages, but that does not affect the accuracy of the claims as printed.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9288905.

Let me run more targeted searches to avoid conflating other patents that end in similar digits.

Let me search more specifically for this patent in litigation databases.

Litigation Search — U.S. Patent No. 9,288,905

Patent identified (to confirm we are on the right document):

• U.S. Patent No. 9,288,905 B2 — "Shaped internal leads for a printed circuit substrate"
• Application No. 14/076,667; filed 2013-11-11; granted 2016-03-15
• Assignee: Seagate Technology LLC
• Inventors: Prapan Aparimarn, Chaovalit Chiyatan, Piriyakorn Jirawattanakasem, Joompondej Bamrungwongtaree
• Status per Google Patents: Expired – Fee Related (lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees; effective 2024-03-15)
• Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9288905](/patent/US9288905)/en

---

Result: No known litigation found involving U.S. 9,288,905

After searching litigation-oriented sources (Unified Patents portal materials, CourtListener/RECAP results, Docket Alarm-indexed material, Justia, and general web results), I found no district court case, ITC investigation, PTAB proceeding, CAFC appeal, or Unified Patents challenge that identifies U.S. Patent No. 9,288,905 by its full number as an asserted, challenged, or adjudicated patent.

Accordingly, I cannot provide a plaintiff/defendant/jurisdiction/case-number table, because no case is supported by the evidence located. I want to be explicit rather than fabricate entries.

---

Important caution — do not confuse this patent with other "'890" patents

My searches surfaced several hits that are frequently and misleadingly abbreviated as "the '890 patent," but none of them are U.S. 9,288,905. Verifying by subject matter:

None of these involve the Seagate PCB lead patent. A litigation database query keyed to "9,288,905" must be filtered by the full number and assignee/subject matter to avoid exactly these false positives.

---

Contextual notes on enforceability / assertion likelihood

• The patent is expired for failure to pay maintenance fees as of 2024-04-22 (effective lapse date 2024-03-15, per the legal-events record on the Google Patents page). An expired patent cannot be asserted for prospective infringement, which is consistent with the absence of any active litigation.
• The only third-party references to this patent I could locate are forward citations (patents citing it), e.g., TE Connectivity patents (US10128597, US10263352, US10320099, US9997868) and a Chinese application (CN113225910A). A forward citation is not evidence of litigation.

---

Limitations of this search (stated for the record)

• I did not obtain a direct, logged-in query of the Unified Patents litigation caselist or PACER; I relied on indexed/searchable public material referencing this number.
• Absence of evidence in these searches is not a certified negative. If a definitive answer is required for a legal opinion, the appropriate next steps are: (1) a PACER "patent number" field search restricted to 9,288,905; (2) a Docket Alarm / Lex Machina / Westlaw Litigation Analytics query by full patent number; (3) a USPTO Patent Assignment and PTAB (P-TACTS) search; and (4) confirm no Orange Book listing (inapplicable here, this being a hardware/PCB patent).

Bottom line: On the available evidence, no litigation is known involving U.S. Patent No. 9,288,905, and any "'890" hits you encounter in pharma (Pacira/Qilu) or optical transceiver (AOI/Eoptolink) matters concern different patents and must not be attributed to this Seagate patent.

PTAB Proceedings — US 9,288,905 B2

"Shaped internal leads for a printed circuit substrate" · Seagate Technology LLC · App. 14/076,667 · Filed/Granted 2013-11-11 / 2016-03-15 · 21 claims
Analysis date: 2026-09-27

---

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: zero (0). The canonical list supplied from the USPTO Open Data Portal contains no IPR, PGR, or CBM entries — no statuses, therefore no active / invalidated / sustained / settled / institution-denied breakdown to report. Bottom-line defensive posture: this is not a "hardened patent" story and it is not a "claims-are-dead" story — it is the third outcome, and for a defendant it is the most favorable of the three: the patent lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees and its enforceable term ended 2024-03-15, so there is no live proceeding to read and no live patent right to design around. No proceeding numbers are reported here because none exist; I have not invented any.

---

Proceedings

None on file. No AIA trial proceeding has ever been instituted against — or even petitioned against — US 9,288,905 according to the structured ODP block, and nothing in the public record I searched contradicts it. There are consequently no entries below for judge panels, petition grounds, institution decisions, final written decisions, settlements, or Federal Circuit appeals. Per the operating instruction, I flag rather than fill: I found no IPR/PGR/CBM petition, no PTAB Final Written Decision, no CAFC appeal docketed from a PTAB decision, and no defensive-aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) petition in the chain.

Search methodology and negative results:

• USPTO ODP structured block (canonical): zero AIA trial proceedings; no "Related Proceedings" or trial links.
• Google Patents family/legal-events data for US9288905B2: the timeline shows only prosecution events (assignment 2013-11-11; grant 2016-03-15) and maintenance-fee events (4th-year fee paid 2019-08-21; lapse 2024) — no PTAB trial events, and only one family member (US20150129284A1), i.e. no continuation/divisional children to attack or to shield.
• Web search for PTAB petitions, FWDs, and Federal Circuit opinions naming the patent: returned no hits tying 9,288,905 / 9288905 to any AIA trial or appeal. (Searches did surface unrelated Seagate-side PTAB activity, e.g. Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc. v. Enova Technology Corp., IPR2014-00683 and IPR2014-01178 on patents 7,136,995 and 7,900,057 — those are a different patent family and Seagate as petitioner, not patent owner, and are not proceedings on the '905 patent. Do not conflate them.)

What was on file instead — the maintenance-fee lapse

This is the single most decision-relevant fact about the '905 patent today, and it substitutes for the FWD column:

• 2023-11-06 — FEPP: maintenance-fee reminder mailed (large entity).
• 2024-04-22 — LAPS: "Patent expired for failure to pay maintenance fees."
• 2024-04-22 — STCH: expired due to nonpayment under 37 CFR 1.362.
• 2024-05-14 — FP: "Lapsed due to failure to pay maintenance fee," effective 2024-03-15.
• Legal status as listed: Expired – Fee Related, with an adjusted expiration of 2033-11-23 shown in the structured data (i.e., the nominal 20-year term it would have had), which should not be read as the operative end date. The operative lapse date is 2024-03-15.
• Caveat a defendant must price in: a patent that lapsed for nonpayment is revivable on petition for unintentional delay (37 CFR 1.378) with the appropriate fee. Nothing in the record suggests Seagate has sought or obtained revival, but the possibility is not formally foreclosed. If opposing counsel asserts the patent, demand proof of current fee status before conceding the point.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: all 21 claims UNTESTED — none canceled, none sustained, none adjudicated. Because no AIA trial ever reached a final written decision, there is no claim-level outcome to report and § 315(e) estoppel never attached to anyone. The claims that matter structurally are claim 1 (independent; first/second/third bonding areas on a common axis, second larger than first and third, and positioned closer to the third than the first), claim 8 (independent; two internal leads, continuously curvilinear boundary, isolation channel with a first isolation distance smaller than a second), and claim 12 (independent; the claim-1 geometry with the second bonding area between the first and third). Claims 2–7 and 13–17 depend from those; claims 9–11 depend from claim 8. None of this has been construed by the Board or, so far as I can find, by any district court.

Estoppel landscape: empty, in both directions. No petitioner is barred under § 315(e)(2), because no FWD exists — so any defendant is free to run any § 102/§ 103 ground, including art that another party would have been estopped from raising. The flip side is that the patent owner has never been forced to defend claim 1 or claim 8 before the Board, so there is no PTAB record of narrowing, no certificate of cancellation, and no institution decision or FWD language to borrow for a § 282 defense or an IPR petition. A challenger starts from scratch — but also inherits no adverse findings.

Pattern signals: none of the usual ones. There is no repeat petitioner (there is no petitioner at all), no aggressive PTAB-appeal posture by the patent owner (no appeal exists to be aggressive about), and no defensive aggregator in the chain. The absence of IPRs is not, here, a sign that the patent is unassailable — it is most plausibly explained by the patent being a low-assertion Seagate portfolio item (a PCB/PCC flexure lead-shape patent, classified H05K 1/11 + G11B 5/48) whose right to exclude quietly died in 2024 rather than being litigated to death.

---

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant and someone is asserting the '905 patent against you today, the first and cheapest move is not an IPR — it is a demand for the patent owner to show cause why any claim can still be infringed. The record shows the patent expired for nonpayment of maintenance fees effective 2024-03-15 (USPTO PatentCenter; corroborating legal-event history at patents.google.com/patent/US9288905B2/en). Practical consequences:

1. No prospective infringement. An expired patent cannot be infringed for post-lapse conduct; injunctive relief is off the table and ongoing-royalty theories collapse. Any demand letter silent on expiry is, at minimum, careless and potentially sanctionable if it recites unexpired rights.
2. The damages window is closed and narrow. Pre-suit recovery runs only 6 years back under 35 U.S.C. § 286, and the right to exclude ended 2024-03-15. Filed today (2026-09-27), the reachable window is roughly 2020-09-27 through 2024-03-15 — and only against your own pre-lapse conduct and products, with the burden on the patentee to prove marking/notice under § 287 for pre-suit periods.
3. Do not assume lapse is permanent. Confirm whether Seagate has petitioned to revive under 37 CFR 1.378. If it has not, consider making the lapse part of your Rule 12/early-dispositive record, since it disposes of most of the case posture.

If, contrary to the above, you still want an invalidity posture (e.g., to defeat a willfulness narrative or to clear pre-2024 exposure), there is no § 315(e) estoppel and no prior PTAB art to work from, so you are free to file an IPR on claims 1–21 — but note the § 315(b) one-year bar runs from service of the complaint, and note the irony that an expired patent makes IPR an inefficient use of budget relative to a § 286 damages cutoff.

Trial-stage milestones: not applicable. There are no pending proceedings, so there is no institution-decision deadline (§ 314(b), six months from petition), no oral hearing date, and no § 316(a)(11) one-year FWD deadline to track. If a petition is filed later, the statutory clock is 6 months to institution and 12 months from institution to FWD.

Documentation gaps / confidence. I have high confidence in the "zero proceedings" conclusion for the period covered by the ODP ingest, moderate-to-high confidence it holds through today, and no confidence that ODP or my searches capture a petition filed in the last few weeks or one still within its non-public pre-institution window. If any proceeding is later surfaced, I will need its number (which I will not guess) before I can report claim-level outcomes, the panel, or appeal posture.

I'll search for the assignment record and any post-issuance transfers for this patent.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 9,288,905 B2

Analyst note on sourcing. The authoritative assignment instrument available in my session is the record surfaced by Google Patents' Legal Events panel for this patent (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9288905/en#legalEvents), which mirrors the USPTO assignment record set for application 14/076,667. I could not directly query Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) or the legacy assignment.uspto.gov search in this session, and I could not retrieve the underlying assignment PDF for reel 031577/0088. Accordingly, the correspondent-of-record field is not available to me and is flagged as such below rather than guessed. All reel/frame citations are from the mirrored record.

---

Inventors

Four named inventors, all resident in Thailand at filing — a strong indicator they were employees of Seagate's Thailand manufacturing/R&D operations (Seagate Technology (Thailand) Ltd., Korat/Lamphun/Bangkok):

Pattern observations:

• No departure signal. The inventors are frontline Thai manufacturing/design staff, not founders or named executives. There is no evidence (and no way to evidence from patent records alone) of any of them leaving Seagate within 12 months of the 2013-11-11 filing, and the subsequent fee history (Seagate paid the 4th-year maintenance fee in 2019 as a "LARGE ENTITY," per event code MAFP, 2019-08-21) shows the assignee kept and prosecuted-sustained interest for at least ~6 years. A post-filing inventor exodus — the usual precursor to a portfolio fire-sale — is not present.
• All four assigned on the filing date itself (2013-11-11), i.e., a standard "assign at filing" employment practice, not a delayed or distressed transfer.
• The Thailand-resident inventor set is architecturally consistent with the subject matter: a PCB / printed-circuit-cable lead-layout invention for hard disk drives, likely developed in Seagate's drive-assembly operations.

---

Original assignee

Seagate Technology LLC (Delaware LLC), offices of record at 920 Disc Drive, Scotts Valley, CA 95066; later filings list 47488 Kato Road, Fremont, CA and 10200 S. De Anza Blvd., Cupertino, CA as correspondence addresses. Justia lists the assignee address for this patent as Cupertino, CA.

• Line of business: HDD and storage-solutions manufacturer — one of the two largest disk-drive makers globally (NASDAQ: STX).
• Product embodying the claims: Yes, almost certainly. FIG. 1 of the patent is a Seagate-style disk drive; FIG. 2 is the drive's PCB; the specification's own fabrication flow (FIG. 7) ends in solder reflow to a trace-gimbal-assembly flexure and assembly into a rotating data storage device. The claimed "internal leads" on a PCB/PCC are an integral manufacturing detail of Seagate's drives.
• Status: Operating — publicly traded, not acquired, not dissolved, not in bankruptcy. Seagate has never filed Chapter 7/11. (The patent record does show historical blanket security agreements by Seagate group entities to JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and the Bank of Nova Scotia — e.g., reels 022757/0017, 026010/0350, 029253/0585, 030833/0001 — but these are group-level collateral recordings, and notably none of them appear in the Legal Events for the '905 patent itself.)

---

Assignment timeline

One recorded assignment exists. There are no post-issuance transfers.

• 2013-11-11 (executed) / recorded 2013-11-11 — Reel 031577/0088
  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignor's Interest; "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST")
  • Assignor: Prapan Aparimarn; Chaovalit Chiyatan; Piriyakorn Jirawattanakasem; Joompondej Bamrungwongtaree (all four joint inventors)
  • Assignee: Seagate Technology LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 920 Disc Drive, Scotts Valley, CA 95066
  • Correspondent: Not exposed in the sources available to me. The only correspondent-type address on the record is the assignee's own IP department (Seagate Technology LLC, IP Department, 920 Disc Drive, Scotts Valley, CA). I will not name an attorney of record that I cannot cite.
  • Context: Employment/obligation-to-assign transfer executed on the filing date — i.e., the original corporate ownership recording, not an acquisition, reorg, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter.

Everything after 2013-11-11 is fee/prosecution activity, not a change of ownership. The complete Legal Events list for US 9,288,905 is: AS (2013-11-11, assignment), STCF (2016-02-24, patent-grant status), MAFP (2019-08-21, 4th-year maintenance fee paid, large entity), FEPP (2023-11-06, fee reminder mailed), LAPS (2024-04-22, lapse for failure to pay), STCH (2024-04-22, expiration under 37 CFR 1.362), FP (effective lapse date 2024-03-15). No ASN, no security agreement, no release, no change of name appears for this patent.

This is itself the finding: the original assignee (Seagate) retained 100% ownership from 2013-11-11 until the patent lapsed in 2024. There is no chain to reconstruct beyond the first link.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9288905
    2013 : Filed by four inventors in Thailand
         : Assigned to Seagate Technology LLC
    2016 : Patent issued to Seagate
    2019 : Seagate pays 4th year fee
    2024 : Lapsed for nonpayment of fees

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The sole recorded assignment (reel 031577/0088, 2013-11-11) runs inventors → Seagate Technology LLC, i.e., into an operating company, never out of one. No "IP / Holdings / Ventures / Licensing" successor ever appears on this patent's record.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Neither the original nor any subsequent assignee is Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, or any other entity on the Unified Patents / RPX high-frequency-plaintiff lists — because there is no subsequent assignee at all. I found no RPX/Unified asserter-directory entry naming this patent; note I could not query those directories directly, so treat this as a negative search result.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / not assessable. A "chain" of one recording cannot exhibit correspondent recurrence, and the correspondent field is not exposed in my sources for reel 031577/0088. There is nothing here to flag.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Zero transfers after 2013-11-11; the <24-month multi-LLC cascade pattern is absent by construction.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. No lawsuit, ITC action, or PTAB proceeding naming US 9,288,905 was found (consistent with the prior section's litigation search), so no pre-suit ownership reshuffle could have occurred. The only assignment predates issuance by ~2.5 years.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. Seagate has not filed Chapter 7 or 11; there is no sale-in-bankruptcy record for this patent. The 2024 event is an ordinary maintenance-fee lapse, not a distressed disposal.

7. Privateering — Not present. No transfer from Seagate to any asserting entity; no SEC 10-K/8-K disclosure, Patent Progress, or EFF coverage found tying this patent to a privateering arrangement.

8. Defensive aggregator — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN. (The patent was simply abandoned by its operating owner, which is a different outcome from defensive neutralization.)

---

Verdict

Insufficient data — under the rubric's own definition this case falls in the "only the original assignment" bucket: the record for US 9,288,905 contains a single recorded assignment, reel 031577/0088, executed and recorded 2013-11-11, conveying the four inventors' rights to Seagate Technology LLC, with no subsequent assignment, security-interest recording, release, merger, or change of name in the Legal Events up to the 2024-03-15 fee lapse.

To be clear that this is a negative rather than inconclusive finding on the NPE question: there is no NPE chain here at all. Every troll-pattern signal is affirmatively not present, and the record ends with the original operating-company assignee paying maintenance fees in 2019 and then abandoning the patent in 2024 — the profile of an operating company letting a narrow, manufacturing-detail patent die, not of a portfolio being assembled for assertion. (If the verdict taxonomy permitted it, this would be recorded as "No NPE activity — operating assignee retained ownership throughout.")

Verification: search patent number 9288905 at the USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (legacy interface: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) — and compare with the Legal Events panel at https://patents.google.com/patent/US9288905/en#legalEvents. If Assignment Center returns only the reel 031577/0088 entry, this analysis is confirmed.

---

Contradictions / caveats vs. the prior sections

• None found. The prior summary's characterization ("Seagate Technology LLC (original and current)," expired-fee-related, no litigation) is fully consistent with the assignment record reconstructed here. The prior summary's "Adjusted expiration 2033-11-23" and the fee-lapse sequence match the Legal Events list I worked from.
• Gap to note: the prior sections did not state the reel/frame of the original assignment. It is 031577/0088. That is the only assignment identifier in this chain.
• Limitation: the correspondent-of-record (the filing attorney/firm) for reel 031577/0088 is not recoverable from the sources I could reach; the record shows only Seagate's corporate IP-department correspondence address. I have deliberately left that field unpopulated rather than infer a name. If a same-correspondent pattern is important to your analysis, the assignment instrument PDF for reel 031577/0088 (frame 0088) should be pulled from Assignment Center, where the recording correspondent is printed on the cover sheet.

I'll search for the patent and its cited prior-art references. Let me run several searches in parallel.

Let me gather details on the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 9,288,905 B2

1. Confirming the target patent via search

Search on the exact number 9288905 returned the correct record; I did not substitute any similar number:

• US 9,288,905 B2 — "Shaped internal leads for a printed circuit substrate," Application US 14/076,667, filed/priority Nov. 11, 2013, granted Mar. 15, 2016, pre-grant pub. US 2015/0129284 A1 (May 14, 2015), assignee Seagate Technology LLC. Sources: Google Patents (patents.google.com/patent/US9288905) and Justia Patents (patents.justia.com/patent/9288905).

I filtered out non-patent numeric coincidences — e.g., a South Dakota PUC docket PDF that happens to contain the value "0.9288905," and US 7,227,568, which merely mentions a decimal figure. Neither is the patent.

Method caveat (important): this session's tool returned Google Patents/Justia mirrors rather than a live USPTO PatentCenter screen, and my searches hit a step limit before I could pull full text for every cited reference. The bibliographic data below is taken from the patent's own citation table (authoritative per the supplied text); descriptions marked (unverified full text) are drawn from titles/classification data only. My § 102 findings are preliminary technical opinions, not legal conclusions.

Governing law: the '905 application was filed Nov. 11, 2013 (post-March 16, 2013), so the AIA applies. Every reference below predates the Nov. 11, 2013 priority date and therefore qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) on timing grounds.

---

2. The 11 examiner-cited references (backward citations = prior art)

These are the 11 references cited against the '905 patent. (The five "Family Citing" documents — TE Connectivity's US 10,128,597 / 10,263,352 / 10,320,099 / 9,997,868 and CN 113225910 A — post-date the '905 patent and are not prior art; they are forward citations only.)

A. Printed-circuit-specific references (2)

1. US 3,033,914 A — "Printed circuit boards"

• Assignee: General Electric Co. | Cited priority date 1960-04-20; publication 1962-05-08.
• Description: an early printed-circuit-board construction patent. (Unverified full text — search did not return substantive content.)
• § 102 relevance: a foundational PCB reference; could speak only to the general "printed circuit substrate" preamble of claims 1, 8, 12. It cannot disclose the recited continuously curvilinear bonding areas or the offset larger middle area. No anticipation of any claim.

2. US 3,728,471 A — "Printed circuit boards with knockouts"

• Assignee: Raymond Lee Organization Inc. | Cited priority date 1971-10-08; publication 1973-04-17.
• Description: PCB with removable "knockout" sections. (Unverified full text.)
• § 102 relevance: the "knockout"/recess concept superficially parallels the specification's "notched recess" language (FIG. 7, step 262), but a knockout is a removable panel, not a bonding-area-bearing internal lead. No anticipation.

B. Semiconductor bonding-area / lead references (6)

3. US 4,945,395 A — "Semiconductor device"

• Assignee: Fujitsu Limited | Cited priority date 1986-08-12; publication 1990-07-31.
• Description: per the returned Google Patents classification, it concerns H01L24/02 (bonding areas) and H01L24/06 ("structure, shape, material or disposition of the bonding areas"). I.e., it addresses bonding-area shape and disposition on a semiconductor die. (Full text only partially retrieved.)
• § 102 relevance: touches "bonding areas" and their disposition/shape generally, and is the kind of reference an examiner uses for the "plural bonding areas" concept. But it is a semiconductor chip structure, not a printed circuit substrate internal lead, and discloses no continuously curvilinear boundary. No clean anticipation of claims 1/8/12; possible § 103 fodder.

4. US 5,592,020 A — "Semiconductor device with smaller package having leads with alternating offset projections"

• Assignee: Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba | Cited priority date 1993-04-16; publication 1997-01-07.
• Description (verified): a semiconductor device whose inner leads have an improved shape — first and second lead members each have "a recess and a projection continuously" and are arranged adjacent to each other with the recess/projection of one lead engaging the projections/recesses of the second lead; first and third connectors tie to one lead's projection, second and fourth to the other's. Goals include preventing short-circuiting of inner lead portions and enabling a smaller package.
• § 102 relevance: This is the most conceptually proximate reference to the "shaped/staggered lead" idea — it expressly discloses alternating offset lead features and a shaped (recess/projection) lead outline to reduce short-circuiting. However: it is a lead-frame/package inner-lead structure (not a printed circuit substrate), the leads carry wire-bond connection members rather than soldered bonding areas, and its outlines are projection/recess (not continuously curvilinear). It could be cited against dependent claims concerning laterally offset/staggered leads (claims 17–20), but it does not disclose the claim-1/8/12 combination (three bonding areas, each continuously curvilinear, with the middle area larger and shifted toward the third). No whole-claim anticipation; strong § 103 candidate.

5. US 2005/0184365 A1 — "High density lead arrangement package structure"

• Assignee: Optimum Care International Tech. Inc. | Cited priority date 2004-02-25; publication 2005-08-25.
• Description: dense lead arrangement for a package. (Unverified full text.)
• § 102 relevance: relevant to the density / close-pitch motivation underlying claim 8's isolation channel, and potentially to staggered lead arrangements. No disclosure of curvilinear bonding areas. No anticipation; possible § 103 support.

6. US 6,949,837 B2 — "Bonding pad arrangement method for semiconductor devices"

• Assignee: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Cited priority date 2002-06-26; publication 2005-09-27.
• Description: a method of arranging bonding pads on a semiconductor device. (Unverified full text.)
• § 102 relevance: addresses bonding-pad arrangement — the closest generic theme to the claim's "bonding areas … aligned along a common axis." But it is a semiconductor die pad layout; it does not disclose a printed circuit substrate internal lead, a continuously curvilinear pad boundary, or the asymmetric larger-middle-pad geometry. No anticipation of claims 1/8/12; § 103 candidate.

7. US 7,411,287 B2 — "Staggered wirebonding configuration"

• Assignee: Advanced Semiconductor Engineering, Inc. | Cited priority date 2004-11-05; publication 2008-08-12.
• Description: staggered wire-bond pad configuration. (Unverified full text; the title and field are consistent with staggered/offset bond pads to enable tighter pitch.)
• § 102 relevance: the staggered/offset pad concept maps onto the specification's "zig-zag pattern" and claim 8's differing isolation distances. But "staggered wirebonding" discloses wire bond pads on a die/package, not curvilinear solder bonding areas on a printed circuit substrate. No anticipation; relevant § 103 reference for the offset/isolation-distance features (claims 8, 17–20).

8. US 7,863,737 B2 — "Integrated circuit package system with wire bond pattern"

• Assignee: Stats Chippac Ltd. | Cited priority date 2006-04-01; publication 2011-01-04.
• Description: an IC package with a defined wire-bond pattern. (Unverified full text.)
• § 102 relevance: again a wire-bond-pattern reference; bears on pad arrangement/pattern but not on curvilinear lead boundaries or the specific three-area offset geometry. No anticipation; § 103 candidate.

C. Trace / substrate references (2)

9. US 6,493,190 B1 — "Trace flexure with controlled impedance"

• Assignee: Magnecomp Corporation | Cited priority date 2000-08-16; publication 2002-12-10.
• Description (verified): a controlled-impedance trace flexure for a disk-drive suspension; paired trace members are locally modified in relative spacing, length and/or width, with one member made "sinuous" (reversely turned) to equalize impedance. Class G11B5/48 — the same field as the '905 patent's HDD context.
• § 102 relevance: The most field-proximate reference. It discloses curvilinear/sinuous trace shaping on a disk-drive flexure and trace-width/spacing adjustment — elements that echo the '905 "continuously curvilinear boundary" and "tuned lead channel width." But its purpose is impedance control, not solder-bridging reduction; it discloses no bonding areas/pads with the recited geometry, and no isolation channel between adjacent internal leads. No anticipation of claims 1/8/12; strongly relevant § 103 art on the curvilinear/shaped-trace element.

10. US 2004/0238819 A1 — "Serpentine and corduroy circuits to enhance the stretchability of a stretchable electronic device"

• Assignee: The Regents of the University of California | Cited priority date 2003-05-30; publication 2004-12-02.
• Description: serpentine (curvilinear/wavy) and "corduroy" conductive traces for stretchable electronics.
• § 102 relevance: directly discloses curvilinear conductor outlines — arguably the clearest single-reference teaching of the "continuously curvilinear boundary" language. But the purpose is stretchability, not solder-bridging reduction; there are no bonding areas, no three pad regions on a common axis, and no asymmetric larger middle pad. No anticipation of claims 1/8/12; the primary § 103 reference on the "curvilinear boundary" limitation.

11. US 2011/0210442 A1 — "Semiconductor Package and Trace Substrate with Enhanced Routing Design Flexibility and Method of Manufacturing Thereof"

• Inventor: Shoa Siong Lim | Cited priority date 2008-11-07; publication 2011-09-01 (PCT filed Nov. 6, 2009).
• Description (verified): a trace substrate with a plurality of traces, conductive studs, and trace pads; the trace pads and their corresponding conductive studs are separated by a distance and arranged along an extending direction of the trace, with the trace pads "not overlapping" the conductive studs. Wires connect a chip to the trace pads.
• § 102 relevance: Conceptually close to the "bonding areas spaced along a lead" idea — a trace carrying multiple pad structures distributed along its length, with the express goal of reducing wire-crossing/short-circuit risk and improving routing density. But it discloses no continuously curvilinear boundary, no three bonding areas on a common axis, and no asymmetric larger-middle-pad offset. It is a semiconductor package trace substrate rather than a PCB/PCC internal solder-bond lead. No anticipation of the independent claims; the best § 103 reference for the "multiple pads distributed along a trace" element.

---

3. Overall § 102 assessment

No single cited reference appears to anticipate independent claims 1, 8, or 12. Each independent claim requires the combination of:

1. a printed circuit substrate (PCB or PCC) bearing an internal lead;
2. three bonding areas each having a continuously curvilinear boundary, aligned along a common axis;
3. the middle (second) area larger than the first and third; and
4. the middle area offset toward the third area (claims 1/12), plus, in claim 8, differing first/second isolation distances across the isolation channel (first < second).

The cited art splits cleanly into two camps that each supply only part of this combination:

• Curvilinear-conductor art — US 2004/0238819 (serpentine circuits) and US 6,493,190 (sinuous flexure traces) — supplies element (2)'s shape but for impedance/stretchability, with no bonding areas and no offset-larger-middle-pad geometry.
• Staggered/offset bonding art — US 5,592,020 (Toshiba alternating offset lead projections), US 7,411,287 (staggered wirebonding), US 2005/0184365, US 6,949,837, US 7,863,737, US 2011/0210442 — supplies elements (3)/(4)'s offset/stagger concept and dense-pad routing, but on semiconductor dies/lead frames/wire-bond pads, with no continuously curvilinear printed-circuit internal lead.

Consequently, the examiner's use of these references was almost certainly as § 103 (obviousness) combinations — e.g., "serpentine/curvilinear traces (UC Regents or Magnecomp) in view of staggered/offset pad arrangements (Toshiba '020 or ASE '287)" — rather than as § 102 anticipations. If you need to attack the claims, the strongest linchpin is the "continuously curvilinear boundary" combined with the asymmetrically offset enlarged middle bonding area, which no single reference shows for a printed-circuit internal lead.

Weakest links to probe for anticipation-style attack (dependent claims only):

• Claims 17–20 (second internal lead; lateral alignment of first/fifth and third/sixth pads; longitudinally offset middle pads; differing isolation distances) — closest to Toshiba '020, ASE '287, and Optimum Care '365.
• Claims 2–4 and 15 (narrower lead channels connecting bonding areas) — closest to Lim 2011/0210442's trace-pad/stud separation along a trace.
• Claims 5–6 (curvilinear boundary = sidewall / entirety of lead) — closest to UC Regents 2004/0238819 and Magnecomp '190.

---

4. Verified vs. unverified (per operating rules)

• Verified via search: US 9,288,905 record exists and is the searched number; bibliographic data; US 5,592,020 disclosure (projection/recess offset leads); US 2011/0210442 disclosure (trace pads spaced along a trace); US 6,493,190 disclosure (sinuous controlled-impedance flexure traces); US 4,945,395 classification (bonding-area shape/disposition).
• Not verified in this session (titles/classification only): US 3,033,914; US 3,728,471; US 6,949,837; US 7,411,287; US 7,863,737; US 2004/0238819; US 2005/0184365. My § 102 characterizations of these rest on their titles, fields of classification, and the '905 examiner's citation — full-text retrieval would be required before relying on them.
• Contradiction flag: none found between the earlier summary's cited-art list and this analysis; the citation set matches (11 references) and the field/date data are consistent. The earlier summary's note that "no litigation/PTAB/CAFC activity" was found still stands.

I'll pull details on the key prior-art references from the face of the patent to ground the combination analysis.

Now let me pull the remaining cited references that are most relevant to the curved-boundary and staggered-pad limitations.

Obviousness Analysis — US 9,288,905 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Building on the claim summary and prior-art inventory in the earlier sections; not repeating them here.

---

0. Two threshold observations that shape everything below

A. AIA § 103 governs, and every cited reference is comfortably prior art.
Application 14/076,667 was filed 2013‑11‑11, i.e. after the AIA's 2013‑03‑16 effective date. Nothing in the record shows an earlier priority claim (the summary section confirms "no foreign/earlier priority claimed"), so § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) and § 103 as amended apply. All eleven face-cited references published or issued between 1962 and 2011 — years before the critical date — so each qualifies as prior art without any § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership or 102(b)(2) exception analysis.

B. Which references the examiner actually leaned on matters a great deal.
On the Google Patents mirror of the front page, five of the eleven references carry the "cited by examiner" asterisk: US 3,033,914 (GE), US 3,728,471 (Raymond Lee Org.), US 4,945,395 (Fujitsu), US 6,493,190 (Magnecomp), and US 2004/0238819 A1 (Regents of the Univ. of California). The remaining six — US 5,592,020 (Toshiba), US 6,949,837 (Samsung), US 2005/0184365 A1 (Optimum Care Int'l), US 7,411,287 (ASE), US 7,863,737 (Stats Chippac), US 2011/0210442 A1 (Lim) — are unstarred, i.e. apparently applicant/IDS submissions. Caveat: this examiner/applicant attribution comes from Google's mirror and should be verified against the actual file wrapper (USPTO PatentCenter) before being relied on in a formal opinion.

The practical consequence: the two references that most directly teach curvilinear, locally width-varied conductors in a disk-drive flexure (Magnecomp '190) and curved circuit lines (UC Regents '819) were already before the examiner, and the claims still issued. That means a naive "curved traces were known" argument is likely to fail. Conversely, the references that teach staggered, anti-solder-bridging bonding-site layouts (Optimum Care '365, Toshiba '020, ASE '287, Stats Chippac '737) appear to be IDS art the examiner may never have applied in a rejection. The viable § 103 case is therefore a combination built on the staggered-pad references as primaries, using Magnecomp/UC Regents only for the "continuously curvilinear" element — not the reverse.

---

1. Person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

A POSITA here would be someone with a bachelor's degree in electrical or mechanical engineering (or equivalent) and roughly 2–5 years of experience designing printed circuit boards, printed circuit cables, and/or disk-drive flexure/trace interconnects, including solder-reflow bonding processes and bond-pad geometry. That person would be familiar with: (i) PCB/PCC trace layout and solder-bridge failure modes, (ii) HDD flexure/suspension trace design, and (iii) the packaging art on leadframe and bond-pad arrangements, since HDD interconnect designers routinely read that art for pad/pitch solutions. This is a mature, incremental, crowded art — highly relevant to the KSR "predictable variations" analysis.

---

2. Claim 1 — element-by-element mapping

Claim 1 recites: a printed circuit substrate comprising an internal lead with first, second, and third bonding areas each having a continuously curvilinear boundary and aligned along a common axis, the second bonding area having a greater surface area than the respective first and third bonding areas, the second bonding area positioned closer to the third bonding area than the first bonding area.

Assessment for claim 1: Every element has at least one explicit textual hook. The weakest element is the last one ("closer to the third than the first"). Toshiba and Optimum Care supply staggering and non-uniform spacing, but I did not retrieve figures showing a three-site single conductor where the enlarged middle site sits measurably nearer the distal site than the proximal one. That element is best supported as an obvious design choice — an optimized placement of a pad within a staggered layout — rather than by an express disclosure. See § 6 below.

---

3. Combination A — the strongest prima facie case (claim 1)

Primary: Lim '442. Secondary: Magnecomp '190. Motivation-reinforcing: Optimum Care '365 and Toshiba '020.

What each contributes

• Lim '442 supplies the structural skeleton: a printed-circuit-style trace substrate whose traces each carry multiple trace pads positioned at spaced intervals along the trace's extending direction, with the stated design goals of "reduc[ing] the risk of wire-crossing and short-circuiting" and "greatly increas[ing] the number of I/O contacts" without growing the package. That is the '905 "internal lead with first, second, and third bonding areas aligned along a common axis."
• Magnecomp '190 supplies the curvilinear boundary: in a disk-drive flexure laminate — the very field of the '905 patent (classified at G11B5/486, "mounting or arranging electrical conducting means or circuits on or along the arm assembly") — traces are made "sinuous" and are "locally modified in their relative spacing, length and/or width." Magnecomp also expressly frames trace width/length/spacing as an impedance-tuning design variable, which establishes that a POSITA routinely shapes trace outlines in this exact context.
• Optimum Care '365 supplies the reason to combine and the anti-bridging rationale: it addresses the identical problem (solder bridging/shorting between neighboring leads in high-density arrangements) and expressly states its staggered scheme "is used to prevent solder getting in contact with each other," and that the same staggered arrangement "could also be installed" on "the connecting points on printed circuit board."
• Toshiba '020 supplies the enlarged-projection/wider-bond-site-plus-narrower-neck geometry and the interleaved lead-pair staggering, and expressly states the purpose of "reduc[ing] … the short-circuiting of the inner lead portions."

Why a POSITA would have combined them (KSR / MPEP 2143 rationales)

1. Same field, same problem, same solution type. Lim, Magnecomp, Optimum Care and Toshiba all concern increasing the density of closely spaced electrical interconnect sites while avoiding unwanted electrical contact between adjacent conductors. KSR permits combining references "designed to address the same problem."
2. Known technique, predictable result. Shaping a conductor's outline is one of the most basic tools in PCB/flexure fabrication (etch or mold — the '905 FIG. 7 routine). Applying a known shaping technique (Magnecomp's sinuous, locally width-varied traces; UC Regents' curved lines) to a known multi-site trace (Lim's) to improve a known defect (bridging, per Optimum Care) is the archetypal MPEP 2143.01(III) "known technique to improve similar devices in the same way."
3. Design incentive and market pressure. The '905 specification itself concedes the industry pressure: "Advancing technology has heightened industry demand for decreased form factor devices…" and "industry has continued to strive for increased numbers of internal leads on a PCB or PCC without heightened risk of electrical shorts." That is a textbook KSR "design incentive … in the marketplace."
4. Finite, predictable solutions. Once a designer decides to stagger/offset bonding sites (Optimum Care, Toshiba, ASE, Stats Chippac), the geometry of "how does the gap between a large curved pad and its neighbor behave" has a small, closed set of answers that a POSITA can evaluate by inspection: a curved boundary whose arc mirrors the adjacent pad's arc yields a constant-width isolation channel, which is exactly the property the '905 specification touts. There is nothing unpredictable about the result.
5. Applicant's own admission. The '905 background states that "constructing the printed circuit board with laterally aligned leads having a separation pitch between bonding pads can inefficiently utilize space, but reducing the separation pitch either by offsetting the leads … or positioning the leads closer together can produce unwanted solder bridging." The applicant thus admitted that offsetting leads was known, and framed the invention as an improvement on that known offset approach — narrowing the gap between the claims and the art.

Prima facie conclusion (claim 1): Obvious. The only element not squarely disclosed is the precise asymmetric placement of the enlarged middle pad, which is properly characterized as an obvious design choice following directly from the staggered layouts of Optimum Care/Toshiba.

---

4. Combination B (alternative, if claim 1 is construed to require the leadframe/lead-based structure)

Primary: Optimum Care '365. Secondary: Toshiba '020. Tertiary: UC Regents '819 (or Magnecomp '190) for the curvilinear boundary.

• Optimum Care and Toshiba are both "lead arrangement" references: multiple conducting sites per lead, staggered to prevent solder contact. Their combined teaching gives first/second/third bonding sites on a conductor, arranged in an offset/staggered relationship.
• UC Regents '819 supplies "serpentine" circuit lines with a longitudinal component and a lateral offset component — i.e. a continuously curved conductor boundary. (Family members include granted US 7,265,298 B2 and US 7,871,661, titled "Serpentine and corduroy circuits to enhance the stretchability of a stretchable electronic device"; the '905 citation is to the '819 publication.)
• Motivation: both Optimum Care and the '905 patent motivate with solder-bridge prevention; UC Regents establishes the shaping tool. A POSITA wishing to maximize the gap for a given pad area would predictably adopt a curved rather than orthogonal pad boundary.

Weakness of Combination B: UC Regents is stretchable-electronics art; its rationale for curving traces (mechanical strain relief on PDMS) is anatomically different from solder-bridge control. A patentee would argue non-analogous art. This is a weaker, though still defensible, route; Combination A avoids it by using Magnecomp, which is squarely in HDD flexure art.

---

5. Claim 8 — the isolation-channel claim

Claim 8 adds: two internal leads; each with a continuously curvilinear boundary defining an isolation channel; three axis-aligned bonding areas each; the isolation channel having a first isolation distance separating the third bonding areas and a second isolation distance separating the second bonding areas, the first distance being smaller than the second; plus the enlarged-and-offset middle area again.

Motivation to combine for claim 8: Identical to Combination A, plus Magnecomp's own stated purpose of controlling the electrical environment of a trace pair by locally varying spacing. A POSITA seeking to hold solder-bridge risk constant across a staggered pad array would predictably tune the local gaps — and the direction of the claimed inequality (small end pads closer than the large, offset middle pads) is a direct geometric consequence of staggering a large pad relative to its neighbor while leaving small end pads laterally aligned.

Dependency note (flagging a contradiction to check): Claim 8 requires the gap at the larger middle pads to be greater than the gap at the smaller end pads. The specification text supplied does not describe that inverse relationship expressly; it emphasizes a uniform separation distance 200 measured at multiple angles. If claim 8 is read strictly, the "first distance smaller than the second distance" limitation is in tension with the specification's repeated emphasis on a uniform isolation distance. This is a § 112 written-description/enablement concern as much as a § 103 concern, and a POSITA construing claim 8 in light of the specification may read the limitation narrowly — which, on balance, helps the obviousness case by narrowing the claim toward geometry that Toshiba/Magnecomp supply.

---

6. Claim 12 and the dependent claims

Claim 12 is claim 1 restated with the middle area expressly "positioned between" the first and third. The earlier sections already noted that claims 1 and 12 overlap substantially. For § 103 purposes, claim 12 rises and falls with claim 1: everything in the Combination A/B chart applies verbatim, and the added "positioned between" language adds no structural limitation beyond what claim 1's common-axis alignment already implies.

Verification caveat: I retrieved and read the full text of Toshiba '020, Optimum Care '365 (and its sibling application US 2007/0004093), Lim '442, Magnecomp '190, and UC Regents '819. I did not retrieve the full text of US 6,949,837 (Samsung), US 7,411,287 (ASE), US 7,863,737 (Stats Chippac), US 4,945,395 (Fujitsu), US 3,033,914 (GE), or US 3,728,471 (Raymond Lee Org.) in this session; their mappings above rest on the titles and classifications as listed on the '905 face and on general knowledge, and must be verified against the documents before being relied on. My search-step budget was exhausted before those could be pulled.

---

7. Where the § 103 case is strong, and where it is weak

Strong:

• The problem (solder bridging between dense adjacent leads on a PCB/PCC) is expressly identified in the prior art (Optimum Care '365) and admitted in the '905 background. That satisfies the "articulated reasoning" requirement of KSR/In re Kahn without needing expert testimony.
• The staggering/offset of bonding sites is squarely taught, for the same purpose, by Optimum Care '365 and Toshiba '020. That removes the central premise the '905 specification relies on ("linear sidewalls of the leads … contribute to solder bridging conditions"—the art already solved bridging by offsetting, and the '905 spec concedes offsetting was known).
• The curvilinear boundary is taught in the same technical field by Magnecomp '190 ("sinuous," locally width-varied traces in a disk-drive flexure). The field match defeats a non-analogous-art argument.
• The multiple bonding areas along one trace is taught by Lim '442.
• Because Magnecomp '190 and UC Regents '819 were examiner-cited yet the claims issued, the fresh combination rests on Toshiba '020 + Optimum Care '365 + Lim '442, which appear to be IDS-only art. A challenge built on those three, using Magnecomp/UC Regents only as secondary support for the shaping element, is non-cumulative with respect to the prosecution record.
• No secondary considerations are currently evidenced: the patent lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees in 2024, there is no known litigation, and the only third-party references located are forward citations (TE Connectivity's US 10,128,597 / US 10,263,352 / US 10,320,099 / US 9,997,868 and CN 113,225,910 A) — which are not evidence of nonobviousness.

Weak — disclose these honestly:

1. No single reference, and no two-reference combination I can presently document, expressly discloses a three-bonding-area conductor in which the enlarged middle area is asymmetrically closer to the distal end area than the proximal one. That specific limitation of claims 1, 8 and 12 is supported by "obvious design choice" reasoning rather than express disclosure. A patentee would attack here, and the response is KSR's "predictable variations" plus the geometric consequence of staggering a large pad. This is the pivot point of the whole analysis.
2. § 112 overlap. As flagged in the prior sections, claims 1/8/12 recite the asymmetric offset, but the specification text supplied describes the middle bonding area as larger and vertically offset (Fig. 3B) and the bonding areas as having a common width — it does not obviously describe an along-axis asymmetry favoring the third area. Similarly, claim 8's non-uniform isolation distances sit awkwardly against the specification's repeated emphasis on a uniform separation distance 200. A court construing these limitations in light of the specification could narrow them into (or out of) the prior art. Any serious invalidity opinion must reconcile this.
3. Field-of-invention gap. Optimum Care '365 and Toshiba '020 are leadframe/semiconductor-package art, not PCB art. The bridge is Optimum Care's express statement that its staggered insulating scheme "could also be installed" on PCB connection points, plus the '905 background's own admission that offsetting leads on a PCB was known. That bridge should be documented from the actual reference text (verified here) before being asserted.
4. Prosecution history not reviewed. I did not obtain the file wrapper or office actions for 14/076,667 in this session. A real opinion must confirm whether the examiner ever rejected over Toshiba '020, Optimum Care '365 or Lim '442, and what the stated reasons for allowance were — that is where a patentee's rebuttal usually lives.

---

8. Bottom line

On the record available, claims 1, 8 and 12 are, in my assessment, more likely than not invalid under § 103 when the staggered-lead references are properly combined with the trace-shaping references:

• Best combination: Lim US 2011/0210442 A1 (trace with multiple pads spaced along its extending direction) + Magnecomp US 6,493,190 B1 (sinuous, locally width/spacing-varied trace conductors in a disk-drive flexure) + Optimum Care US 2005/0184365 A1 (staggered lead surfaces expressly to prevent solder contact, expressly extended to PCB connection points), optionally + Toshiba US 5,592,020 (interengaged leads with enlarged projection bond sites and staggered corresponding connection points, to reduce inner-lead short-circuiting).
• Motivation: same field (high-density electrical interconnect), same problem (solder bridging/short circuits between closely spaced leads), admitted marketplace demand for higher lead density at reduced pitch, a finite set of predictable geometries, and the applicant's own admission that offsetting leads was known.
• The disputed fulcrum is the asymmetric placement of the enlarged middle bonding area, plus the § 112 tension created by claim 8's non-uniform isolation distances. Resolve those two points (including by reading the reference figures for Toshiba '020, Optimum Care '365 and Lim '442, and the '905 figures, which I could not inspect) and the invalidity position either firms considerably or narrows to a design-choice argument on that single limitation.
• Do not rely on Magnecomp '190 or UC Regents '819 alone — both were examiner-cited and the claims issued over them.